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.
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we
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]
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 (“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.
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.
In our latest Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Guillaume Loriot, the EC’s Head of Mergers. Their
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by a group of economists and
In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Olivier Guersent, Director General of