Summary of Key Developments — March/April 2026

The "European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin" breaks down the major antitrust developments in Europe during the past two months into concise and actionable takeaways. For any questions or suggestions please contact Jindrich Kloub, Deirdre Carroll or any other attorney in the European Antitrust Team listed at the end of the Bulletin.

UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) Refuses to Extend Deadline for Aramark’s Appeal
On March 10, 2026, the CAT refused to grant Aramark an extension to challenge a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) requiring it to unwind its acquisition of Entier. The CMA had concluded that the transaction would combine two of the three main providers of offshore catering and support services on the UK Continental Shelf. Under CAT rules, Aramark had four weeks to bring its appeal, and the CAT declined to admit the late challenge, noting that extensions are granted only in exceptional circumstances in merger cases.

Companies pursuing acquisitions in the UK should carefully assess potential overlaps and consider engagement strategies early in the transaction process, as the CMA retains broad powers to impose structural remedies, including full divestments, even after integration has begun.

CMA Accepts Failing Firm Defense in Constellation/Aston Barclay Merger Review
On March 5, 2026, the CMA confirmed in its final Phase II report that Aston Barclay would have exited the market absent its acquisition by Constellation, concluding that Aston Barclay was a loss-making business that would likely have been unable to meet its liabilities as they fell due. The CMA had provisionally accepted the failing firm defense in January. This indicates a clear shift in the CMA’s willingness to accept exiting firm counterfactuals. In particular in the period between 2020 and 2023, (including the Covid-19 pandemic) the CMA accepting only a single exiting firm defense, whereas since the summer of 2024, the CMA has accepted exiting firm counterfactuals in six clearance decisions (with positive provisional findings in a seventh case discussed below). This more pragmatic approach to assessing exiting firm scenarios is consistent with the CMA’s focus on more proportionate merger control enforcement.

On March 26, 2026, the CMA also issued its interim report in the review of Associated British Food’s (ABF’s) proposed acquisition of Hovis, concluding that the failing firm defense was satisfied in Great Britain, where ABF would have exited its bakery business absent the transaction, but not in Northern Ireland, where an alternative purchaser would likely have acquired ABF’s local baking business. The interim report is a further example of the CMA accepting the failing firm defense and offers an important and growing distinction between geographic markets in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Companies should know that the CMA will carefully review failing firm defenses in mergers and be prepared to back up their case with data and detailed explanations.

European Commission (EC) Declines Referral from Portugal and Spain Of Completed Airport Equipment Deal
On April 7, 2026, the Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) reportedly referred Vanderlande’s acquisition of Siemens Logistics, a maker of airport baggage handling systems, to the EC under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). On April 15, 2026, Spain’s competition authority CNMC also referred the deal to the EC under Article 22 EUMR. The deal reportedly combines two out of three makers of baggage handling systems globally and closed in May 2025. Originally, the deal was notified in Germany and entered a Phase 2 review, but the parties restructured the deal and withdrew the notification. Reportedly, the parties filed the transaction post-completion in Portugal and Spain (based upon the countries’ market share merger filing thresholds) only after a competitor complained to the respective national competition authorities and PCA and CNMC requested a filing.

Under Article 22 EUMR, Member States may refer to the EC a merger which does not meet the usual thresholds for an EC investigation but has cross-border impact. On May 13, 2026, the EC declined the referral request from Portugal. The EC stated that accepting the referral was inappropriate as the deal had been implemented for more than a year and that PCA and CNMC were well equipped to continue their reviews, which relate to a market in a traditional industry that national competition authorities handle regularly.

Companies should know competition authorities in Europe are increasingly willing to use alternative tools to gain jurisdiction over below-threshold mergers, and may refer deals to the EC under Article 22 EUMR. From the outset of deal planning and negotiation, companies should prepare for close scrutiny of potentially controversial deals, no matter the size.

European Commission (EC) Conducts Unannounced Inspections at Chocolate Company
On April 13, 2026, the EC stated it was conducting unannounced antitrust inspections in two Member States at the premises of a company active in the chocolates sector. Ferrero confirmed on April 15, 2026, that its offices were impacted by the EC’s unannounced inspections.

The EC stated it was investigating alleged violations of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices, and abuse of dominance, respectively. The EC’s investigation concerns possible market segmentation through restrictions on cross-border trade and barriers to multi-country purchasing within the EU’s Single Market. In 2024, the EC had fined Mondelēz International €337.5 million for potentially similar market segmentation practices.

