Summary of Key Developments — May/June 2026

The "European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin" distills the major antitrust developments in Europe over 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.

EU Court Rules that the European Commission (EC) May Require Disclosure of Professional Communications Stored on Private Devices
On June 3, 2026, the General Court, the European Union’s court of first instance, held that as part of its investigations the EC may require the disclosure of business communications held on private devices. The controversy stems from an EC probe into alleged gun-jumping committed by French media group Vivendi as part of its acquisition of Lagardère, which the EC cleared in 2023. This ruling is notable given the breadth of the underlying requests: aside from carve-outs for privileged material and safeguards for journalistic sources, the EC compelled production of all responsive documents, regardless of their ultimate relevance. The request for information addressed to Vivendi, for instance, covered a four-year period, targeted 15 individuals, and extended to their personal devices, provided that they had been used at least once for professional purposes.

Although the General Court found the requests were likely to seriously interfere with the right to respect for private life, it concluded that the interference was justified, as the requests pursued an objective of general interest—namely, ensuring the effective enforcement of competition rules—and remained proportionate to that objective. In that regard, the General Court noted that information relating to private life would be collected only incidentally. It also emphasized that the requests were limited to specific individuals, a specific period, and precisely defined search criteria, while being accompanied by safeguards designed to protect sensitive data and confidential information.

UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Clears Three-to-Two ABF/Hovis Merger on Failing Firm Grounds
On June 16, 2026, following a review fast-tracked to an in-depth Phase 2 investigation, the CMA unconditionally cleared the acquisition of Hovis by Associated British Foods (ABF) after accepting a failing firm defense on the buy-side of the merger. The deal combined two of the three best-known bakery brands in the UK, with combined shares exceeding 80 percent in some segments. Even so, the CMA found that ABF's UK bakery business (Allied Bakeries) was unsustainable after a decade of heavy losses and, absent the transaction, would likely exit the market—with no purchaser willing to acquire it above liquidation value. In its final report, the CMA also departed from its provisional findings, which had concluded that suitable purchasers existed for the Allied Bakeries business in Northern Ireland and had favored a divestiture remedy. Following further investigation, however, the CMA concluded that no such purchaser was likely to emerge and that ABF would therefore have exited the market in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The decision reflects a shift toward a more receptive CMA approach to a defense that has historically rarely succeeded. It marks the second successful failing firm defense this year, following a deal combining two of the three largest players in a concentrated B2B used-car auction market.

EU Court Confirms Fine for Cross-Border Sales Restrictions
On May 6, 2026, the General Court confirmed the EC’s €3.5 million (approximately US$3.9 million) fine imposed on Ahlers for entering into anticompetitive agreements with the French fashion house Pierre Cardin between 2008 and 2021. The EC had found that Ahlers and Pierre Cardin unlawfully restricted the cross-border sales of branded fashion items by preventing other Pierre Cardin licensees and customers from selling these products outside of their licensed territories and to low-price retailers in the European Economic Area (EEA). The EC also fined Pierre Cardin approximately €2.2 million (approximately US$2.5 million).

Ahlers challenged the fine, arguing that the EC’s calculation method should not have included the turnover of its subsidiary Ahlers AG after its business activities were transferred to an investor under insolvency proceedings in 2023. The General Court disagreed, ruling that the subsidiary formed a single economic entity with its parent company during the infringement period.

EC Issues Statement of Objections in Two Synthetic Turf Investigations
On May 21, 2026, the EC issued statements of objections in two cases of alleged cartels in the synthetic turf industry in the Netherlands and Germany.

According to the EC’s preliminary assessment, two Dutch producers and installers of synthetic turf, Oranjewoud and TenCate Grass, and the Belgian Sports & Leisure Group, may have infringed competition law by establishing a recycling company, GBN-AGR, in the Netherlands in 2019. Initially set up as a subsidiary of Oranjewoud, TenCate and Sports & Leisure Group then acquired minority stakes in GBN-AGR. The EC believes that the companies agreed to exclusively use GBN-AGR’s recycling services, fix prices, monopolize the recycling market, maintain their position in the adjacent market for installing and replacing synthetic turf, and exclude upstream synthetic turf suppliers. It also suspects that the companies conspired to exclude providers of sustainable disposal services that compete with GBN-AGR’s services.

