Summary of Key Developments — September/October 2025

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.

Spain Prohibits Merger for First Time
On October 6, 2025, Spain’s competition authority, the CNMC, prohibited Curium Pharma Holding Spain, SLU (Curium) from acquiring Institut de Radiofarmacia Aplicada de Barcelona, SL (IRAB). This is the first time the CNMC has prohibited a transaction outright.

The CNMC held that the transaction would impede effective competition in the markets for positron emission tomography (PET) radiopharmaceuticals used in cancer screening tests and in the market for the provision of contract manufacturing (CMO) services for PET radiopharmaceuticals. The CNMC observed that neither the commitments proposed by Curium (delaying its own product, maintaining manufacture of IRAB’s radiopharmaceuticals, increasing production capacity, and offering fair manufacturing deals) nor the alternative commitments analyzed by the CNMC would effectively resolve the risks to competition.

The prohibition is not definitive. The Spanish Minister of Economy, Trade, and Enterprise may decide to refer it to the Council of Ministers, which may assess the transaction based on criteria of general interest other than competition law.

Companies should note that this first instance of a deal prohibition by Spain involved sensitive healthcare markets and reportedly very high market shares. The case does not necessarily point towards a stricter merger control approach in Spain.

EU Court Rules Limitation Period of Cartel Damages Claims Starts After Final Competition Authority Decisions
On September 4, 2025, the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), ruled on the starting point for limitation periods in follow-on competition damages claims under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Directive 2014/104/EU, responding to a reference for a preliminary ruling from a Spanish court. The case arose after Spain’s CNMC found Nissan Iberia infringed EU competition rules, but the decision was challenged and only became final after a lengthy judicial process.

The ECJ held that a limitation period only starts to run once the decision of a national competition authority (NCA) is final and published in a way that makes it reasonably accessible to the public. The ECJ reasoned that parties cannot be expected to know all the necessary information to bring damage claims until the decision’s findings are definitive and no longer subject to appeal.

The ECJ emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the EU law principle of effectiveness, ensuring that national limitation rules do not undermine private enforcement of competition law. It also noted that national procedural rules must be consistent with this approach, so limitation periods cannot be triggered prematurely based on provisional or contested findings. 

The ruling clarifies the timing of limitation periods in competition damages cases, confirming that only final and published decisions trigger the start of the clock. Companies involved in competition enforcement or litigation should review whether this development extends the window for bringing claims and assess the impact on their risk exposure and claims strategies.

European Commission (EC) Fines Companies for Providing Incomplete Information in Synthetic Turf Investigation
On September 8, 2025, the EC fined Eurofield SAS and Unanime Sport SAS, the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, a total of around €172,000 (approximately US$199,000) for providing incomplete responses to a request for information issued in the context of the EC’s investigation in the synthetic turf sector. The EC found that the companies had failed to fully comply with a request issued under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (the Regulation), despite being made aware of concerns about the initial reply.

This is the first time the EC has issued a fine for supplying incomplete information under the Regulation. The parties later acknowledged their liability and cooperated by submitting the missing documents, which led to a 30 percent reduction in the fine. The main investigation into the synthetic turf sector is ongoing.

Companies should ensure that responses to EC information requests are accurate, complete, and prepared with due diligence. Failure to cooperate fully during investigations can lead to significant fines, even for procedural breaches such as incomplete disclosures.

EC Separately Fines Three Fashion Companies for Resale Price Maintenance (RPM)
On October 14, 2025, the EC announced that it had fined fashion companies Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe a total of over €157 million (approximately US$170 million) for anticompetitive RPM practices in the European Economic Area (EEA). The companies allegedly restricted independent retailers from setting their own prices online and offline, including imposing limits on discounts and sales periods, affecting most products across the EEA. The infringements lasted from 2015 until 2023. The EC found that these practices violated EU competition rules, specifically Article 101 TFEU.

All three brands cooperated with the EC and accepted its findings, leading to reduced fines: €119.7 million (approximately $130 million) for Gucci, €19.7 million (approximately US$21 million) for Chloé, and €18 million (approximately US$19 million) for Loewe. 

Companies should know that European competition agencies take a firm stance against resale pricing restrictions.

