Anticompetitive information exchange: authorities increase their crackdown
Price fixing remained the most commonly enforced type of cartel conduct in 2025, accounting for 41% of decisions (down from 47% of decisions in 2024), with bid-rigging conduct a close second (36% of decisions in 2025, down from 41% of decisions in 2024).
The Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) was a standout price-fixing enforcer, with 13 infringement decisions issued in a range of sectors. Notably, trade association-stipulated price lists came under fire. Of the jurisdictions surveyed, Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa, and South Korea were also particularly active; authorities in these jurisdictions each produced infringement decisions in over five price-fixing cases in 2025.
Significantly, pure information exchange ranked fourth at 7% of decisions in 2025, a notable increase from 1% in 2024. Authorities in the UK (government bonds), Türkiye (poultry production), and Italy (iron foundries) sanctioned the exchange of prices and, in some cases, other strategic information.
Several regulators in 2025 emphasized the risks arising from information disclosure via ostensibly public channels (such as investor calls and statements in industry magazines or newspapers) where disclosures reduce market uncertainty and facilitate alignment.
- The AGCM levied a record cartel fine of USD1.1bn (the largest in any cartel case in 2025) on seven oil companies for allegedly colluding to fix prices in the biofuel market. The AGCM claims that the cartel was facilitated and reinforced by an industry newspaper regularly publishing the exact value of a bio-component. The decision is being appealed.
- In July 2025, in an appeal of an EC dawn raid decision in the tire sector, the EU General Court revealed the EC’s extensive surveillance of investor calls (including its use of data analytics) and confirmed that companies’ public communications may raise concern. A senior EC official subsequently publicly stated that investor calls that make statements about competitors will “raise red flags” as such statements “are not legally required and it’s difficult to see how they are needed or useful to inform investors.”
Enforcers have likewise penalized more informal bilateral exchanges conducted over messaging applications, with cases involving LINE and Facebook chats in Taiwan and WhatsApp communications in Australia.
Algorithmic pricing under the spotlight
Authorities continue to focus on potential concerns around the use of algorithms to facilitate anticompetitive outcomes, including unlawful information exchange, price fixing, and other coordinated conduct.
The focus is increasingly on shared or commonly supplied pricing tools that rely on competitors’ commercially sensitive inputs and feedback loops. These can undermine independent decision making and lead to aligned market outcomes.
Many countries (including Canada, the U.S., the UK, France, Spain, Australia, and Japan) have confirmed that they are monitoring developments, bolstering AI detection tools, and seeking to deter algorithmic collusion. Meanwhile, California has enacted specific legislation, effective as of January 2026, expressly prohibiting the use of common pricing algorithms that rely on competitor data—for further information on the position in the U.S., see Private damages activity continues to escalate across key jurisdictions.
In terms of concrete enforcement, however, very few live cases have been publicly announced. These include: the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement to resolve claims that property algorithm software was being used to help landlords coordinate rent increases; EC confirmation that it is conducting multiple inquiries into the algorithmic pricing sector (although details remain under wraps); and Polish investigations into algorithmic pricing coordination in the banking (consumer loan and mortgage providers) and pharmaceutical (drug wholesalers) sectors.
The policy direction is clear: the fact that pricing is implemented by software will not absolve an underlying agreement or concerted practice. Algorithms can facilitate “traditional” collusion, hub‑and‑spoke structures via common vendors, and tacit alignment, none of which are cleansed by outsourcing the mechanics to code.
We expect further enforcement in data‑rich markets where granular, real‑time data enables rapid convergence. For a broader discussion of the methods authorities are using to identify algorithmic collusion, see Strengthening investigative powers signifies a continued appetite for enforcement.
Labor markets remain a hot topic
Regulators across Europe have ramped up enforcement activity around no-poach agreements and information exchange in labor markets.
- 2025 saw the first cartel decision from the EC targeting labor related practices. It fined the food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo USD371.9m for various alleged anticompetitive practices (facilitated by Delivery Hero’s 2018 acquisition of a minority stake in Glovo), including entering into a no-poach agreement. On announcing the decision, competition commissioner Teresa Ribera remarked: “competition rules aren’t just about keeping prices down […] [t]hey also protect our freedom to choose, including where we want to work.”
