Q3 2025  

We are excited to share the latest edition of the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly, a publication designed to provide a summary of key cartel¹ enforcement trends across the U.S., Europe, and beyond.

In this edition we examine the key developments in Q3 2025 and lay out our expectations for what the remainder of 2025 is likely to look like in the area of cartel enforcement.

For any questions or suggestions please contact Brent Snyder, Jeff VanHooreweghe, Jindrich Kloub, or any other member of the antitrust practice at Wilson Sonsini.

In the U.S., the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced its first Whistleblower Rewards Program, which is designed to incentivize individuals to report antitrust or related crimes with the possibility of a monetary reward. Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Omeed Assefi outlined the Division's priorities and plans for future criminal antitrust enforcement, including prioritizing cost of living issues that affect American consumers. Also, during this quarter, the DOJ continued to focus on prosecuting collusion around government contracting, securing several guilty pleas and indictments. 

In the EU, cartel enforcement remains active and increasingly diverse in focus. Traditional price-fixing and bid-rigging cases stayed low, while nontraditional collusion (e.g., HR agreements, information exchange, and structural links like minority stakes) are increasingly attracting scrutiny. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also signaled stronger scrutiny of recruitment practices through guidance targeting no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. The European Commission (EC) issued its first-ever fine for the provision of incomplete information during an antitrust probe, signaling more procedural enforcement alongside substantive investigations.

Beyond Europe, global cartel enforcement continues to evolve, with authorities expanding the scope of enforcement and intensifying scrutiny across sectors. Brazil updated its leniency program to cover labor market conduct and sensitive information exchanges, while Australia and South Korea targeted exclusionary and price-fixing practices in industrial markets. Meanwhile, Hong Kong's investigation into suspected collusion in pool services underscores increased attention to anticompetitive conduct in everyday consumer sectors.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi Discusses Future of Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
At a fireside chat hosted by Cardozo School of Law on September 16, 2025, DAAG Assefi provided insight into the Antitrust Division's future criminal enforcement plans, such as continuing to investigate and prosecute conduct affecting public entities through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), pursuing cartel cases tied to the use of algorithms, and investigating labor market collusion. He stated that the number one priority of Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Abigail Slater are cost of living issues that affect everyday Americans—"kitchen table issues"—such as healthcare and housing. He also touted the Antitrust Division's new Whistleblower Rewards Program, which is designed to incentivize individuals to report anticompetitive conduct. DAAG Assefi emphasized that the Division's prosecutors will continue seeking to incarcerate individuals to deter criminal conduct and back away from offering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. He cautioned defense counsel against having certain expectations of how their clients and companies should be treated by the Antitrust Division and noted that invoking collateral consequences will not be a "shield" against enforcement. He said the Antitrust Division is willing to listen and work with defense counsel, but defense counsel need to "meet the Division halfway." He also indicated that the DOJ is planning to make material changes to the Antitrust Division's leniency program and remarked that immunity recipients "should have to further the case from an evidentiary perspective." 

The Antitrust Division has indicated a willingness to pursue the greatest allowable penalties associated with antitrust violations. We recommend that clients update antitrust compliance policies and ensure employees receive adequate training.

Antitrust Division Announces First Whistleblower Rewards Program
In July 2025, the Antitrust Division announced the Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Program in partnership with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG). The first of its kind for the Antitrust Division, the new program is designed to incentivize individuals to report antitrust crimes in exchange for monetary rewards. Reporting individuals may receive a monetary award of up to 30 percent of recovered criminal fines if they satisfy the conditions outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between the DOJ, USPS, and USPS OIG. In particular, individuals must voluntarily provide original, high-value information that ultimately results in prosecution of an eligible crime that affects the USPS. Regarding the latter, DOJ officials have pointed out that the USPS has broad jurisdiction so individuals should not hesitate to report information. Eligible crimes include criminal violations of the Sherman Act and related conduct, crimes affecting government procurement, and obstruction of federal investigations. Moreover, for the whistleblower to be eligible for a reward, their information must result in a criminal fine of at least $1 million, or an equivalent recovery from a non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreement. While this program expands incentives for individual reporting, individuals must offer information before receiving a subpoena and cannot offer information subject to an employer's leniency application. A DOJ official recently noted that individuals have already come forward with information under the new program.

