Q4 2025/Q1 2026   

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 Q4 2025 and lay out our view of what has developed in Q1 2026 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 last quarter of 2025 saw more cartel enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division in the areas of government procurement, algorithmic pricing, and labor markets. The new year brought the Antitrust Division’s first payment to an individual under its new Whistleblower Rewards Program. In February 2026, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly announced a public inquiry seeking input on potential additional guidance on competitor collaborations. There were also significant personnel changes at the Antitrust Division, including the resignation of Assistant Attorney General (AG) Abigail Slater in February. Omeed Assefi, who was the Deputy Assistant AGl for the Antitrust Division, is currently Acting Assistant AG. For the first half of 2026, we expect the Antitrust Division under Acting Assistant AG Assefi’s leadership to continue to prioritize the investigation and criminal prosecution of procurement fraud and other anticompetitive conduct that impacts the U.S. government and American consumers. In recent public remarks, Acting Assistant AG Assefi emphasized the Division’s "aggressive enforcement" policy with respect to antitrust crimes.²

In Europe, cartel enforcement remained active across both EU and national competition authorities, targeting traditional price fixing and bid rigging alongside non-traditional coordination, including information exchanges, restrictive access arrangements and labor-market conduct, notably in Italy, Romania, and the Netherlands. Cases spanned sectors such as financial market infrastructure, energy, healthcare and transport, with authorities relying on dawn raids, leniency applications and, in some jurisdictions such as Ireland, criminal prosecution of individuals.

Beyond Europe, enforcement also remained robust, with authorities in Chile, Brazil, Malaysia, and South Korea pursuing cartel conduct in public procurement, digital platforms, financial services, and consumer-facing markets, and continuing to impose significant fines while increasing scrutiny of information exchanges, coordinated bidding, and market allocation.

Algorithmic Pricing
The last quarter of 2025 saw two notable case developments highlighting the DOJ's continued scrutiny of companies using revenue management software and algorithms to determine pricing.

In November 2025, the DOJ filed a proposed settlement to resolve its antitrust claims against revenue management software company RealPage, Inc. related to certain of its algorithmic rental pricing software products. RealPage did not admit to liability, but did agree to refrain from certain activities, including ensuring that its algorithms do not use competitors' nonpublic, competitively sensitive information to determine rental prices in runtime operation.

And on December 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc in a private class action accusing Las Vegas hotels of fixing prices of room rates by using revenue management software with the knowledge that competitors were using the same software³. The court let stand its decision that independently subscribing to revenue management software alone does not constitute the requisite "restraint of trade" under the antitrust laws, even when the subscriber knows its competitors are using the same pricing algorithms.

In any industry, companies should seek antitrust advice before using or supplying algorithms or revenue management software to inform pricing decisions, particularly when it uses competitor pricing or supply data.

Labor Markets
In November 2025, a healthcare executive, Eduardo Lopez, was sentenced to 40 months in prison and a $550,000 criminal fine after he was convicted of fixing the wages of home healthcare nurses in Las Vegas, Nevada. He was also ordered to forfeit over $10 million in proceeds from the sale of his company and pay $2.5 million in restitution to the buyer for fraudulently concealing the DOJ’s investigation during the sale. Lopez’s conviction was the Antitrust Division’s first successful criminal prosecution for wage fixing.

Procurement Collusion
Last quarter saw more enforcement activity from the Antitrust Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF). The PCSF is a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant, and program funding at all levels of government–federal, state, and local.

On December 17, 2025, the president of a North Carolina construction company, Brett Sanborn, pleaded guilty to rigging bids for the sale of goods and services for U.S. military bases. According to the plea agreement, Sanborn and his co-conspirators coordinated bids submitted to the Defense Logistics Agency by agreeing in advance which competitor would submit the lowest bid to win the contract, and which competitors would submit “comp” bids.

The DOJ also filed a superseding indictment against the owner of two IT companies in Maryland, Victor Marquez, alleging that he rigged bids and received kickbacks for large U.S. government IT contracts. Marquez has also been charged with multiple counts of fraud in connection with the scheme. At the same time, two other individuals involved in the conspiracy pleaded guilty to conspiring to pay illegal kickbacks in return for steering contracts to his co-conspirators, who referred to the payments to Marquez as the “Vic tax.”

