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]
On January 9, 2025, the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) released its decision in a trade and investment barrier investigation into the European Union’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”).
On March 5, 2025, the European Commission (EC) launched a public consultation on the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). The consultation will run to April 2, 2025.
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
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.
For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to