Companies should review their distribution policies, especially if they involve elements of territorial exclusivity, to ensure they are up to date and effective. The EC has renewed its focus on distribution agreements that may prevent cross-border trade within the EU.

EU Court Holds Covid-Era Player Recruitment Restrictions May Comply with EU Law
On April 30, 2026, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU’s highest court, held that an agreement between Portuguese football clubs not to recruit players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts during the Covid-19 pandemic for non-payment of wages could, in principle, be justified. While the ECJ considered that no-poach agreements such as the one at issue in this case generally pursue an “objectively anticompetitive aim in recruitment”, it emphasized that the agreement must be assessed in its specific economic and legal context, given the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It concluded that the objective of ensuring the regularity of sporting competitions may constitute a legitimate public interest to justify the measure under the Meca-Medina exception.

In 2022, the Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) had held this to be an anticompetitive agreement and fined 31 football clubs and league organizations a total of €11.3 million (approximately US$12.8 million). This decision was challenged before the Portuguese Competition Court, which asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The Portuguese Competition Court will now base its judgment on this preliminary ruling.

Companies should be aware that agreements affecting recruitment and workforce mobility are treated as serious violations of competition law and may attract substantial financial penalties and are justified only in very specific and narrow circumstances.

UK Investigates Hotels, Data Services Provider over Information Sharing
On March 2, 2026, the UK’s CMA announced an investigation into whether the three hotel chains Hilton, IHG Hotels, and Marriott may have used the hotel data analytics tool STR, provided by CoStar, to share competitively sensitive information. STR collects and shares anonymized and aggregated hotel performance data, such as occupancy, pricing, and revenue trends. The CMA is likely to focus on whether such data can be de-aggregated and how algorithms can use such data to anticipate and react to pricing decisions of competitors.

Companies should be aware that sharing competitively sensitive information carries a high risk in Europe and may be pursued as a type of cartel conduct leading to high fines and likely follow-on damage claims.

Austrian Court Triples Reduced Cartel Fine After Faulty Cooperation Discovered
On March 11, 2026, the Vienna Cartel Court increased the fine imposed on construction company STRABAG from €45 million (approximately US$50.8 million) to €146 million (approximately US$164.9 million), following modification proceedings initiated by the Austrian Competition Authority (ACA).

The judgment concerns a construction cartel, uncovered in 2016, which affected building and civil engineering projects throughout Austria. Although proceedings had ended in 2021, they were reopened in 2023, after a decision by the Austrian Supreme Court based on newly available evidence. According to the ACA, STRABAG was a key witness and did not comply with its obligation to fully cooperate under the leniency program. STRABAG maintained it had "cooperated extensively with the Federal Competition Authority and made a significant contribution to clarifying the facts of the case." The increase of the fine was the subject of a settlement decision which ended the renewed investigation.

Companies should note that European competition authorities actively pursue cartel conduct. Fully cooperating with cartel investigations is essential to securing the benefits available under leniency programs.

Slovakia Fines Cable Cartel €97 Million
On March 11, 2026, the Slovak Competition Authority (SCA) announced that it had earlier imposed fines totaling over €97 million (approximately US$109.6 million) in a cartel case involving twelve cable manufacturers and suppliers. This represents the highest aggregate fine imposed by the SCA in a single proceeding to date.

According to the SCA, the companies agreed on a common method of calculating the surcharge for copper and aluminum metals, which are determining factors for the final cable price. Two undertakings benefited from the leniency program and were not fined after providing evidence of the existence of the cartel agreement to the SCA. The decision is not yet final and may still be appealed.

Companies should note that European competition authorities actively pursue cartel conduct. Vigilance over pricing coordination and compliance programs remains critical to mitigating enforcement risk.

Portugal Fines Trade Association for No Poach Clause in Ethics Rules
On March 12, 2026, the PCA imposed a fine of €4 million (approximately US$4.5 million) on the Portuguese Association of Private Employment and Human Resources Companies (APESPE) for engaging in an anticompetitive agreement.

The alleged infringement concerned the adoption of a no-poach clause in APESPE's Code of Ethics between December 1987 and March 2025. Under this clause, member temporary employment agencies could not solicit or recruit temporary workers employed by other companies. According to the PCA, this constituted a decision by an association of undertakings which restricted competition. The PCA's decision is not yet final and may still be appealed in court.

Companies should be aware that agreements affecting recruitment and workforce mobility can be treated as serious violations of competition law and may attract substantial financial penalties.

