In May 2025, the Commission launched a wide-ranging public consultation on possible reforms to its merger guidelines.[1] The consultation covers seven core topics that underpin how the Commission assesses the competitive impact of mergers.
The Paris Court of Appeal Orders Sanofi to Pay €150.7 Million in Damages to the CNAM in the Plavix Follow-On Action, Nearly Four Times the Amount of the Antitrust Fine Previously Imposed on Sanofi
The Paris Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeals”) has issued its ruling on damages in the Plavix follow-on action brought by France’s national health insurance fund (the “CNAM”) against Sanofi.[1] More than a decade after the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) found that Sanofi had engaged in disparagement practices constituting an abuse of dominant position, the Court awarded the CNAM €150.7 million, reflecting the long-term impact of Sanofi’s conduct. The judgment highlights the magnitude of potential damages in follow-on actions and illustrates how French courts evaluate long-lasting effects and the full-compensation principle.
Shareholder Engagement Considerations in light of Texas v. Blackrock
On Friday, the Court in Texas v. Blackrock issued an opinion largely denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allows a coalition of States to proceed with claims that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard conspired to violate the antitrust laws by pressuring publicly traded coal companies to reduce output in connection with the investment firms’ ESG commitments. The Court found that the States plausibly alleged that defendants coordinated with one another, relying on allegations that they joined climate initiatives, made parallel public commitments, engaged with management of the public coal companies, and aligned proxy voting on disclosure issues. It is worth noting that, while the court viewed BlackRock’s, State Street’s, and Vanguard’s participation in Climate Action 100+ and NZAM as increasing the plausibility of the claim in favor of denying the motion to dismiss, the Court clarified that it was not opining that the parties conspired at Climate Action 100+ or NZAM.
Antitrust Review Episode 46: In Conversation With Guillaume Loriot
In our latest Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Guillaume Loriot, the EC’s Head of Mergers. Their
Antitrust Review Episode 45: In Conversation With Jorge Padilla, Neil Dryden, Ethel Fonseca, Katie Curry & Chris Cook
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by a group of economists and
Antitrust Review Episode 44: In Conversation With Olivier Guersent
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Olivier Guersent, Director General of
German Court Reaffirms That Transaction Value-Based Test Is Only a Backstop
The Düsseldorf Court of Appeals (“DCA”) has now published its full reasoning rejecting the Federal Cartel Office’s (“FCO”) expansive interpretation
French Competition Authority Issues Its First-Ever Decision Sanctioning No-Poach Agreements
Delivery Hero and Glovo Cartel EU Fine Delivers Warning About Antitrust Risks of Holding Minority Stake in a Rival
On June 2, 2025, the Commission fined Delivery Hero and Glovo €329 million for a cartel in the online food delivery sector. During Delivery Hero’s non-controlling minority shareholding in Glovo from 2018 to 2022, the parties (1) agreed not to poach each other’s employees; (2) divided national markets among themselves, and (3) exchanged commercially sensitive information.[1]
Regulating Self-Preferencing in Cloud Services: France’s Competition Authority Launches Public Consultation
On June 4, 2025, The French Competition Authority (“FCA”) launched a public consultation on the topic of self-preferencing in the cloud computing sector. This follows the recent enactment of Law No. 2024-449 on the security and regulation of the digital space (“SREN Law”). This consultation reflects growing scrutiny of vertically integrated cloud providers that may favor their own services and software at the expense of competitors.