Ninth Circuit Clarifies the Antitrust Risk of Pricing Algorithms
On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil action alleging that the joint use of pricing algorithms by competitors violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. DOJ had intervened in support of the claim. The plaintiffs in Gibson v. Cendyn Group alleged that certain Las Vegas hotels, an asset management company, and a revenue management software provider (Cendyn Group) engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy by agreeing to use the same algorithmic pricing software to set hotel room rates. The Nevada district court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege a tacit agreement between the hotels to raise prices for hotel rooms by all using the same revenue management software. After the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ filed an amicus brief arguing that "an agreement among competitors to use certain pricing algorithms to generate default or starting-point prices is per se illegal even if there is no further agreement on final prices." The DOJ took the position that "per se unlawful horizontal price fixing includes concerted action among competitors to use a common entity's pricing algorithm to set default or starting-point prices." In affirming the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit held that independently subscribing to a pricing algorithm alone does not constitute the requisite "restraint of trade" under the antitrust laws, even when the subscriber knows that its competitors are using the same algorithm. 

On September 29, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On October 16, 2025, the court ordered the defendants to respond to this petition. Defendants submitted a response on November 6, arguing against a rehearing. 

While the claim was dismissed, this case highlights potential antitrust risks around a company's use of algorithmic pricing software and revenue management tools. There are many algorithmic price-fixing cases across the federal courts, including those that have surpassed the motion to dismiss phase. The DOJ Antitrust Division has a civil case against RealPage and other property companies that is pending. 

DOJ Prosecution of Seafood Executive Highlights Priority “Kitchen Table” Issues
In public remarks, DOJ officials, including AAG Abigail Slater, have emphasized that the DOJ is prioritizing "kitchen table issues" that affect the cost of living for everyday Americans. As an example, on September 16, 2025, an executive of a Miami-based seafood wholesaler pleaded guilty to participating in a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The executive and at least four other individuals and their companies allegedly agreed to fix the prices paid to fishermen for stone crab claws and spiny lobster. According to the plea agreement, the seafood wholesaler's vice president, Dennis Dopico, exchanged text messages and calls with rivals coordinating price levels and agreeing to match and adjust payments to fishermen as harvest seasons progressed. One such text message said, "[l]et me know what you do. I am matching your prices. It's the one we like the most." According to the DOJ, Dopico's conduct affected roughly $8 million in commerce. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 5, 2026. 

Continued Criminal Antitrust Enforcement in Government Procurement
The DOJ continues to prioritize investigation and prosecution of Sherman Act violations affecting public entities under the direction of the Antitrust Division's Procurement Collusion Strike Force.

In March 2025, two individuals and their companies pleaded guilty to rigging bids submitted to dozens of New York City public schools between November 2020 and January 2023 for services contracted by the New York Department of Education. On July 31, 2025, one company was sentenced to pay an $80,000 fine, while its owner was sentenced to pay a $20,000 fine, pay $35,316.70 plus additional penalties to the New York Department of Labor, and serve three years of supervised release. On August 19, 2025, the other defendant was sentenced to six months in prison. The owner and his company were ordered to pay $141,511 in restitution to the New York City Department of Education and $23,100 in restitution to the New York State Department of Labor for fraudulently obtaining unemployment benefits.

On August 21, 2025, two Denver-area companies and their executives were indicted for defrauding the federal government on sales of forklifts and conspiring to avoid paying proper tariffs on forklifts imported into the U.S. According to the indictment, the companies and executives allegedly conspired to import forklifts from China, disguise the Chinese origin of the forklifts, and then sell the forklifts to federal government agencies by fraudulently representing that the forklifts were manufactured in the U.S. The indictment also alleges that the defendants conspired with a Chinese national and a Chinese manufacturer to create fake invoices that undervalued the cost of forklifts that the defendant companies imported into the U.S., thereby defrauding the federal government of over $1 million in tariffs, duties, and fees. The DOJ also brought charges of wire fraud and making false statements to the government.