EU Court Rules on Pay for Delay Case
On October 23, 2025, the ECJ upheld a ruling of the EU’s court of first instance, the General Court, confirming that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Cephalon Inc. violated EU competition law by entering into a pay-for-delay patent settlement. The agreement involved Teva paying Cephalon to delay the market entry of generic modafinil, which the EC fined as an infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

The ECJ rejected all of the companies’ appeals against the fines imposed by the EC. The ECJ maintained the aggregate fines of €60 million (approximately US$64.9 million) and emphasized that the anticompetitive nature of the pay-for-delay agreement was clear without requiring a detailed economic analysis.

Companies should note that the judgment confirms that pay-for-delay patent settlements are considered restrictions of competition by object, and that economic effects need not be demonstrated for such agreements to be penalized under Article 101 TFEU.

UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Declines to Investigate Pharmaceuticals Companies over Alleged Investment Collusion
On October 11, 2025, the CMA responded to a complaint from several advocacy groups alleging that manufacturers of branded pharmaceuticals may have coordinated public statements conditioning investment in the UK on an acceptable outcome of negotiations with the Department of Health in relation to the net reimbursement price paid for branded pharmaceuticals by the NHS. The CMA stated it had not found direct evidence of anticompetitive collusion nor grounds to infer unlawful coordination based on the timing or content of the statements alone. 

While declining to open a formal investigation, the CMA reiterated its commitment to maintaining competition in the pharmaceutical sector and highlighted past enforcement actions resulting in over £32 million (approximately US$39 million) in redress for the NHS.

Companies should be aware that public announcements by competitors are coming under increasing antitrust scrutiny in Europe and ensure their communications are formulated in a way that doesn’t give rise to suspicions of coordination through such announcements.

For more information on the EC scrutinizing company earning calls to initiate antitrust investigations and justify unannounced inspections, see our prior European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin.

Italy Fines Major Oil Companies over Bio Component Price Collusion
On September 26, 2025, the Italian Competition Authority, the AGCM, fined six major oil companies a total of over €936 million (approximately US$1.087 billion) for allegedly participating in an anticompetitive agreement to coordinate the value of the biofuel component in motor fuel between 2020 and 2023.

The investigation, launched following a whistleblower complaint, revealed that the companies had allegedly aligned their price increases through direct or indirect information exchanges, for instance through publications in an industry daily. The AGCM found the conduct amounted to a cartel and that it had contributed to a tripling of the bio component's value over the period.

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.

Germany Investigates Temu over Platform Pricing Policies
On October 8, 2025, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO), announced it had opened proceedings against Whaleco Technology Limited (Temu) to investigate suspected restrictions on how third-party sellers set prices on Temu’s German online marketplace.

The FCO is examining whether Temu imposed conditions that may have influenced or fixed sellers’ final prices, potentially distorting competition. The case follows a complaint by the German Trading Association and is part of broader scrutiny of large digital platforms, with Temu designated a Very Large Online Platform under the EU’s Digital Services Act in 2024.

Companies should know that Germany’s FCO is closely monitoring price-setting practices in digital marketplaces and launched several investigations into these.

For more information on the FCO’s investigation of Amazon’s price-setting practices, see our prior European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin.

EC Accepts Microsoft Commitments, Closes Teams Investigation
On September 12, 2025, the EC accepted legally binding commitments from Microsoft to address antitrust concerns over the tying of its Teams platform to the Office 365 and Microsoft 365 business suites, following complaints by Slack and alfaview. Microsoft will now offer suites without Teams at a reduced price, ensure better interoperability for rival products, and allow data portability. The commitments, in place for up to 10 years, aim to restore competition in the market for communication and collaboration tools in Europe.

Companies should be aware that market conduct by leading firms is subject to close scrutiny by European competition regulators, who frequently investigate practices such as bundling, exclusivity arrangements, pricing strategies, self-preferencing, discriminatory conduct, and other potentially anticompetitive behavior.