In addition to the above, the EC’s preliminary assessment also revealed concerns of potential alleged collusion between Oranjewoud and the German company Sport Group regarding the recycling of synthetic turf. According to the EC, the companies may have conducted an exchange of commercially sensitive information, including current and future prices and capacity, without appropriate safeguards. These exchanges allegedly took place in the context of talks about possible cooperation in the German market, which may have included the acquisition of a minority share in GBN-AGR by Sport Group.

Spain Announces Bank Investigation After Public Statements on Mortgage Interest Rates
On June 16, 2026, Spain’s competition authority (CNMC) announced an investigation into potential anticompetitive agreements involving several large banks. The CNMC is concerned that public statements made by executives regarding future commercial policies concerning fixed-rate mortgage interest rates may have allowed competitors to predict future market behavior, contrary to Spanish and EU competition law. The CNMC now has 24 months to conduct its investigation and issue a decision in this case.

Cases treating signaling as a standalone theory of harm remain rare and have not typically led to a finding of infringement on the merits. In the Wood Pulp case, the European Court of Justice annulled the EC’s finding for insufficient evidence. Similarly, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM)’s 2014 mobile telecoms investigation and the EC’s 2016 container-liner shipping case were both resolved through commitments rather than an infringement decision. European authorities have nonetheless shown growing interest in price signaling theories by scrutinizing earnings calls and other public commentary. In July 2025, the EU’s General Court largely upheld an EC dawn raid on Michelin, part of a wider inquiry into tire manufacturers’ use of earnings calls to signal future pricing to competitors. The court rejected the argument that answering analyst questions or complying with financial disclosure rules shields such statements from antitrust scrutiny.

EC Initiates Investigation Against Sanofi over Alleged Vaccine Disparagement
On June 26, 2026, the EC announced that it had opened an investigation against pharmaceutical company Sanofi over concerns that it abused a dominant position by disparaging a competitor’s flu vaccine, portraying it as inferior to its own and making inaccurate statements about national vaccination recommendations. This marks the EC’s third investigation into such conduct in the pharmaceutical sector, following binding commitments accepted from Vifor over its alleged disparagement of a competing iron-deficiency treatment and a fine imposed on Teva in 2024 over a disparagement campaign against a rival multiple sclerosis drug involving misleading information about its safety, efficacy, and therapeutic equivalence with Teva’s own drug.

UK Court of Appeal Overrules Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) Ruling Against HOKA in Supply Termination Dispute
On May 8, 2026, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the CAT’s finding that Deckers had engaged in resale price maintenance (RPM) by imposing contractual restrictions which prevented its distributors from selling HOKA shoes through clearance websites without its prior consent. The dispute arose after the distributor, Up & Running, sought to liquidate unsold stock acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic and declined Deckers’ request to remove the products from the clearance website. Deckers subsequently terminated the distributor’s supply agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the CAT erred in finding that any intention to curb price competition amounts to RPM or to a “by-object” infringement. The CAT failed to properly examine the agreement’s economic context and whether it revealed a sufficient degree of harm to competition. Instead, it concluded that the restriction was “by-object,” on the basis that it pursued no plausible legitimate claim. Against that backdrop, the Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement’s limited scale and the parties’ small market shares gave the CAT no basis to find that the arrangements had the object of restricting competition. This judgment serves as an important reminder to regulators and courts that restrictions classified as “hardcore,” including RPM, are not necessarily restrictions of competition by object, and that this conclusion can only be reached after a careful assessment of the restriction's content, objectives, and legal and economic context.