On July 9, 2025, the DOJ charged an executive, Timothy J. Leiweke, the Co-Founder and CEO of Oak View Group (OVG), in connection with Mr. Leiweke's alleged agreement with another company's executive to rig the main contracting bid for the construction of Moody Center, a 15,000 seat sports and concert arena, for the University of Texas. The indictment alleges that the OVG executive incentivized its main competitor, Legends Hospitality, to back down from submitting a main contract bid in exchange for subcontracts.
Legends had taken steps to show it was interested in the main contracting bid (talking to the customer and discussing partnerships with other companies), but Legends allegedly agreed to "st[and] down from bidding … based on a commitment and representation from [OVG] (both written and verbal) that Legends would receive the Premium Seating and F&B business for the project." 

Leiweke ultimately did not offer sub-contracts to Legends, so Legends attempted but failed to win business for the sub-contracts directly with the university. Despite not ultimately getting any business related to the project, Legends was still investigated for agreeing to rig the main contract bid. 

In June 2025, Legends and OVG both entered into non-prosecution agreements with the Antitrust Division, agreeing to pay $15 million (OVG) and $1.5 million (Legends) in penalties.

DOJ Partners with USDA to Protect Competition in Agricultural Inputs
In September 2025, The DOJ's Antitrust Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a Memorandum of Understanding formalizing a partnership to protect competition in key agricultural markets such as feed, fertilizer, fuel, seed, equipment, and other essential goods. This partnership strengthens longstanding coordination between the agencies with a particular focus on ensuring farmers and ranchers have competitive access to agricultural inputs. According to AAG Abigail Slater, "Antitrust enforcement ensures free market competition for agricultural inputs, lowering costs for farmers and prices for consumers."

Antitrust Enforcers Monitoring Social Media
Although no DOJ investigation has been confirmed, the founder of Nox Metals voiced on social media platform X his concerns that an aluminum mill refused to sell to the start-up company because "it is hard for [the seller] to support" sales that may "compete against" their current customers. This garnered attention from Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who acknowledged seeing the complaint. Increasing Antitrust Division involvement on social media platforms may spur initiations of investigations into conduct that runs afoul of the Sherman Act.

We recommend clients and their employees remain diligent about employees using and sharing information on social media.

EU Court Judgment Warns of Rising Antitrust Risks from Public Communications
On July 9, 2025, the judgment of the EU’s court of first instance, the General Court (GC), in Michelin v Commission (Case T-188/24) highlighted that antitrust enforcement is increasingly targeting public communications, such as earnings calls and investor presentations, when these are used to reduce market uncertainty or to signal future pricing strategies.

The GC confirmed the EC’s use of advanced data analytics to screen vast amounts of public disclosures for potential price signaling, indicating a shift towards scrutinizing not only secret exchanges but also information shared publicly that may facilitate coordination among competitors.

This judgment emphasizes that public statements with strategic value for competitors, especially those lacking practical benefit to customers, can trigger antitrust concerns.

This judgment signals that transparency requirements do not exempt public communications from antitrust scrutiny, especially where disclosures may enable competitors to coordinate market behavior. Companies should know that the EC is actively monitoring companies' public statements, including on earnings calls with investors, to analyze them using AI tools for signs of collusion.

EU Court Reduces Credit Suisse Forex Cartel Fine Due to Calculation Error
On July 23, 2025, the EU’s General Court (GC) announced its decision in the long-running case concerning Credit Suisse’s involvement in a cartel in the Foreign Exchange (FOREX) spot trading market. While the GC confirmed the EC’s finding that Credit Suisse took part in the anticompetitive agreement, it reduced the fine from €83.2 million (approximately US$97.6 million) to €28.9 million (approximately US$33.9 million) due to the EC applying the wrong methodology in calculating the fine.