Also in December, Timothy Leiweke, the former CEO of Oak View Group who had been indicted for allegedly rigging the bid to build and operate a sports arena at the University of Texas at Austin, was pardoned by President Trump. The president issued an executive grant of clemency giving Leiweke a full and unconditional pardon, which is rare for an antitrust case. The DOJ dismissed the case.

Companies that submit bids for government contracts at the federal, state, or local level should avoid any appearance of coordinating with competitors regarding any component of a bid.

Trade Associations
In December 2025, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in Davis v. Hanna Holdings, Inc., a private lawsuit⁴ brought by homebuyers alleging that real estate brokerage firms entered into anticompetitive agreements to maintain inflated commission rates through their participation in a trade association. The DOJ argued that anticompetitive agreements may be found in the form of trade association rules—where the rule itself, combined with members’ agreement to abide by those rules, may constitute an agreement not to compete in violation of the Sherman Act or state antitrust laws. Members may demonstrate that they are abiding by the rules either by express consent (such as a members’ vote on a rule) or implied consent (adherence to a rule).

Also in December, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in a private lawsuit reaffirming its position that accreditation standards adopted by industry associations are subject to antitrust scrutiny. The lawsuit challenges accreditation standards and procedures of the American Veterinary Medication Association (AVMA). The DOJ argued that professional societies, like the AVMA, cannot use accreditation standards that have the effect of reducing competition by restricting the number of providers entering the profession. The DOJ took the position that accreditation standards are not exempt from federal antitrust laws regardless of accreditation requirements under state laws.

Companies should limit interactions with competitors to what is necessary in connection with a legitimate business collaboration. Employees should use caution at industry events, trade association meetings, or informal gatherings where competitors are present and avoid “side” conversations with competitors about business.

DOJ Initiatives
In November 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the DOJ to launch a price-fixing investigation into meatpacking companies for allegedly driving up beef prices, with a particular focus on foreign-owned companies for potentially artificially inflating prices and hurting food supply in the U.S. The Order directed the DOJ and FTC to investigate “potential price-fixing and other anti-competitive behavior that may be driving up the costs of goods such as meat, seeds, and fertilizer, especially by foreign companies.” In the past, the DOJ has looked into potential price fixing among U.S. producers in food industries, including beef, broiler chickens, and eggs, and antitrust enforcement in this sector continues to be a top priority for the current administration.

EU Court Clarifies Protection of Leniency Statements After File Transfers
On October 30, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in FL und KM Baugesellschaft (Case C-2/23) on the protection of leniency statements in the context of cartel investigations, once competition files are transferred to public prosecutors.

The CJEU confirmed that the confidentiality of leniency statements travels with the file. As a result, damages claimants are excluded from access. Criminal defendants may obtain access only where it is strictly necessary to exercise their defense rights and subject to overriding public interest considerations. The CJEU also clarified that only the leniency statement itself benefits from this heightened protection. Supporting documents and pre-existing evidence attached to the statement may, in principle, be disclosed.

The decision reinforces the confidentiality of leniency statements across proceedings, while signaling that companies must carefully structure cooperation materials, as annexes and supporting evidence may fall outside the protected sphere.

European Commission (EC) Opens Antitrust Investigation into Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq
On November 6, 2025, the EC opened a formal antitrust investigation into possible collusion between Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq in the listing, trading, and clearing of financial derivatives in the European Economic Area (EEA).

The EC is examining a long-running cooperation between Deutsche Börse’s Eurex and Nasdaq's Helsinki Stock Exchange dating back to 1999, under which the parties may have agreed not to compete. The suspected conduct includes possible allocation of demand, price coordination, and exchanges of commercially sensitive information, which could have reduced competitive pressure in derivatives markets. The investigation follows unannounced inspections carried out in September 2024.

The case illustrates the EC's strong focus on competition risks in financial market infrastructure. Companies should ensure that cooperation, non-compete arrangements and information exchanges do not restrict competition.

EC Fines Car Battery Manufacturers €72 Million for Cartel Participation
On December 15, 2025, the EC fined three car battery manufacturers and their trade association €72 million (approximately US$85.5 million). This marked its second cartel decision targeting the automobile industry in 2025, following an earlier decision on end-of-life vehicle recycling. The EC found that the manufacturers, with the assistance of the trade association, colluded to fix battery prices. They agreed to publish and use the cost of lead as a benchmark in negotiations with customers. Lead was identified as the most important input and cost factor for car batteries.