EC, France Separately Conduct Unannounced Inspections in Pharmaceuticals, Ski Sectors
On September 23 and 24, 2025, the European Commission and France’s competition authority, the ADLC, independently conducted unannounced inspections at premises of companies active in the pharmaceutical industry. The EC's inspections focused on possible anticompetitive practices related to the distribution of vaccine products involving the disparagement of one or more competing products. Simultaneously, the French authority carried out a dawn raid on a company involved in cancer treatments, in coordination with the EC. On September 30, 2025, Sanofi confirmed that the EC had visited its premises in France and Germany in connection with an investigation into conduct in the seasonal flu vaccine space. On October 20, 2025, the EC announced that it had conducted unannounced inspections at premises of companies active in the ski equipment sector. Amer Sports (Atomic, Salomon) and Tecnica Group confirmed that they were cooperating with the EC investigation.

These actions form part of preliminary investigations into potential breaches of EU and French antitrust rules. Both authorities emphasized that such inspections do not indicate that the companies involved have engaged in anticompetitive conduct, nor do they prejudge the outcome of the investigations. 

Companies should be aware that unannounced inspections are frequently used by competition authorities in Europe and ensure that their guidance for such situations is up to date.

UK Court Rules Against Apple in App Store Class Action
On October 23, 2025, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) confirmed its judgment in the collective action brought on behalf of approximately 36 million UK consumers against Apple. The CAT found that Apple infringed UK competition law and Article 102 TFEU by engaging in exclusionary practices and charging excessive and unfair prices to app developers through its App Store.

The CAT determined that the relevant markets were iOS app distribution services and iOS in-app payment services, that Apple was dominant in both, and that its contractual restrictions and commission structure impeded competition. The CAT concluded that Apple’s 30 percent commission was materially above the competitive level and could not be justified by the company’s claimed efficiencies or user benefits. On November 13, 2025, the CAT held a procedural hearing to consider all consequential matters including costs, permission to appeal, and the process for resolving any disputes around the application of the CAT’s findings of the percentage overcharge and interest to calculate the damages payable by Apple.

Companies with actual or potential market power should be mindful of the need to monitor prices and pricing policies to ensure ongoing compliance with EU and UK’s competition law. This case also marks the first successful claim brought under the UK’s collective action regime, reinforcing the growing importance of private as well as public enforcement of competition law in the UK.

Belgium Investigates Cycling Union, Imposes Interim Measures
On October 9, 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) imposed interim measures suspending the International Cycling Union’s (UCI) technical standard limiting the maximum gear ratio in professional road cycling to 54x11. While recognizing the importance of athlete safety, the BCA found the standard’s adoption process lacked objectivity, transparency, and proportionality, unfairly harming SRAM, a major transmission system supplier that doesn’t currently meet the standard.

Due to the imminent application of the standard at the Tour of Guangxi on October 14, 2025, the BCA ordered the UCI to immediately suspend the standard and barred it from restricting transmission systems until a fair and transparent process is established or a final decision is reached.

Companies should know that competition authorities are increasingly scrutinizing how sporting competitions are organized and how standards are set.

EU Agencies Issue Joint Draft Guidance on Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Data Protection Interplay
On October 9, 2025, the European Data Protection Board and the EC opened a consultation on joint Draft Guidelines explaining how gatekeepers should comply with the DMA while respecting the General Data Protection Regulation. The Draft Guidelines aim to reduce uncertainty by clarifying how to collect valid consent, enable data portability and interoperability, and handle data access requests in a way that meets both frameworks. The consultation will run until December 4, 2025, after which a final version will be jointly adopted.

Once finalized, the joint Guidelines will provide more clarity on several issues relating to data processing by designated gatekeepers.

For more information on the joint Draft Guidance, see our Wilson Sonsini Alert.

UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Designates Google with “Strategic Market Status” (SMS) in Search Services
On October 10, 2025, the CMA confirmed Google’s designation with strategic market status (SMS) in general search and search advertising services. This follows an investigation and public consultation process which began in January 2025. The SMS status allows the CMA to consider targeted interventions to improve competition and protect users, though it does not imply any wrongdoing or immediate restrictions.

Google’s Gemini AI assistant is currently excluded from the designation but will be reviewed as the market evolves. The designation decision includes other AI features like AI Overviews and AI Mode. Certain Google news and syndication products are partly within scope. The CMA plans to consult on possible targeted interventions later this year to ensure fair competition and consumer protection in the digital search market.

Companies should know that under the DMCC, the UK now has a digital regime under which it may impose individually tailored conduct requirements on large tech platforms.

