European Union

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.

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.  

In 2024, the FSR’s first year in operation saw a large number of filings but limited enforcement, with only a handful of Phase 2 reviews, one conditional merger clearance and two ex officio cases. With the FSR now up and running, in 2025, we expect the EC’s focus to be on demonstrating the FSR’s value and delivering practical results by stepping up enforcement, building a corpus of reasoned decisions, and – it is hoped – developing a more streamlined process for non-issue cases.

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.