The cartel, which lasted from 2005 to 2017, was revealed by a whistleblower who benefited from leniency and was granted immunity from fines. The EC found that the coordination took place across the EEA and that the trade association played an active facilitating role, underlining that industry bodies can be held liable where they enable anticompetitive conduct among their members.

Companies and trade associations should ensure that industry practices, benchmarks, and publications do not facilitate coordination or standardization that restricts competition.

Irish Criminal Bid Rigging Case Jury Convicts Five Individuals
On November 3, 2025, a criminal jury trial opened before Dublin’s Central Criminal Court against five individuals accused of engaging in bid rigging in public procurement, following an investigation by the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC). The case concerned alleged collusive tendering in respect of publicly funded school transport services in Ireland’s southwest region between 2014 and 2016. The proceedings followed dawn raids carried out by the CCPC in 2016, with criminal charges subsequently brought in 2021, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

A few weeks later, on December 18, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict, welcomed by the CCPC. It found that the five individuals illegally exchanged information on tender bids, constituting criminal bid rigging. The individuals now face potential prison sentences of up to 10 years, with sentencing scheduled for March 23, 2026. This case is one of the very few criminal cartel jury convictions in Ireland since cartel conduct was criminalized in 1996.

The case underscores that criminal enforcement of antitrust rules remains a real and serious risk, particularly for bid rigging. Across jurisdictions, individuals may face personal criminal liability, including prison sentences, even years after the conduct.

Spanish High Court Annuls Tobacco Information Exchange Decision
On November 3, 2025, the Spanish National High Court annulled (in Spanish) the 2019 decision of the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC) imposing fines of approximately €58 million (approximately US$63 million) on Philip Morris Spain, Altadis, JT International, and their distributor Logista for an alleged information exchange infringement. The Spanish High Court held that the data exchanged concerned non-strategic sales volume information that was not capable of influencing competitive behavior.

The Spanish High Court found that the CNMC failed to demonstrate a sufficient causal link between the information exchange and any restrictive effects on competition and did not support its findings with a coherent economic and counterfactual analysis. As a result, the decision was annulled in its entirety.

The decision underscores the high bar for proving anticompetitive effects in information exchange cases, while confirming that exchanges involving future pricing or similarly sensitive data remain high risk.

France Fines Fuel Companies for Distribution Cartel Involving Corsica Depot
On November 17, 2025, the French Autorité de la concurrence (FCA) imposed fines totaling €187.5 million (approximately US$222.6 million) on TotalEnergies Marketing France, two Rubis group companies and EG Retail for an anticompetitive agreement in the road fuel distribution sector in Corsica.

The FCA found that, between 2016 and January 2023, the companies, as shareholders of Dépôts Pétroliers de la Corse, applied a contractual clause reserving access to Corsican fuel depots exclusively to shareholders. This practice forced non-shareholder competitors to source fuel from their rivals under disadvantageous conditions.

The FCA considered that this conduct was likely to foreclose competition in a highly concentrated market, to the detriment of consumers through higher fuel prices. TotalEnergies and Rubis have announced their intention to appeal the decision before the Paris Court of Appeal.

The decision highlights the antitrust risks associated with restrictive access to essential infrastructure over long periods. Companies should ensure that access conditions are objective, transparent, and non-discriminatory, especially in concentrated markets where competitors depend on shared facilities.

Spain Launches Investigation into Private Healthcare and Consultancy Sector
On November 27, 2025, the CNMC announced (in Spanish) an investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the private healthcare and healthcare consultancy sector.

Between November 18 and 21, 2025, the CNMC carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several companies. The investigation concerns potential agreements or concerted practices between competitors, as well as possible abuses of dominance by certain private healthcare providers.

The case shows that healthcare markets remain under close antitrust scrutiny. Companies should be aware that suspected coordination or abuses of dominance can trigger dawn raids and expose them to fines of up to 10 percent of annual turnover.

Poland Fines Claas Polska and Dealers for Agricultural Machinery Cartel
On December 8, 2025, the Polish Competition Authority (UOKiK) imposed fines totaling over PLN170 million (approximately US$47.55 million) on Claas Polska and five authorized dealers for participating in a long-running cartel in the sale of Claas agricultural machinery and spare parts.

Between at least October 2011 and January 2023, the companies colluded to divide customers territorially and restrict passive sales. This involved directing farmers to designated local dealers and reinforcing the arrangement through resale price maintenance. The UOKiK found that Claas Polska played a central coordinating role within the distribution network.