Italy Fines Jewelry Company €26 Million for Prohibited Distribution Practices
On March 31, 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) imposed a fine of €25.9 million (approximately US$29.2 million) on jewelry company Morellato for allegedly engaging in an anticompetitive distribution agreement.

The ICA alleged that within its selective distribution system, Morellato set a maximum discount distributors could offer via their online sales channels, which amounted to the imposition of resale prices. Morellato also prohibited authorized jewelers from selling on third-party online platforms and marketplaces. Morellato enforced these restrictions through continuous monitoring of distributors' behavior and by imposing penalties when distributors failed to comply with Morellato’s instructions.

Companies should review their distribution policies, especially if they involve elements of exclusivity, to ensure they are up to date and effective. Companies with selective distribution models should carefully assess whether the restrictions they impose on their authorized retailers are proportionate.

Italy Fines Snack Producers for Market Sharing Cartel
On April 28, 2026, the ICA announced it had fined three manufacturers of savory snacks a combined €23.3 million (approximately US$26.3 million) for allegedly participating in a market sharing cartel. The three companies produced salty snacks for retail chains who sold them as private label products on the Italian market. Two of the three companies participated in the ICA's leniency program and provided evidence, receiving a reduction in their fines. All three companies agreed to the decision as part of a settlement procedure, securing further reductions of the fines, which the ICA emphasized was the first time such a settlement procedure had been utilized.

Companies should note that European competition authorities actively pursue cartel conduct. Vigilance over pricing coordination and compliance programs remains critical to mitigating enforcement risk.

Advocate General (AG) Opinion Approves Using Data Rooms, Recommends Partially Setting Aside Annulment
On April 23, 2026, AG Medina delivered a non-binding opinion to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's highest court. The AG recommended that the ECJ partially set aside the General Court’s annulment of the EC's decision fining Bulgarian Energy Holding for allegedly abusing its dominant position by refusing third-party access to key gas infrastructure. Notably, the AG's opinion mostly approved of the EC's use of data rooms to share confidential information under certain conditions.

The AG opined that the data room procedure limited the right of access to file as a right of defense, but that such a procedure could be appropriate as long as the EC could show (i) an actual need to protect confidential information, (ii) that using a data room is more appropriate than sharing non-confidential versions of documents, and (iii) that the actual documents shared afterwards allowed the defendant to effectively exercise their defense rights. The AG agreed with the General Court’s holding that some documents could not be shown to be confidential and should not have been subject to the EC’s data room procedure.

The ECJ is not bound by the AG's opinions and will provide a judgment at a later date.

EC Publishes First Evaluation Report on DMA, Cloud Computing and AI as Future Focuses
On April 28, 2026, the EC published its first evaluation report on the DMA, as required by law every three years. The review included an assessment of over 450 contributions from private parties across three consultations. The EC concluded that the DMA remains fit for purpose and highlighted achievements for businesses and end users which stem from the DMA opening up competition in certain digital markets. Examples include improved data portability, the ability to choose alternate browsers and search engines instead of defaults, and interoperability with operating systems for the manufacturers of connected devices.

The EC emphasized that cloud computing and AI will be key areas for action under the DMA. With respect to cloud computing, the EC already opened three market investigations in November 2025. Regarding AI, the EC noted that it has engaged in a dialogue with gatekeepers to ensure that default settings remain easily changeable and that competing AI systems retain access to operating systems. In January 2026, the EC initiated two specification proceedings regarding interoperability and access to search data which have an AI dimension. The EC committed to assessing whether some AI services should potentially be designated as virtual assistants under the DMA.

UK to Investigate Microsoft Business Software Under DMCC, Amazon and Microsoft Announce Commitments on Cloud Services
On March 31, 2026, the CMA announced that it would launch an investigation in May 2026 seeking to designate Microsoft with strategic market status (SMS) under the DMCC for its business software ecosystem. A Microsoft SMS designation decision could cover business software such as Windows, Word, Excel, Teams, and possibly Copilot. More details will become available once the CMA formally launches its SMS designation investigation, which can take up to nine months to conclude.

The CMA also stated that Microsoft and Amazon had committed to action on cloud egress fees and interoperability for its cloud computing services for UK customers. Sarah Cardell, the CMA's Chief Executive, left open whether the CMA might initiate a separate SMS designation investigation for the companies’ cloud computing activities at a later date.

EC Officials State They Are Reviewing the "Entire AI Stack"
On March 12, 2026, Teresa Ribera, the EC Commissioner responsible for competition matters, told a competition conference that the EC was looking at the "entire AI stack" to find and address potential problems for competition. According to Ribera, the EC is interested in who controls key inputs like data, computing capacity, and cloud services, and also in the user interfaces and means of distribution. At an earlier competition conference, Linsey McCallum, a senior EC competition official, had outlined the EC's increased willingness to use traditional antitrust tools like abuse of dominance and merger investigations instead of a swifter deployment of tools under the DMA.

