The French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a €150 million fine on Apple for abusing its dominant position between 2021 and 2023 as a distributor of mobile applications on iOS and iPadOS devices through the implementation of “artificially complex” requirements relating to privacy protection.[1]
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Ariel Ezrachi, Professor of Competition
In January 2025, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) launched a public consultation on the introduction of a merger control framework for transactions that fall below the current turnover-based notification thresholds.[1] Whereas three options were presented in the consultation, on April 10, 2025 the FCA announced that the first option, namely the introduction of a call-in power based on quantitative and qualitative criteria, had received the most positive feedback and was being prioritized.[2]
On April 17, 2025, further to an appeal lodged by a competitor (Valocîme), the Conseil d’Etat upheld the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) decision[1] approving Phoenix Tower International (“PTI”) as purchaser of the passive mobile infrastructure assets which Cellnex had committed to divest as part of the FCA’s review of its acquisition of Hivory.[2] The Conseil d’Etat approved the FCA’s analysis of the independence of the proposed purchaser as well as the absence of new adverse competitive effects due to the purchaser’s acquisition of the divested assets.
In two rulings of April 8, 2025, the French Cour de cassation confirmed that dawn raids may lawfully be conducted at employees’ private residences without requiring additional safeguards beyond those set out in the French Commercial Code.[1]
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 March 18, 2025, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) confirmed the designation of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as a company of “paramount significance for competition across markets” (“PCMS”) under Section 19a(1) of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (“ARC”) which enables the German Federal Cartel Office’s (“FCO”) to prohibit specific conduct of Apple in the future.[1] This marks the FCJ’s second ruling in which the highest court affirmed the designation decision of the FCO under Section 19a(1) ARC.[2]
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Marcus Bokkerink, Chair of the
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.
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy speaks with Cristina Caffarra, one of the leading