On July 4, 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bundeskartellamt,[1] following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court (“Düsseldorf Court”) on the validity of the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) 2019 decision finding that Meta Platforms (“Meta”)[2] abused its dominant position by collecting and processing data without users giving their consent freely.[3]  The Court of Justice confirmed that competition authorities can find breach of data protection rules under the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) where that finding is necessary to establish the existence of an abuse of dominance under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).  The Court of Justice however emphasized that competition authorities are required to consult and cooperate with national supervisory authorities in charge of GDPR enforcement (“GDPR authorities”).

The UK introduced a new collective proceedings regime for competition damages claims in October 2015.[1]  The early years of the new regime were characterized by cautious uncertainty as the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the appellate courts grappled with identifying the standards for certification.[2]  It took almost six years before the CAT certified the first claim in Merricks in August 2021.[3]  The CAT subsequently certified 10 other claims in less than two years, which in turn, encouraged additional claims to be brought.

Changes Would Multiply Time, Burden, and Expense for All Filings, Even for Transactions With No Competition Concerns

The U.S. FTC and DOJ have proposed sweeping changes to the pre-merger process in the United States under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.[1] 

The changes would not affect whether a transaction is subject to the reporting requirements.  But for those transactions where an HSR filing is required, the changes would, in a word, be massive.

On June 29, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published its Opinion on competition in the cloud sector following a sector inquiry.[1]  The Opinion examines various practices currently implemented or likely to be deployed in this sector which have the potential to restrict competition.  The Opinion provides a blueprint for future investigations, setting out the theories of harm that the FCA may put forward in the context of abuse of dominance, abuse of economic dependency, anticompetitive agreements or merger control cases. 

In a ruling dated June 28, 2023, the Cour de cassation[1] upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ judgment which had reversed the 2010 decision of the French Competition Authority fining 11 banks for an anticompetitive pricing agreement in relation to check processing.  The Cour de cassation ruled that the FCA had improperly qualified the agreement as a “by object” infringement when no sufficient degree of harmfulness to competition was proven.  This ruling puts an end to a 13-year old judicial saga.

On 25 May 2023, the High Court ordered that an individual disqualified by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) may continue as the director of Cantillon, a construction company fined £1.92 million for its involvement in a bid-rigging cartel.[1]  The High Court’s Order—which was opposed by the CMA—is the fourth time since 2019 that the Court has granted an exemption from a director disqualification undertaking obtained by the CMA.