CMA Confirms Designation of Apple and Google with SMS in Mobile Platforms
On October 22, 2025, the CMA confirmed the designation of Apple and Google with SMS for their mobile platforms, covering operating systems, app distribution, browsers, and browser engines on smartphones and tablets.

The CMA “confirmed Apple and Google both have substantial, entrenched market power and a position of strategic significance in their respective mobile platforms.” For each of Apple and Google, the SMS designation captures each of the mobile operating systems (in Apple’s case including the tablet OS), native app distribution, and the mobile browser and browser engine. At this stage the CMA has not included either party’s mobile devices within the SMS designation, with the CMA’s focus being ensuring the ability for providers of apps and services through the mobile platforms to be in a position to compete effectively with Apple and Google provided services.

This SMS designation does not imply wrongdoing or impose immediate obligations but allows the CMA to consider measures ensuring fair competition and treatment of users and businesses. The CMA plans to consult on possible targeted interventions later this year to ensure fair competition for businesses providing services via Apple’s and Google’s mobile platforms.

Companies should know that under the DMCC, the UK now has a digital regime under which it may impose individually tailored conduct requirements on large tech platforms.

Poland Discloses Algorithmic Pricing Investigations
On September 8, 2025, the president of Poland’s antitrust authority UOKiK confirmed it is investigating instances of potential collusion via algorithmic pricing tools in the banking and pharmaceutical sectors. UOKiK’s president stated in an interview that banks may be using algorithms fed by data from Poland’s largest credit risk database as well as from internal sources to coordinate pricing in consumer loans and mortgage markets. In the pharma sector, UOKiK suspects three major wholesalers (controlling 80 percent of the market) of using IT systems to monitor drug prices and volumes sold in affiliated pharmacies. UOKiK did not provide names of the potential actors or details about the alleged anticompetitive conduct.

Companies should know that competition agencies in Europe are closely scrutinizing the use of pricing algorithms.

Ribera Explains Vision of “Soft” Antitrust Enforcement in Florence Speech
On September 12, 2025, EC Commissioner Teresa Ribera outlined the EC’s evolving competition policy at the International Bar Association conference in Florence. Amid global geopolitical shifts, technological disruption, and supply chain challenges, she emphasized the need for agile, values-based enforcement. Ribera highlighted a dual-track enforcement strategy: combining “hard” tools like fines and structural remedies with “soft” tools such as regulatory dialogues, guidance letters, and commitments. She pointed to the Microsoft Teams case as a model for fast, cooperative digital enforcement.

Ribera also cited recent “hard” actions, including a €2.95 billion (approximately US$3.2 billion) fine against Google for alleged abuses in adtech, and €329 million (approximately US$357 million) against Delivery Hero and Glovo for no-poach agreements. Ribera stressed that modern competition policy must also support broader EU goals, from green industrial transformation to housing affordability. The EC currently has active reviews of the merger guidelines and recently introduced rulebooks like the DMA and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation to ensure they remain effective and aligned with current challenges.

Earlier this year, CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell defined four “Ps” as principles guiding the CMA’s competition enforcement work: pace, predictability, proportionality, and process. On September 5, 2025, Ribera enunciated her own take on this using four “Fs”: “We will continue to apply our rules firmly and fairly, without fear or favour, in relation to all companies operating in Europe.” 

Companies may expect a more nuanced form of enforcement from the EC, where deterrence through fines is complemented by collaborative tools aimed at faster resolution.

Advocate General Opinion Backs Email Seizures
On October 23, 2025, Advocate General (AG) Laila Medina delivered her Opinion to the ECJ in Joined Cases C-258/23 Imagens Médicas Integradas, C-259/23 Synlabhealth II and C-260/23 SIBS/Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and Others. She concluded that NCAs may seize business emails during investigations without prior judicial authorization, provided adequate procedural safeguards and subsequent judicial review are ensured.

The Opinion follows a reference for a preliminary ruling from Portuguese courts concerning the legality of email seizures authorized by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in competition investigations. The companies involved argued that such authorization should have come from an investigating judge due to the right to secrecy of correspondence. The AG found that these inspections concern business information of legal entities rather than private individuals and therefore differ from cases involving access to personal data in criminal proceedings. She noted that proportionality is respected where procedural guarantees and later judicial oversight are in place, and that prior judicial authorization is generally required only for searches of private residences or cases targeting natural persons.