The infringement concerned coordinated practices among traders at 5 major banks between 2011 and 2012, exchanged commercially sensitive information in an online chatroom known as “Sterling Lads.” This exchange enabled informed coordination on trading decisions, reducing uncertainty and undermining competition in the trading of G10 currencies.

Unlike the other four banks, which settled the case (with UBS receiving full immunity), Credit Suisse contested the EC’s case and was fined separately.

Credit Suisse, now under UBS Group AG, sought annulment or at least a reduction of the fine. The GC dismissed the plea to annul the EC’s findings of infringement but held that the EC had erred in its calculation of the fine. The GC found that the EC used less complete and reliable sales data than what Credit Suisse had provided during the administrative procedure, in breach of the GC’s own guidelines on the method of setting fines.

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.

EU Court Clarifies When Limitation Period Starts for Antitrust Damages Claim
On September 4, 2025, the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), ruled in CP v Nissan Iberia (Case C-21/24) that the limitation period for antitrust damages claims based on contested national competition authority (NCA) decisions begins only once those decisions become final. The case arose after Spain’s competition authority (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 an 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 information necessary to bring damages claims until the decision’s findings are definitive and no longer subject to appeal.

The ECJ emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the EU 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.

EC Fines Two Companies for Providing Incomplete Information in Synthetic Turf Antitrust Investigation
On September 8, 2025, the EC fined Eurofield SAS and its former parent company, Unanime Sport SAS, a total of around €172,000 (approximately US$201,800) for providing an incomplete reply to a formal request for information during an ongoing antitrust investigation in the synthetic turf sector.

The EC initially contacted Eurofield in June 2023 as part of its investigation. After identifying discrepancies between the company’s voluntary response and documents collected during inspections, the EC issued a formal request under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 in October 2023. Despite this, Eurofield’s response remained incomplete.

Following the opening of a procedural investigation in November 2024, both companies acknowledged their liability, submitted the missing documents, and cooperated with the EC, resulting in a 30 percent reduction of the fine.

This marks the first time the EC has imposed a fine under Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003 for the provision of incomplete information in response to a request under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003. The broader investigation into the synthetic turf sector remains ongoing.

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

Danish Competition Authority Fines Hotel for Illegal Market Sharing in Kiosk Sales
On July 1, 2025, the Danish Competition Authority fined Hotel Himmelbjerget DKK250,000 (approximately US$39,300) for engaging in an illegal market-sharing agreement in kiosk sales at Himmelbjerget.

For over 25 years, Hotel Himmelbjerget’s Bjergkiosken and competitor Ugleboden agreed to divide the market, Bjergkiosken exclusively selling food and beverages, and Ugleboden exclusively selling souvenirs. This cartel infringed Denmark’s competition law by restricting competition between the kiosks from at least 1997 until early 2023.

Hotel Himmelbjerget admitted the violation and accepted the fine, while the Committee for the Preservation of Monuments at Himmelbjerget, owner of Ugleboden, received full immunity under leniency rules.

The decision highlights that long-term market-sharing agreements constitute serious breaches of competition law and result in financial penalties to protect market integrity, even when the implicated markets appear to be minor.

Italy Investigates Dolomiti SuperSki for Alleged Price-Fixing and Sales Restrictions
On July 9, 2025, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) launched an investigation into Federconsorzio Dolomiti SuperSki and 12 participating local consortia over suspected anticompetitive practices in the ski lift and skipass market. The ICA suspects the parties of coordinating skipass prices and restricting sales channels, in possible breach of national and EU competition rules.

The investigation focuses on provisions in Federconsorzio’s by-laws that allegedly fixed local skipass prices and limited the ability of individual consortia to sell through third-party channels. The ICA stated that it had conducted inspections at the premises of all involved entities.

European competition authorities continue to target cartels involving price fixing, market allocation, and information exchange. Companies should ensure their compliance policies are up to date and effective.