Companies should be aware that territorial customer allocation and resale price coordination within distribution networks can amount to serious cartel conduct. Sales policies cannot restrict customer choice or suppress intra-brand competition.

German Competition Authority Publishes 2025 Enforcement Review
On December 22, 2025, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO) published its annual review of enforcement activity for 2025. The FCO imposed around €10 million (approximately US$11.9 million) in fines for cartel infringements, including cases of vertical price fixing, and carried out dawn raids in 10 investigations, often relying on leniency applications and its whistleblowing system.

Cartel prosecution remained a central priority, supported by increased use of IT-based investigative tools and a high volume of reports from third parties. Alongside cartel enforcement, the FCO pursued major cases in the digital economy, energy, and retail sectors, assessed around 900 mergers and continued extensive use of the Competition Register in public procurement.

The FCO remains firmly focused on cartel enforcement, relying on fines, dawn raids, and whistleblower reports, underscoring the importance of robust compliance as detection risks remain high across sectors.

Spain Fines Travel Agencies €2.91 Million for Bid Rigging in Public Travel Contracts
On December 29, 2025, the CNMC fined (in Spanish) four travel agencies a total of €2.91 million (approximately US$3.4 million) for cartel conduct involving the division of public travel contracts awarded by the Bank of Spain and the Complutense University of Madrid.

Between 2021 and 2022, Nautalia, Viajes El Corte Inglés, and Ávoris Retail coordinated to share contracts and rotate orders, while IAG7 participated in the manipulation of the Bank of Spain tender. The CNMC also imposed temporary bans on participating in public tenders, ranging from three to six months, marking the fourth decision in which it has directly set the scope and duration of a contracting ban.

The decision confirms that bid rigging and market sharing in public procurement remain enforcement priorities in Spain and can result not only in fines but also in exclusion from public tenders.

Italy Fines Iron Foundries and Trade Association €70 Million for Price Coordination
On December 31, 2025, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) fined 16 iron foundries and their trade association Assofond a total of €70 million (approximately US$83.1 million) for participating in a long-running cartel in the Italian cast iron market. The AGCM found that, from at least February 2004 to June 2024, the companies coordinated commercial strategies, exchanged sensitive information, and jointly developed price indexation mechanisms (Assofond Indicators) to support price increases and preserve margins, in breach of EU antitrust law.

Companies and trade associations should ensure that collective industry initiatives, including shared tools or guidance, do not facilitate coordination that restricts competition.

France Publishes Third Study on Leniency Program
On January 9, 2026, the FCA published its third study on its leniency program, based on a 2023 survey of competition law practitioners. The study reviews a decade of practice under the current procedural framework and focuses on incentives to apply for leniency and the safeguards available to applicants.

It confirms that fine reductions, dawn raids, and compliance programs remain key drivers for leniency applications, while factors such as whistleblower reports and the growing number of follow-on damages actions have become increasingly relevant. The study also highlights concerns about the potentially deterrent effect of damages actions and discovery requests, particularly for first-in applicants.

Companies should factor both public enforcement risks and private litigation exposure into their cartel risk assessments and leniency strategies.

Romania Fines Auto and Engineering Firms for No-Poaching Agreement
On January 12, 2026, Romania’s Competition Council (RCC) imposed RON163.7 million (approximately US$37.97 million) in fines on eight automotive and engineering companies. The RCC found that the companies had entered into a no-poach arrangement restricting employee mobility by agreeing not to poach specialized staff from one another. The case was launched following a whistleblower report and is the RCC's first enforcement action targeting labor-market collusion.

Companies should steer clear of agreements that restrict employee mobility or prevent poaching, as regulators worldwide are increasingly scrutinizing labor-market collusion.

France Conducts Dawn Raids in Audit and Certification Sector
On January 14, 2026, the FCA confirmed that its investigators carried out unannounced inspections on January 13, 2026, at companies active in the audit and certification of financial and non-financial data and reports, including KPMG, EY, and PwC. The raids relate to suspected anticompetitive practices and do not prejudge the existence of an infringement.

Companies should ensure that commercial conduct and interactions with competitors comply with competition rules, as dawn raids can be triggered even at an early stage based on suspicions.

Romanian Authority Fines Vehicle Repair and Insurance Companies for Cartel Conduct
On January 19, 2026, the RCC fined 27 companies a total of RON14.73 million (approximately US$3.43 million) for participating in a cartel in the vehicle maintenance and repair market.