EU Member States may nonetheless choose to require prior judicial approval for such inspections. The AG’s Opinion is not binding, and the ECJ will issue its judgment at a later date.

Companies should ensure that they have appropriate guidance/training for employees on how to conduct themselves in the case of an inspection by a competition authority and that employees are familiar with company policies on both work and personal devices.

UK CMA Updates Cartel Leniency, Mergers Guidances
On October 28, 2025, the CMA published a new guidance for leniency and no-action applications in cartel cases as well as an updated version of the CMA’s mergers guidance on jurisdiction and procedure (CMA2), the mergers notice template, and the CMA’s mergers intelligence function. All guidances are effective immediately.

The CMA’s new guidance for leniency applications in cartel cases is noticeably stricter in some points. Only those who apply for leniency before the CMA begins a cartel investigation will be guaranteed full immunity from i) penalties, ii) director disqualification, iii) criminal prosecution, and iv) exclusion from public contracts. In contrast, companies that are the first to apply for leniency after the CMA has initiated an investigation are unlikely to receive penalty reductions above 75 percent. The CMA now has discretion whether to grant protection against director disqualification to directors of companies who apply for leniency after the CMA has initiated an investigation, whereas before this was an automatic benefit of applying.

The updated mergers guidance was the subject of a public consultation launched in June 2025. It seeks to build on the substantial changes to the CMA’s Phase 2 procedure introduced in 2024 and further embed the CMA’s 4Ps (pace, predictability, process, and proportionality) into the UK’s merger control regime, including in pre-notification and Phase 1 for instance by formalizing key performance objectives, such as a 40-working-day pre-notification performance goal in “qualifying cases”, as well as a 25-working-day target for “straightforward” clearance decisions. Further, the CMA has also published its much anticipated consultation on a revised merger remedies guidance demonstrating the CMA’s increased willingness to accept behavioral remedies and, under certain circumstances, even only partially effective remedies as it seeks to achieve proportionate outcomes.

It remains to be seen to what extent the CMA will take a backseat for global transactions where merger reviews in other jurisdictions would be likely to address any competition concerns in the UK. However, absent clear guidance, this approach still carries significant uncertainty for dealmakers as to whether the CMA will engage late in the transaction, if reviews in other jurisdictions do not resolve concerns to its satisfaction.

Companies should know that the CMA is raising the thresholds for companies to benefit from leniency in cartel cases to encourage early engagement. The CMA is continuing its efforts to improve the pace of merger reviews including the prenotification phase as well as achieve proportionate outcomes by showing a greater openness to behavioral remedies in merger investigations.

EC Consults on Revised Rules for Technology Transfer Agreements
On September 11, 2025, the EC opened  a public consultation on draft revisions to the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) and its accompanying guidelines. The revisions aim to reflect market changes, recent case law, and provide greater legal certainty for companies licensing intellectual property such as patents or copyrighted software. 

Key proposed updates include clearer rules on market share thresholds, revised guidance on technology pools and Licensing Negotiation Groups (LNGs), and new sections on data licensing. Stakeholders had until October 23, 2025, to submit comments. Final rules are expected before the current TTBER expires on April 30, 2026.

Companies should note that the EC is adapting competition rules for IP and data licensing to reflect evolving digital markets. As collaborative models like technology pools and LNGs grow in prominence, ensuring compliance with Article 101 remains a core enforcement priority.

CMA Publishes Final Recommendation to the Secretary of State on the Assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption
On September 30, 2025, the CMA published its final recommendation on the future of the assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER). Following its exit from the EU, the UK assimilated the TTBER into UK law. With TTBER due to expire on April 30, 2026, the CMA undertook a consultation to guide its recommendations to the UK Government on whether, and in what form, to introduce an equivalent block exemption for specified types of technology transfer agreements into UK law.

The CMA has recommended the renewal of the TTBER in UK law for a period of 12 years on broadly the same terms as currently in force. The CMA has recommended certain minor variations that impact precisely how the new TTBER would operate. More notably, the CMA has recommended the inclusion of explicit investigative powers to consider whether the benefit of the TTBER should be removed from specific agreements.

The UK recognizes that licensing of technology rights is often procompetitive and can significantly benefit innovation, investment, and growth.