UK CMA Accepts £100 Million Commitment from Housebuilders in Information Sharing Case
On July 9, 2025, the UK CMA announced its intention to accept commitments from seven major housebuilders under investigation for suspected anticompetitive information sharing between January 2022 and February 2024.

The suspected exchanges involved sensitive data such as house prices, buyer incentives, and property viewing figures. The proposed commitments include restrictions on sharing commercially sensitive information, a £100 million (approximately US$134 million) financial contribution to affordable housing programs, enhanced compliance measures, and industry guidance on information exchange. The commitments are subject to final approval by the CMA following a public consultation. If accepted, the investigation will close without a formal finding of infringement or fines, marking a notable shift from the CMA’s usual approach of imposing penalties. This move aligns with the UK Government’s pro-growth agenda and housing supply goals.

Companies should be aware that sharing competitively sensitive information carries a high risk in Europe leading to high fines and possible follow-on damage claims.

Polish Authority Charges Transport Firms over Labor Market Collusion
On July 14, 2025, the President of the Polish Competition Authority (UOKiK) announced formal charges against Jeronimo Martins Polska, owner of the Biedronka retail chain, alongside 32 transport companies and eight individuals, for allegedly entering into a no-poach agreement that restricted competition in the labor market.

The suspected conduct involved coordinating to prevent drivers from switching employers between transport companies serving the same Biedronka distribution centers. The companies allegedly agreed to block employment applications from drivers who had previously worked for rival contractors, effectively limiting job mobility and wage competition. UOKiK believes this may have amounted to a market-sharing arrangement in the employment context, infringing both national and EU competition rules.

Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under Polish and EU competition law and that antitrust regulators in Europe are increasingly targeting employee no-poach agreements. Companies should review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date, effective, and appropriately focus on risks arising out of improper information sharing, including among HR professionals.

Czech Competition Authority (CCA) Reimposes Fines on Meal Voucher Issuers for Horizontal Agreement
On August 5, 2025, the CCA reimposed fines totaling approximately CZK250 million (approximately US$12 million) on three meal voucher issuers—Pluxee, Edenred, and Up—for engaging in a horizontal agreement restricting competition in the voucher services sector. Between 2004 and 2018, the companies allegedly agreed to restrict the use of paper meal vouchers by limiting customers to a maximum of five vouchers per single purchase in retail chains.

This concerted practice was found to distort competition in the market for issuance, sale, and repurchase of paper meal vouchers and related services in the Czech Republic and capable of affecting trade between EU Member States.

The CCA issued its decision reaffirming the fines and specifying the grounds for their imposition following an appeal to the CCA’s Chairman, who had upheld the original ruling on the merits. The decision is currently under review by the Regional Court in Brno.

The CCA’s decision confirms its vigilance against coordination on pricing and market terms among competitors in service markets.

Norwegian Court Upholds Price Surveillance Fines Against Supermarkets
On August 21, 2025, the Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA) announced that the Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal (NCT) had upheld its decision (in Norwegian) which fined grocery market players Coop, Norgesgruppen, and Rema 1000 for violating the Norwegian Competition Act by agreeing to grant each other extensive access to pricing information through so-called “price hunters.”

From January 2011 and up until the NCA’s unannounced inspections in April 2018, the companies’ price hunting activities increased so that the chains could receive updates on competitor current prices several times a day. The chains used the price information to test whether competitors would participate in price increases, in turn making it possible for the chains to initiate price hikes with limited risk.

The NCA imposed fines totaling NOK 4.9 billion (approximately €413 million/US$480 million) on the three grocery chains, which now have been confirmed. The chains are also required to cease the cooperation as well as any cooperation with similar effects.

Companies should be aware that sharing competitively sensitive information carries a high risk in Europe leading to high fines and possible follow-on damage claims.