The infringement involved coordination between 25 auto repair shops and two insurance companies, Allianz-Ţiriac Unit Asigurări and Uniqa Asigurări, to fix or standardize labor rates, spare parts prices, and other commercial conditions. The investigation was triggered by a leniency application, with one company receiving full immunity, while all sanctioned companies acknowledged the conduct and benefited from fine reductions.

Companies should note that leniency remains a key tool for uncovering cartels and can significantly reduce exposure for early applicants.

Italy Targets Labor-Market Collusion with First No-Poach Enforcement
On January 20, 2026, the AGCM opened its first probe focused solely on alleged no‑poach agreements, investigating whether automated machinery suppliers and engineering consultancies agreed not to hire each other’s technicians.

The investigation was prompted by a complaint submitted via the AGCM’s whistleblowing platform and targets Akkodis Italy, Coesia, G.D., I.E.M.A., I.M.A., S.I.A., and SPAIQ over a possible anticompetitive agreement in recruiting specialized “validator” technicians for automated packaging machinery (used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food, tea, coffee, and tobacco).

The AGCM is examining whether the arrangements restricted worker mobility and suppressed wages, and officials have already conducted dawn raids at several company premises in Italy.

Companies should ensure that hiring practices and interactions with competitors do not restrict employee mobility or wage competition, as such conduct can trigger cartel enforcement.

Netherlands Launches First No-Poach Probe
On February 3, 2026, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) confirmed that it had launched its first investigation into a suspected no-poach agreement, following unannounced inspections at the premises of an unnamed IT company. The ACM suspects that the company agreed with other businesses not to approach or hire each other’s employees.

The ACM stated that the inspections were carried out several weeks earlier and that further dawn raids may follow as the investigation progresses. The ACM emphasized that no-poach agreements restrict employee mobility and can lead to lower wages and less favorable employment conditions. The case marks the ACM’s first formal enforcement action in this area and reflects the increasing scrutiny of labor-market collusion across Europe.

The investigation highlights that more and more competition authorities worldwide are scrutinizing no-poach agreements, signaling that labor-market coordination can attract the same enforcement attention as traditional cartels.

Slovakia Fines Drug-Supply Cartelists €7.8 Million
On February 24, 2026, Slovakia’s Competition Authority (PMÚ) imposed (in Slovak) fines totaling nearly €7.8 million (approximately US$6.63 million) on two drugs suppliers, Phoenix Zdravotnícke Zásobovanie (Phoenix) and Transmedic Slovakia (Transmedic).

The companies have been sanctioned for coordinating public-procurement activities. The cartel involved public procurement of drugs for the Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, Slovakia’s largest public health insurance company, between December 2017 and September 2020.

The cartel was uncovered through a whistleblower report, followed by an inspection. Phoenix admitted its involvement and received a 30 percent fine reduction, along with a ban from public tenders limited to one year, while Transmedic was banned from participation for three years.

Companies should note that whistleblower mechanisms remain a key tool in uncovering cartels in public procurement.

Brazil Launches Cartel Proceedings in Orthoses and Prostheses Market
On December 11, 2025, Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) opened an administrative proceeding to investigate an alleged cartel in the orthoses, prostheses, and special medical materials market affecting both public procurement and private sales. The investigation concerns conduct lasting from 2013 to 2023, across several Brazilian states and follows the “Escoliose Operation,” carried out jointly with prosecutors.

The CADE is examining alleged price fixing, market allocation, cover bidding, and bid rotation involving 24 companies and 13 individuals. If the allegations are confirmed, companies may face fines of up to 20 percent of their gross turnover, while individuals may be subject to significant financial penalties.

The decision highlights that cartel investigations increasingly expose individuals, not just companies, to enforcement action.

Brazil Convicts Cartel in Electricity Meter Market and Approves Settlements
On December 17, 2025, CADE announced that it convicted three companies, Elo Sistemas Eletrônicos, Fae Sistemas de Medição, and Dowertech, as well as 11 individuals, for participating in a cartel in the electricity meter market.

The infringement lasted from 2005 to 2014, and involved bid rigging, market sharing, cover bidding, and exchanges of strategic information affecting public and private procurement across Brazil.

