Topics

As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic C – Innovation And Other Dynamic Elements In Merger Control.

In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Teresa Ribera, the European Commission’s Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition. Their conversation, held in front of a live audience in New York at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute’s 52nd Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, covers an array of topics, including the objectives of antitrust, sustainability, EU merger control, the Draghi Report, digital regulation, international cooperation, and much more.

On October 1, 2025, the General Court dismissed Laudamotion’s application for annulment of the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision rejecting a complaint that Lufthansa’s concurrent acquisition of flight slots previously held by Air Berlin and conclusion of a wet lease agreement for 40 Air Berlin aircrafts constituted an anticompetitive concertation in breach of Article 101 TFEU.[1] The General Court reconfirmed that to sustain an infringement finding, there can be no alternative plausible explanation for the alleged anticompetitive concertation.

In July 2025, the Commission published its draft Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) guidelines for consultation. The guidelines discuss the FSR’s distortion and balancing tests and the EC’s powers to call in “below threshold” mergers and public tenders for ex ante review. 

As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic Paper B – Assessing Market Power.

On September 8, 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of around €172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company, Unanime Sport SAS, for providing incomplete information during an ongoing antitrust investigation. This marks the first time the Commission has imposed a fine for the provision of incomplete information in reply to a request for information (“RFI”) in the context of an antitrust procedure.[1] The Commission announced it “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future.” [2]

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.