Poland’s Probes Algorithmic Pricing in Banking and Pharma
On September 8, 2025, the president of Poland’s competition authority UOKiK confirmed investigations into the use of algorithmic pricing in the banking and pharmaceutical sectors. In banking, the probe concerns whether algorithms using shared credit data enabled collusion in consumer loan and mortgage pricing. The president stated that UOKiK is also probing major pharmaceutical wholesalers over IT systems that track drug prices and volumes, raising concerns about anticompetitive practices.

Companies must ensure pricing algorithms do not enable indirect coordination or data sharing that could breach competition law.

UK CMA Issues Guidance on Recruitment and HR Practices Under Competition Law
On September 9, 2025, the CMA published new guidance titled Competing for Talent, aimed at HR professionals to clarify how competition law applies to recruitment and human resources processes.

The guidance highlights three key anticompetitive practices that constitute serious infringements under UK competition law:

• No-poaching agreements: Formal or informal agreements between businesses to avoid recruiting each other’s employees.
  
• Wage-fixing: Agreements to fix or cap wages, pay increases, or employment terms.
  
• Exchange of competitively sensitive information: Sharing nonpublic or future pay and employment-related information that could restrict competition.

The CMA clarifies that while some benchmarking and collective bargaining activities are lawful, companies must avoid exchanging competitively sensitive information or engaging in wage-fixing or no-poach arrangements.

This publication reflects the CMA’s ongoing focus on labor market competition, supported by recent enforcement actions and anticipated legislative reforms targeting restrictive employment practices.

Italy Fines Major Oil Companies over €936 Million for Price-Fixing
On September 26, 2025, the ICA imposed fines totaling over €936 million (approximately US$1.1 billion) on six major oil companies for allegedly participating in an anticompetitive agreement to coordinate the value of the bio component included in motor fuel prices.

After receiving a whistleblower complaint, the ICA launched an investigation and found that, between January 2020 and June 2023, the companies coordinated to raise the cost of the biofuel component included in fuel prices. This component, required by law for environmental compliance, became a target for alignment. The companies allegedly exchanged sensitive pricing information and applied similar increases. One company reportedly further reinforced the coordination by regularly sending pricing data to the industry journal Staffetta Quotidiana, which published the bio component values and made them visible to the market.

Companies should exercise caution when pricing regulated components or using public disclosures that may facilitate coordination.

UK Tribunal Orders Nexans to Pay Damages in Power Cables Cartel Case
On October 13, 2025, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that Nexans must pay damages to London Array for overcharging on export power cables as part of the EU power cables cartel. The CAT found a five percent overcharge but rejected claims relating to inter-array cables due to insufficient evidence.

The case follows the EC’s 2014 decision fining 11 manufacturers €302 million (approximately US$351 million) for market sharing, including €70.7 million (approximately US$ 82.2 million) for Nexans. The CAT held that the cartel distorted London Array’s tender process and inflated prices. The final damages amount will be determined after resolving pass-on issues.

Companies should be aware that cartel findings can lead to significant follow-on damages actions, extending liability beyond regulatory fines.

UK CMA Tightens Its Cartel Leniency Rules
On October 28, 2025, the CMA updated its cartel leniency guidance to strengthen incentives for companies and individuals to self-report cartel conduct.

Under the revised guidance, full immunity from fines, criminal prosecution, director disqualification, public contract exclusion, and debarment is now guaranteed only to the first applicant who reports a cartel before the CMA opens an investigation. Applicants who come forward after an investigation has begun may still receive reductions in fines and protection from director disqualification, but these benefits are subject to the CMA’s discretion and are unlikely to exceed a 75 percent reduction.

The CMA also broadened the definition of “cartel activity” to include a wider range of anticompetitive conduct, such as no-poach agreements, pay-for-delay arrangements, anticompetitive information exchanges (including those facilitated through algorithms or digital platforms), and certain forms of sustainability collaboration.

In addition, the CMA introduced a new online leniency application system and removed the requirement for applicants to make a formal confession at the outset. A formal admission will only be required once a leniency agreement is finalized, typically just before the CMA issues its statement of objections.

