Australian merger control: reflections as the new regime beds down

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the regime is “off to a positive start” and is “working as expected.” 

It is true that the statistics are largely promising so far. However, it is not all plain sailing, and we are seeing the mechanism throw up certain challenges for merging parties. 

We give you five key takeaways based on our experience of the new rules.

1. Many more transactions require review

With notification thresholds set relatively low, an increase in filings compared to the previous voluntary regime was expected. 

However, the uptick has been substantial: in just three months, the ACCC received 50 merger notifications and 108 waiver applications (a streamlined process for straightforward acquisitions that are unlikely to raise antitrust concerns).

The application of the notification thresholds can also be technical and complex in practice, with careful analysis required to determine whether a transaction is caught. The financial thresholds are based on Australian revenue and/or global transaction value and incorporate a separate cumulative threshold targeting serial acquisitions over a three-year period. Given this complexity, parties are understandably taking a cautious approach to filings in the early stages of the regime.

2. Information and filing requirements are more onerous

The new regime requires merger parties to complete detailed notification forms, with both a short form and long form for standard notifications, as well as a separate form for waiver applications. Even for a waiver application, the information requirements are not insubstantial, and care is needed to avoid risks and delays associated with a negative outcome. Pre-notification engagement is generally required for a standard filing and ACCC requests for information are common.

Combined with the substantial filing fees payable under the new regime—ranging from AUD8,300 (around USD6,000) for a notification waiver to AUD56,800 (around USD40,500) for a standard phase 1 review—the administrative time and cost to obtain Australian merger control clearance has ramped up significantly compared to the previous voluntary regime.

3. But most deals are being cleared at phase 1

Despite the material increase in cases reviewed by the ACCC, intervention levels have so far been low.

The ACCC has cleared the vast majority of transactions unconditionally at phase 1. No deals have been subject to remedies (yet), and only three cases have been referred to an in-depth phase 2 investigation, which are in the supermarket, retail petrol, and insurance industries (all three reviews are ongoing).

This runs slightly counter to the ACCC’s recent merger enforcement record. In 2025, the authority took a more interventionist stance than many of its international counterparts, blocking three deals and causing the parties to abandon a further two. It remains to be seen whether a similarly tough position will start to emerge under the new regime. 

4. And reviews are generally quick

The new rules require the ACCC to reach a phase 1 decision within 30 business days. 

However, to address concerns over unnecessary red tape, the authority committed to concluding 80% of cases within 20 business days, either through an early phase 1 decision or notification waiver.

In good news for merging parties, the ACCC is comfortably meeting these commitments. In the first three months of the regime, 91% of acquisitions were decided within the 20-day timeframe. Waivers were decided on average after 11 business days, and standard phase 1 decisions were reached after an average of 18 business days. The review timelines were extended on only two occasions during this period, both following a request from the merger parties themselves.

A significant increase in merger division staff levels will no doubt have helped in meeting these targets: the ACCC is reported to be close to filling the 146 positions budgeted for the next financial year, including lawyers, economists, and other competition experts.

5. Waiver applications are being closely reviewed

The waiver process appears to be working well in general, providing a streamlined route to rapidly wave through acquisitions that do not raise material risks to competition or consumers.  

However, the ACCC is not granting all waiver requests, suggesting it is scrutinizing applications closely. Of 76 waiver application processes completed between January and March 2026, six (8%) were rejected. The ACCC has indicated that, in at least some of these cases, it was unable to reach a concluded view on the competitive dynamics based on the information provided, rather than having identified substantive antitrust concerns.

A waiver rejection does not mean that a transaction will face antitrust hurdles. But from a procedural perspective, the deal will need to be formally notified to the ACCC before it can proceed, triggering a new review period. Careful consideration of an acquisition’s suitability for a notification waiver is therefore crucial to avoid these delays.

Looking ahead

The Australian merger control regime remains in its infancy, and the ACCC’s practice will no doubt continue to develop. 

Over the coming months, merging parties should watch out for the following:

• Indications of how the ACCC will deal with transactions falling below notification thresholds: the Australian rules retain the general prohibition against all transactions that substantially lessen competition, even those not triggering a filing obligation. 
• A potential focus on certain markets as the authority builds “a greater understanding of patterns of consolidation in different sectors”: ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb has recently noted that initial data points to higher deal activity levels in technology-related and professional services sectors, plus supermarkets.
• The possibility of more designated transactions: currently only major supermarket chains have been “designated” (meaning that they must notify acquisitions regardless of whether the turnover thresholds are met), but Cass-Gottlieb has indicated that key players in the liquor, pathology, and oncology-radiology sectors could also face designation.

We will keep you updated on developments as the new regime continues to bed down.