UK Court of Appeal Grants CMA’s and Drugmakers’ Appeals Against CAT Ruling in Phenytoin Litigation
On June 19, 2026, the UK Court of Appeal granted appeals of both the CMA and pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Flynn Pharma against the CAT. The CAT’s November 2024 judgment upheld the CMA’s finding that the drugmakers abused their dominant position through excessive pricing. However, it set aside the CMA’s decision for material flaws, remade the decision, and imposed new fines. The Court of Appeal held that the CAT had mischaracterized the CMA’s decision, was wrong to set it aside, and therefore had no basis to remake it. Whether the original decision and fines will be reinstated will be decided separately following further submissions from the parties.

UK Court of Appeal Rejects Appeal by Blur Drummer in Royalty Fees Class Action
On June 29, 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed a proposed collective action brought by David Rowntree, drummer of Blur, against PRS for Music, upholding the CAT's earlier decision to strike out the claim and refuse certification as collective proceedings.

Rowntree alleged that PRS abused a dominant position by distributing “Black Box” royalties—those it collects but cannot match to specific rights holders due to incomplete usage data—in a way that systematically favored publishers over songwriters. The Court of Appeal found the claim unsustainable due to the absence of any counterfactual: without a plausible alternative distribution rule, there was no basis to characterize PRS's approach as an exploitative abuse, and no basis on which damages could be assessed or allocated to class members. The court also confirmed that Chapter II does not require a dominant undertaking to organize its affairs in the way most advantageous to a particular sub-group of trading partners. Where the defendants had taken reasonable and proportionate efforts to achieve a fair distribution, this did not support a case of abuse against the defendants.

The judgment makes clear that it is not enough for class representatives to identify a putative or hypothetical harm; they must put forward a viable counterfactual against which to assess the quantum of harm and to provide a basis for distributing damages to class members.

Italy to Investigate Biogen over Multiple Sclerosis Drug Competition
On May 27, 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced an investigation into pharmaceutical company Biogen for a suspected abuse of dominance. The AGCM is concerned that Biogen may have pursued a strategy designed to restrict competition from another pharmaceutical manufacturer in the market for multiple sclerosis drugs containing natalizumab. Biogen was the sole supplier of natalizumab for over 15 years until that manufacturer launched a biosimilar following patent expiry in 2024. Natalizumab treatment requires patients to undergo an anti-JCV antibody test before starting treatment and at regular intervals thereafter. The AGCM considers that Biogen holds a dominant position in the market for anti-JCV tests, having been the only authorized supplier until 2022 and having effectively become the reference standard within the medical community. On this basis, the authority is investigating whether Biogen leveraged its position in the testing market to restrict competition from the biosimilar manufacturer, by conditioning use of the test on purchase of its own drug and refusing to make the test available to patients treated with competing biosimilars. The AGCM cites concerns that this conduct could seriously affect healthcare expenditure by denying the National Health Service savings of at least 20 percent, the estimated discount the biosimilar offers relative to Biogen’s drug.

EU Court Annuls DMA Designation of Facebook Marketplace, Upholds Messenger Designation
On June 3, 2026, the General Court ruled on Meta’s challenges to the EC’s designation of Messenger and Marketplace as important gateways within the meaning of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). On September 5, 2023, the EC found that Meta’s Facebook, Messenger, and Marketplace constituted distinct core platform services as they met the quantitative thresholds set out in the DMA. Meta challenged the classifications of Messenger and Marketplace.

The General Court confirmed the EC’s finding that Messenger is an important gateway, despite some users accessing the service through their Facebook account rather than via the standalone application. Due to the presumption in the DMA based on user numbers, the General Court also deemed that the EC was not obliged to conduct a market investigation to reach that conclusion simply because Meta was unable to refute the presumption.

With regard to Marketplace, the General Court found that the EC erred in law in designating the service under the DMA, as it had refused to consider data from beyond the three years preceding the designation and had not taken into account changes that had occurred in July 2023. The General Court also found that the EC’s decision regarding Marketplace was insufficiently motivated due to the absence of an analysis of these changes and their potential impact on the legality of Marketplace's designation. The EC had already withdrawn the Marketplace designation in April 2025, before the ruling was handed down, after Meta's changes brought the service below the DMA's user thresholds.