Companies that suspect potential cartel activity should seek legal advice without delay. Hesitation could result in loss of leniency eligibility and significantly increase risks in terms of financial, criminal, and reputational exposure.

Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC) Raids Swimming Pool Service Providers over Anticompetitive Conduct
On July 8, 2025, the HKCC conducted unannounced inspections at 12 premises, including the offices of several swimming pool service providers and residences of seven individuals. The companies are suspected of engaging in bid-rigging, price-fixing, market sharing, and exchanging competitively sensitive information in relation to quotations for private swimming pool services valued at over HK$30 million (approximately US$3.8 million), in breach of the First Conduct Rule under the Competition Ordinance.

The investigation follows complaints alleging anticompetitive conduct in the supply of swimming pool maintenance, equipment, and lifeguard services.

The HKCC remains resolute in prioritizing enforcement against cartels that affect everyday life, underscoring the importance of compliance and transparency in service contracts to avoid antitrust risks.

South Korea Fines Four Companies for Stainless Steel Wire Rod Price Fixing
On July 21, 2025, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) fined four stainless steel wire rod producers—DSR, Manho Rope & Wire, Seah Metal, and Hankuk Steel Wire—about KRW3.4 billion (approximately US$2.4 million) for colluding to raise prices from September 2020 to February 2022.

The companies held seven meetings to coordinate price increases in response to rising raw material costs, resulting in price hikes of 20 percent to 37 percent. They officially notified customers of the price increases and agreed not to compete on price.

This case arose from previous investigations into related steel wire and wire rope price-fixing and bid-rigging cases, showing the KFTC’s strong stance against anticompetitive conduct in intermediate goods markets.

The KFTC stated that it plans to strengthen monitoring of collusion involving intermediate goods, which have a significant ripple effect across industries, and will take strict action against any violations of the law to ensure healthier competition and protect the economy’s integrity.

Singapore Fines Remittance Services for Information Exchanges
On July 31, 2025, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) announced that it had fined two Chinese Yuan remittance services providers a total of S$5.36 million (approximately US$4.1 million) for exchanging pricing information between at least January 2016 and February 2022. The remittance service providers informed each other about indicative published outward Yuan exchange rates and actual exchange rates applied in customer transactions, using a mix of verbal exchanges, exchanges of notes, and phone calls.

Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under Singaporean competition law. Companies are advised to review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date and effective.

Brazil Updates Antitrust Leniency Program Guidelines
On September 3, 2025, Brazil’s CADE published its updated Antitrust Leniency Program Guidelines, aiming to enhance transparency and efficiency in cartel investigations.

Key changes include broadening leniency to wage-fixing, no-poach agreements, buyers’ cartels, and sensitive information exchanges; clarifying partial leniency rules; and enabling joint actions with other government bodies in bid-rigging cases. The guidelines also introduce optional preliminary contacts and faster negotiation processes.

Brazil developed these guidelines through extensive consultation to strengthen its antitrust enforcement framework.

Companies must stay vigilant as leniency programs broaden their scope beyond traditional cartels, especially regarding labor market practices and information sharing. Proactive compliance and early engagement with authorities can mitigate risks and foster a healthier competitive environment.

Australian Regulator Sues Crane Companies over Supply Refusal
On September 3, 2025, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced legal proceedings against four mobile crane companies accused of entering into an agreement to refuse supply to certain customers. The ACCC alleges this conduct constitutes an anticompetitive exclusionary practice, restricting access to the market and harming competition.

Companies must avoid agreements that limit supply or restrict customer access, as competition authorities are increasingly vigilant against such exclusionary conduct. Both companies and individuals can face significant penalties for involvement in anticompetitive practices.

Footnotes

¹While "cartel" under competition law is typically reserved for competitor collusion to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets, the legal framework around what constitutes a "cartel" is expanding. Any company seeking to collaborate with another company should be mindful of this legal framework. Our aim is to provide practical guidance to help prevent company collaborations from crossing the line into improper collusion.