On March 18, 2025, a legislative proposal was opened for consultation that, if enacted, would enable the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) to “call in” transactions that currently do not meet notification thresholds for merger review.[1] The Proposal follows calls by the ACM for expanded authority and coincides with its first investigation into whether a below-threshold transaction violated antitrust law.
On January 28, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice issued a much-awaited preliminary ruling that clarifies when national laws that prohibit the transfer of antitrust compensation claims to bring a collective action breach EU law.[1] The Court of Justice held that, to respect the principle of effectiveness, national procedural rules cannot limit recourse to such group actions where it is the only procedural way for individuals to bring a claim for compensation. While it is clear that the Court of Justice did not consider Member States are under an obligation to always allow for group action lawsuits, the implications for private enforcement are yet unclear. This will likely be the subject of additional litigation and preliminary rulings.
On February 26, 2025 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (“DCA”) dismissed a broad application of Germany’s transaction value threshold.[1] The threshold introduced in 2017 is a “safety net” for exceptional cases, not an additional standard aimed to lower the threshold for merger review. Companies in mature markets with established revenue streams face reduced risk of mandatory filings, even for high-value acquisitions.
Since the obligations under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) started to apply to the first wave of gatekeepers in March 2024, there have been a number of important developments on the implementation and enforcement of the DMA by the Commission.[1] In particular, the Commission has: (i) adopted a second wave of designation decisions concerning Apple and Booking Holdings Inc. (“BHI”), while exempting other services of Apple, ByteDance, X Holdings Corp., and Microsoft; (ii) defended appeals before the European courts concerning a number of its designation and non-designation decisions; (iii) launched whistleblower tools for the DMA and the Digital Services Act (“DSA”); and (iv) opened non-compliance investigations against Meta, Alphabet, and Apple as well as specification proceedings into Apple’s compliance with DMA interoperability obligations.
Several European competition authorities – including in France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden – can conduct general or sectoral market investigations. By closely reviewing sectors that are not perceived to be functioning well, authorities seek to understand market conditions and evaluate whether anticompetitive practices may be contributing to the perceived issues. Some authorities, such as the Austrian, Belgian, and Dutch, authorities, can merely make recommendations at the end of the investigation. Others, including in Denmark, Germany, and Italy, have the power to subsequently impose conditions to resolve the identified market failures despite the absence of competition infringements.
The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2025. Explore all topics or download the PDF.
Antitrust in 2024 was marked by evolving policy developments, vigorous enforcement, and eye-catching court decisions. In the U.S., an aggressive enforcement approach lead to unpredictability and lengthy merger review process across sectors. In the EU, enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) intensified scrutiny on digital platforms, while a landmark ruling in the Illumina/GRAIL matter clarified the scope of the EU Commission’s merger jurisdiction. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cleared the Vodafone/Three merger with behavioral remedies, signaling a significant departure from its historic practice to require structural remedies. 2025 will see new antitrust leadership on both sides of the Atlantic with an expectation that the U.S. will largely return to a more traditional approach on antitrust under the Trump Administration and that Europe will continue to enforce digital rules and bring cases related to AI with a focus on promoting growth in clean tech and AI sectors.
On November 13, 2024, the General Court ruled in Case T-141/23 that the Commission failed to meet its obligations under Regulation 2015/1589 (“State aid Procedural Regulation” or “Regulation”),[1] which governs the application of Article 108 TFEU on State aid review in the EU.[2] The General Court held that the Commission’s inaction regarding alleged illegal aid granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the Netherlands”) to Dutch beam trawlers with pulsed electric currents – prior to the formal ban on electric fishing in the EU in July 2021– constituted a failure to act.
On October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its preliminary ruling in a case involving Federation Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) and a former professional football player.[1] The Court of Justice found that certain provisions within FIFA’s transfer rules, specifically those related to the termination of player contracts, had the same effect as no-poach agreements and, therefore, constituted “by-object” infringements of EU competition law.
On October 2, 2024, the European Commission appointed Emanuele Tarantino as new Chief Competition Economist at DG COMP. Tarantino is expected to take office in a few weeks, coinciding with Teresa Ribera’s arrival as the new Commissioner for Competition.
On October 1, 2024, amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union entered into effect, ushering in a significant reform to the European judiciary.[1] As a result of the reform, the jurisdiction to issue preliminary rulings has been partially transferred from the Court of Justice to the General Court for cases falling exclusively within six well-established legal areas, including VAT, excise duties, and tariffs. Conversely, the Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to issue preliminary rulings in competition law and other areas which routinely raise complex questions of principle and consistency. The reform is designed to reduce the caseload of the Court of Justice, thereby allowing it to “focus to a greater extent on its role as the supreme and constitutional court of the European Union.”[2]