EC Issues Supplementary Charge Sheet to Meta over WhatsApp AI Restrictions, Takes Over Italian Investigation
On April 15, 2026, the EC issued a second statement of objections to Meta after Meta decided to reinstate access to WhatsApp for third-party AI assistants subject to the payment of a fee, which the EC preliminarily views as equivalent to the previous access ban. The EC noted that it still intended to impose interim measures against Meta. In February, the EC issued a first statement of objections to Meta regarding restrictions the company placed on third-party AI assistants' access to its WhatsApp Messenger service. The EC's preliminary view was that Meta may have breached EU competition rules by denying rival AI providers the ability to interact with users through WhatsApp's Business APIs, effectively favoring Meta's own AI offering and potentially foreclosing competition in the emerging market for AI assistants.

Also on April 15, 2026, in cooperation with the Italian Competition Authority (ICA), the EC decided to expand the scope of its investigation to cover Italy. The EC had previously excluded Italy from its investigation because the ICA had opened its own investigation into the matter. On May 5, 2026, according to public reporting Meta defended its policy change before the EC in a closed hearing and argued against the imposition of interim measures.

Companies should be aware that the Member States’ competition authorities have been recently increasing their activities compared to the EC. This may lead to a fragmentation of antitrust enforcement in the EU which would seriously affect companies’ compliance and defense efforts, notwithstanding this specific development.

EC Adopts Updated Rules for Technology Licensing Agreements
On April 16, 2026, the EC announced it had adopted a revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) and Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty to Technology Transfer Agreements (Guidelines), to update rules that have been in place since 2014.

The EC defines technology transfer agreements very broadly as agreements by which a firm that owns technology rights authorizes another firm to use the rights to produce goods or services. These agreements generally have procompetitive effects as they incentivize research and development, but they may also have anticompetitive effects.

Under certain conditions, the TTBER exempts technology transfer agreements from the general prohibition under EU law against anticompetitive agreements. The Guidelines provide detailed clarification of the TTBER for businesses. An important change compared to the old TTBER, and the Guidelines is the inclusion of data licensing for production purposes and licensing negotiation groups. The new rules will enter into force on May 1, 2026.

Companies should carefully review the revised TTBER and Guidelines to ensure that previous technology transfer agreements continue to benefit from the exemption and assess whether the revised rules may allow them to take advantage of new types of licensing agreements.

CMA Initiates Consumer Protection Investigation over Adobe Fees
On March 19, 2026, the CMA announced it had launched an investigation into Adobe over concerns about early cancellation fees on membership plans for certain products which could breach UK consumer protection law.

The alleged violation arises from a clause under which customers cancelling more than 14 days after signing up to Adobe's 'annual billed monthly' plan must pay 50 percent of the remaining yearly cost, while retaining access to the product until the end of the relevant billing period. The CMA is looking to see whether these terms are unfair and if customers have enough information about these early cancellation fees. The initiation of the CMA’s investigation does not prejudge the eventual result. This is the CMA's ninth investigation under its new direct consumer enforcement powers.

Companies should be aware that the CMA is now actively enforcing its new expanded consumer protection regime.

CMA Fines Driving Schools over Consumer Protection Violations and Orders Refunds
On April 15, 2026, the CMA ordered the Automobile Association Developments Limited (the AA) to refund more than 80,000 customers and to pay a £4.2 million (approximately US$5.4 million) fine for so-called drip pricing practices.

According to the CMA, more than 80,000 learner drivers were not shown the full price upfront when booking lessons online with AA Driving School and BSM Driving School, both owned by the AA. Instead, mandatory booking fees were added at checkout, misleading consumers. The AA admitted the infringement, cooperated with the CMA, and settled early, receiving a 40 percent fine reduction. The AA must refund over £760,000 (approximately US$980,000) to affected customers and pay a £4.2 million (approximately US$5.4 million) fine.

This is the CMA's first financial penalty under its new consumer law enforcement power. See the Wilson Sonsini Alert for more information.

Companies engaged in e-commerce, online marketplaces and digital sales should review how prices and associated charges are presented to consumers, ensure full transparency of all mandatory fees and avoid misleading countdown or opt-in tactics, as the CMA’s expanded consumer protection regime is now being actively enforced.