The CADE imposed fines totaling approximately BRL73 million (approximately US$13.9 million). The investigation was triggered by a leniency agreement in 2014 and was further supported by cease-and-desist agreements with additional companies and individuals, under which the proceedings were suspended subject to compliance with commitments and financial contributions.

The decision reflects CADE’s continued vigilance against coordinated bidding and market allocation in procurement markets.

Malaysia Issues Proposed Decision Against Childcare Providers for Alleged Price Fixing
On December 29, 2025, the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) issued a Proposed Decision against 31 childcare service enterprises for allegedly participating in a horizontal price fixing cartel in the state of Kelantan.

The MyCC provisionally found that, during an association meeting in September 2023, the enterprises agreed to fix minimum prices for childcare services, with the agreement later formalized in a memorandum and publicly announced on the association’s Facebook page, to take effect from 2024.

The conduct is considered to have the object of significantly restricting competition. The findings are provisional, and the enterprises have been given the opportunity to submit written and oral representations before a final decision is adopted.

Companies should remain vigilant against minimum price fixing arrangements between competitors.

South Korea Fines Furniture Companies for Large-Scale Bid Rigging
On December 30, 2025, the South Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) provisionally fined 48 furniture manufacturers and distributors a total of KRW25 billion (approximately US$17.26 million) for bid rigging in 333 tenders for built-in and system furniture used in apartment and officetel construction. Between 2013 and 2022, the companies coordinated designated winners and bid prices through meetings and calls, submitting cover bids to construction companies across South Korea.

This decision forms part of a broader enforcement drive in the sector, bringing total fines in furniture cartel cases since 2024, to KRW142.7 billion (approximately US$98.5 million).

Companies should be cautious when exchanging information with competitors, whether formally or informally, including during meetings or calls.

South Korean Banks Fined for Mortgage Information Exchange Cartel
On January 22, 2026, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) imposed fines totaling KRW272 billion (approximately US$187.7 million) on four major South Korean banks for exchanging sensitive information on loan-to-value (LTV) ratios used in mortgage lending.

The KFTC found that the banks coordinated their LTV ratios through meetings and systematic information exchanges, while taking steps to conceal their conduct. This led to aligned lending conditions that restricted borrower choice in a market where the banks collectively hold around 60 percent market share. The KFTC also noted that the coordinated LTV ratios were, on average, lower than those applied by non-participating banks, potentially worsening borrowing conditions, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

The decision reflects close scrutiny of information exchanges among competitors holding significant market shares.

Chile Approves Record US$31.5 Million Settlement in Delivery Platform Sector
On February 5, 2026, Chile’s Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia (TDLC) approved (in Spanish) a settlement requiring Delivery Hero (parent of Pedidos Ya) and Glovo to pay approximately US$31.5 million, the largest fiscal payment ever agreed in a Chilean competition law case. The settlement closed a proceeding brought by Chile’s National Economic Prosecutor (FNE) concerning a market-sharing agreement in the online food delivery sector.

The FNE found that, through four asset transfer agreements signed on April 26, 2019, the companies allocated geographic markets, leading to Glovo’s exit from Chile and Egypt, and Delivery Hero’s withdrawal from Peru and Ecuador. The agreements included non-compete clauses preventing Glovo from re-entering Chile for at least three years. The conduct affected multiple jurisdictions and was implemented through structural transactions.

The decision confirms competition authorities’ increasing scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct in digital and platform-based markets.

South Korea Imposes US$282.9 Million Fine on Sugar Cartel
On February 12, 2026, the KFTC imposed (in Korean) fines of KRW408.3 billion (approximately US$282.9 million) on CJ CheilJedang, Samyang Corporation and TS Corporation for fixing sugar prices between 2021 and 2025.

The KFTC found that senior executives coordinated eight rounds of price increases for sales to beverage and confectionery companies. It allowed the manufacturers to raise or maintain prices in line with raw material costs. CJ CheilJedang received the largest fine. The KFTC also imposed corrective measures, including reporting obligations and internal compliance requirements.

The decision marks the KFTC’s second-largest cartel sanction and underscores continued strict enforcement against price-fixing.

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.

²https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/its-not-personal-sonny-its-strictly-business-aggressive-enforcement-protect-free-market.

³Gibson, et al. v. Cendyn Group, LLC, et al., No. 24-3576 (9th Cir.).

⁴Lincoln Memorial Univ. v. Amer. Veterinary Med. Ass’n, No. 25-cv-00282 (E.D. Tenn.).