EC Issues Preliminary Opinion that Cloud Services of Amazon and Microsoft Should Be Designated
On June 25, 2026, the EC announced its preliminary view that Amazon and Microsoft should be designated as gatekeepers under the DMA for their cloud computing services, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure (Azure), as a result of their importance as a gateway between businesses and customers in the EU. The EC’s position is based on several factors, including turnover, operational capacity, investment, vast and entrenched user bases, high switching costs, and large ecosystems. The EC is also concerned by the increased demand for cloud-related services driven by artificial intelligence (AI), and by the fact that AWS and Azure have retained a large proportion of this demand within their respective ecosystems.

Amazon and Microsoft will now be granted access to the materials in the EC’s investigation file and will be given the opportunity to submit written responses. Should the EC adopt a designation decision, the companies will have six months to ensure that the designated cloud services comply fully with the DMA’s obligations.

UK Initiates Strategic Market Status (SMS) Investigation into Microsoft’s Business Software Ecosystem
On May 14, 2026, the CMA launched an investigation to determine whether Microsoft should be designated with SMS for its business software ecosystem and the impact of that position on businesses and public sector organizations in the UK. As part of its investigation, the CMA will consider whether there are any competition concerns, whether conduct requirements on Microsoft are necessary to promote customer choice, and how interoperability restrictions might weaken competition from rival companies. The investigation will cover a range of Microsoft products, including productivity software, operating systems for personal computers and servers, database management systems, and security software. Before reaching a decision by February 2027, the CMA will gather information from customers, rivals, and Microsoft itself.

UK Imposes Conduct Requirements on Google Regarding AI Overviews
On June 3 and 17, 2026, the CMA imposed new conduct requirements on Google following its designation by the CMA as having strategic market status in general search services. Under the first set of requirements, publishers must be given the choice to opt out of having their content used in Google’s AI search features and in the training of its AI models, and Google must properly attribute publisher content through clear links in AI-generated search results. The second set of measures addresses fair ranking, requiring Google to rank organic search results on objective and non-discriminatory criteria, and data portability, requiring tools that let users port their search data to third parties.

Google has nine months to implement the changes and must then publish compliance reports, including key data and metrics, describing the changes made.

UK Announces Proposed Conduct Requirements on Apple and Google Mobile Platforms
On June 30, 2026, the UK CMA announced a consultation on proposed conduct requirements for Apple and Google following their designation by the CMA as having strategic market status in mobile platforms. The measures address the relationship between the platform operators and the developers offering products through their app stores. In particular, they would limit Apple’s and Google’s ability to restrict developers from steering users to alternative payment options and introduce a pricing framework for the fees charged on transactions completed outside their ecosystems. They do not extend to “on-app” commissions, notwithstanding the recent Kent v Apple judgment finding Apple’s commission excessive.

The CMA also invited third parties to submit evidence on the technical process and pricing terms under which Apple should be required to give third-party developers access to an iPhone’s near-field communication (NFC) chip, enabling them to offer contactless payment functionality directly within their iOS apps rather than routing such payments exclusively through Apple Pay.

Italy to Investigate Apple Under DMA over Cloud Interoperability Concerns
On June 16, 2026, the AGCM stated that it was investigating Apple under the DMA regarding the interoperability of its operating systems, iOS and iPadOS, with alternative consumer clouds. The DMA requires Apple to grant third parties free and effective interoperability with the hardware and software features controlled by these operating systems.

The AGCM is concerned that third-party consumer cloud providers may not be on an equal footing with Apple’s iCloud due to a lack of access to features that are otherwise available through iCloud. For instance, the AGCM suspects that Apple does not allow alternative cloud storage services to use iOS and iPadOS features that enable end users to perform a full backup of their device data, which is possible on iCloud. This is the first time a national competition authority has exercised its powers under the DMA, and the AGCM will conduct its investigation in close coordination with the EC.

