Enforcement and policy moved in tandem this week, with authorities simultaneously tightening the rules of the game and testing them in high-profile digital and dominance cases. From Brussels to Pretoria and Beijing, platforms and dominant incumbents were squarely in the spotlight, while a steady drumbeat of bid-rigging and RPM decisions underlined that traditional cartel and vertical enforcement is very much alive—over $4 million in fines imposed globally.
For the week’s major cases and court developments, see the Litigation section below.
On the digital front, the EU doubled down on platform oversight with new probes into Google’s treatment of publishers under the DMA and Red Bull’s alleged strategy to shut out larger-format rivals, while South Africa extracted far-reaching remedies from Google and Microsoft in its Media and Digital Platforms Inquiry, including a sizeable support package for local media. Several agencies used soft-law tools to frame future digital enforcement: India signalled forthcoming thresholds for “Big Tech” under its Digital Competition Bill, Lithuania consulted on a compliance questionnaire for online platforms, and the Czech and Philippine authorities set out how data protection and competition policy are converging.
Merger control and market-structure issues were another strong theme. China’s SAMR conditionally cleared the Codelco–SQM lithium JV, while also outlining broader plans to build a more unified national market. Canada launched a consultation on updated Merger Enforcement Guidelines following major legislative changes, Greece moved to modernise its merger rules and expand its authority’s powers, and agencies in Latvia, Belgium, the UK and Chile all took significant steps in individual cases—from opening in-depth probes (Novaturas, Live Nation/Pukkelpop, Aramark/Entier) to China’s SAMR imposing a substantial fine for false information in a filing.
Sector inquiries and mapping exercises—from Angolan retail pharma and Bulgarian food retail to Greek veterinary medicines and Denmark’s adult dental care—continued to foreground structural concerns and regulatory barriers.
Classical enforcement remained busy in parallel. Authorities in Ukraine (multiple bid-rigging decisions), India (revised fines in the Pune waste cartel), the Czech Republic (RPM in electronics), and Australia (labour-hire restrictions and cartel workshop on algorithmic collusion) all advanced horizontal or vertical cases, while Denmark and Finland conducted fresh raids in freight and asphalt respectively.
Dominance theories of harm were tested in very different settings, from South Africa’s referral of the JSE over alleged exclusion of a rival exchange, to a Danish freight investigation and the EC’s Red Bull case.
Agencies continued to use policy tools to shape markets beyond pure antitrust. Iceland, Brazil, Australia and Singapore published studies or guidance on health centres, cartel overcharges, soft-plastics recycling and appliance repair/“right to repair”. New cooperation pacts (Hong Kong–Cambodia, Albania–Germany), AI and data-use guidance from Ecuador, and SAMR’s twin initiatives on trademark enforcement and market integration underline how competition, consumer, and data regulators are now co-designing the governance of digital and traditional sectors alike.
Taken together, this was a week where headline-grabbing tech and dominance cases sat alongside quieter but important work on guidelines, sector inquiries and institutional cooperation—signalling that the next wave of enforcement will be both more coordinated and more structurally grounded.
View all of our 53 news stories published this week here.
Litigation Roundup
UK CAT
Mobile “loyalty-penalty” class actions certified, with key limitation rulings
The CAT has certified Justin Gutmann’s four collective actions against Vodafone, EE/BT, Three and O2 alleging “loyalty-penalty” overcharges on bundled handset–airtime contracts. The Tribunal confirmed that the claims meet the CPO requirements and rejected attempts to derail the proceedings on manageability or funding grounds.
A significant part of the judgment concerns limitation:
- Claims before 1 October 2015 were struck out. The Tribunal rejected the class representative’s interpretation of the old CAT limitation regime and refused to extend the Limitation Act 1980 to this first period.
- Claims from 1 October 2015 to 8 March 2017 survive. The Tribunal refused the strike-out application for this second period, holding that issues of deliberate concealment and discoverability under the Limitation Act 1980 raise arguable, common questions that should proceed to trial.
Funding issues were also probed, with the Tribunal scrutinising the robustness of the claimant’s arrangements and directing ongoing updates on funder stability — signalling more active CAT supervision of funding risk in large opt-out claims.
New subsidy-control claim: Zenobe Energy v GEMA
A new case has been filed with the CAT: Zenobe Energy Limited v GEMA, a challenge under s.70 Subsidy Control Act 2022 seeking review and potential quashing of GEMA decisions relating to long-duration electricity-storage support. It strengthens the CAT’s emerging role as the forum for early subsidy-control litigation at the intersection of energy policy and decarbonisation.
Apple denied permission to appeal in Kent v Apple
Following the CAT’s landmark October judgment finding that Apple abused its dominance in iOS app distribution and in-app payments — including excessive and unfair pricing — the Tribunal has now issued a reasoned order refusing permission to appeal.
The CAT held that Apple’s proposed grounds merely contested its evaluative findings on market definition, dominance, exclusionary conduct and excessive pricing rather than identifying errors of law. Apple will now need to seek permission directly from the Court of Appeal if it chooses to pursue the challenge.
Litigation funding and platform cases: Innsworth backs threatened £1bn Rightmove opt-out
Elliott’s litigation-funding arm Innsworth is financing a planned opt-out collective action against Rightmove, alleging that the platform has abused a dominant position by imposing “excessive and unfair” listing fees on estate agents.
Digital markets and IP: ValueLicensing wins key preliminary issues against Microsoft
In ValueLicensing v Microsoft, the CAT ruled that:
- Microsoft’s rights under the Software Directive do not prevent the subdivision and resale of user-level rights from enterprise-scale software licences, so long as no extra copies are put into use; and
- The online first sale of Windows and Office exhausts rights not only in the computer program but also in the non-program elements bundled with it (interfaces, icons, helpfiles, fonts) where these are ancillary and used for their intended purpose.
The ruling is a major boost for the secondary market in pre-owned software.
Germany
Google ordered to pay €465m to Idealo in major self-preferencing follow-on ruling
In Germany, the Berlin Regional Court has issued one of the largest competition damages awards ever seen in the jurisdiction, ordering Google to pay €465 million to price comparison site Idealo for long-running self-preferencing abuse in general search.
- Abuse – Between 2008 and 2023, Google systematically favoured Google Shopping over rival comparison sites, in breach of competition law.
- Damages – Idealo receives €374m plus €91m interest.
- Parallel claim – Another German comparator, Producto, is awarded €107m.
- Google’s position – Google will appeal, arguing that its 2017 compliance changes remedied the issues found in the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision.
- Idealo’s stance – The Axel-Springer-owned platform, which had claimed €3.3bn, welcomed the ruling and emphasised that dominance abuse cannot become a profitable business model even after EU-level fines.
- Context – This is a civil follow-on damages claim tied to the Commission’s €2.4bn 2017 decision, but the Berlin court found that the self-preferencing behaviour continued well beyond 2017.
The judgment adds to a growing European trend of large-scale private enforcement in digital markets — complementing UK actions such as Kent v Apple and the threatened Rightmove claim, and underscoring the increasingly material financial exposure for platforms facing both regulatory decisions and national-court follow-on litigation.
View all of our 53 news stories published this week here
Sign up for email notifications to receive our news and analysis directly into your mailbox.