EC Imposes Interim Measures on Meta in WhatsApp AI Investigation
On June 9, 2026, the EC imposed interim measures on Meta, requiring it to restore rival AI assistants’ free access to WhatsApp pending the conclusion of its investigation under the same terms and conditions that were in place before its initial access ban. The EC’s decision follows Meta’s March policy update, which reversed the initial access ban following regulatory pressure but made continued access conditional on a fee. According to the EC, this new policy is equivalent to the previous ban which it found amounted to a refusal to provide access to an infrastructure developed for and previously open to third parties. The investigation was initiated by Italy’s AGCM, focusing on Meta’s integration of its AI services into the WhatsApp application, before extending to rival chatbots’ access to WhatsApp. As of June 9, 2026, the investigation has been fully taken over by the EC, which extended its own inquiry to cover the same material facts, including those in Italy. Consequently, the AGCM has closed its investigation.

AI Accounting Assistant Halted After Denmark Warns Against Potential Illegal Information Exchanges
On May 21, 2026, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (DCCA) announced that Visma Dinero, a private company that offers accounting services, had halted the launch of an AI assistant because it could have potentially facilitated the exchange of commercially sensitive information between competitors. Prior to this, the DCCA conducted an unannounced inspection at the premises of Visma Dinero to gather information for its investigation and had informed the company that certain benchmarking features of its AI assistant could potentially violate competition law.

According to the DCCA, the AI assistant compared each company’s accounting data with average data from other customers in the same industry and region, for instance hourly wage, contribution margin, marketing costs, and rental costs. Based on this, the tool—taking into account factors such as the company’s capacity utilization and customer reputation—made concrete recommendations, for instance to consider raising prices if the company was below the average.

European Competition Network (ECN) Issues Statement on Merger Call-In Mechanisms
On June 23, 2026, the ECN, which consists of the competition authorities of the 27 Member States and the EC, issued a statement on the introduction of call-in powers for such mergers which do not meet mandatory notification thresholds but nonetheless may have a significant impact on competition. The ECN took no position on whether additional Member States should introduce such call-in powers beyond the nine Member States that do, but noted that doing so would be coherent with the aim of the EU’s co-legislators. The ECN emphasized that if Member States do introduce a call-in power, they may introduce criteria to help determine which cases may be caught. This could include a local nexus such as present or foreseeable activities in loco or with local effects, or additional thresholds based on turnover, transaction value, or market share.

CMA to Investigate Ryanair’s Reservation Fee Policy Under UK Consumer Law
On June 11, 2026, the CMA launched an investigation into Ryanair’s reservation fee policy. According to the airline’s terms and conditions, at least one parent must sit with children aged two to 11. However, parents must make a reservation to this effect, for which they must pay approximately £8 (approximately US$10) each way on return trips. Other passengers are not required to purchase a seat. The CMA’s investigation will determine whether this policy constitutes an unfair contractual provision under UK consumer law. The CMA will also investigate whether the reservation fee is “dripped” at the end of the booking process, meaning customers cannot see the total price until the very end.

On June 25, 2026, Ryanair announced a policy change that would allow parents to sit with their children free of charge. Nevertheless, the CMA’s investigation will continue to seek redress for customers who have been harmed by this practice, while the agency monitors the effectiveness of the policy modification. See our alert for more information on this development.

CMA Settles Consumer Protection Investigations into Online Sales Tactics
On June 18, 2026, the CMA reached a negotiated settlement with Marks Electrical, fining the company £720,000 (approximately US$950,000) and ordering it to repay £600,000 (approximately US$800,000) to customers for automatically enrolling them in optional services. UK consumer protection laws require that customers be given a genuine choice as to whether to pay for optional products or services. In practice, this means that businesses must provide clear information about available extras and obtain express consent from consumers for any add-on services.

On June 23, 2026, the CMA fined StubHub UK £900,000 (approximately US$1.2 million) and ordered the company to repay customers over £590,000 (approximately US$780,000) in hidden fees, after finding it had breached its obligation under UK consumer law to display the full price upfront. Instead, the company added mandatory fees only at the final stage of the purchasing process, contrary to UK law, which requires that customers be shown the total price upfront.

See our alert for more information on these developments.