- Action has also been taken by the UK CMA (which fined sports and broadcast companies for sharing sensitive information about freelance worker fees), the French antitrust authority (FCA) (which for the first time sanctioned no-poach agreements (in the form of gentlemen’s agreements) as a standalone infringement of French antitrust law), the Portuguese antitrust authority (which pursued enforcement against several alleged no-poach agreements, including a fine against a technology consulting group), and the Polish antitrust authority (which brought charges against a supermarket chain and several transport companies for alleged no-poach agreements in the first case of its kind in Poland outside the sports sector).
- We expect enforcement across Europe to continue. Already in 2026, Romania’s Competition Council has penalized a no-poach agreement for the first time in the automotive and engineering labor market. Both Italy and the Netherlands have launched their first no-poach cartel probes (in relation to automated machinery and packaging suppliers and IT respectively). And the EC has confirmed it has other labor market enforcement cases in the pipeline—stay tuned.
In the U.S.:
- There has been a continued primary focus on non-compete clauses in employment contracts. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the DOJ under the Trump administration have continued to favor ad hoc enforcement against anticompetitive non-compete agreements over a broad ex ante ban, with the FTC abandoning its non-compete ban rule in September 2025. A consent order prohibiting their use by the country’s largest pet cremation company kicked off this case-by-case approach. It was closely followed by warning letters to healthcare employers and staffing companies. Off the back of a public inquiry and a task force established to protect American workers, we expect to see further enforcement of non-competes in the coming year.
- 2025 did also see a string of enforcement against no-hire agreements in the building services sector. Significantly, the DOJ notched up its first criminal antitrust jury conviction relating to labor markets after a string of losses dating back to 2020. A U.S. federal jury convicted a home healthcare staffing executive of fixing wages for home healthcare nurses in Las Vegas and fraudulently failing to disclose the criminal antitrust investigation during the sale of his company. He was sentenced to 40 months in custody and USD550,000 criminal fines. Importantly, in this case the DOJ submitted direct evidence of the alleged agreement, including text messages with alleged co-conspirators.
By contrast, in APAC, authorities have tended towards corrective guidance and administrative resolutions in labor contexts—see Beyond fines, soft enforcement rises for further details.
Widening the lens on permissive collaboration
Over the last few years, we have seen a number of European regulators consider (and in some cases adopt) a more permissive approach to collaboration in relation to sustainability initiatives. This trend continued in 2025, with environmental initiatives being reviewed in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK. The EC issued its first informal guidance letters under the revised Notice on Informal Guidance of 2022 (see Beyond fines, soft enforcement rises for further details) and also showed its green credentials and desire to support the creation of a circular economy by issuing a fine in the end-of-life vehicle recycling cartel case (as did the CMA). Ribera clearly articulated the EC’s position: “We will not tolerate cartels […] that suppress customer awareness and demand for more environmental-friendly products.”
Other enforcers have remained skeptical regarding environmental claims. In particular, the FTC has made it a top priority to investigate and prosecute collusion through environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. In August 2025, it closed its investigation into whether several truck and engine manufacturers and their trade association had violated antitrust laws by entering into the “Clean Truck Partnership” with the California Air Resources Board, with commitments from the manufacturers not to enforce an agreement to reduce the output of internal combustion engine trucks and to refrain from entering similar agreements in the future. The FTC chairman stated in no uncertain terms that the FTC “must remain vigilant against ESG-driven practices that unlawfully eliminate competition in the use of oil, coal, and natural gas to power the American economy.”
In February 2026, a U.S. multi-state coalition warned corporations associated with certain environmental groups that “by setting uniform production and packaging targets” and dictating which materials are deemed “recyclable,”” they may be breaching antitrust and consumer protection laws.
However, outside of ESG considerations, 2025 also saw a significant broadening of certain authorities’ permissive approach to collaboration. Some have moved from giving guidance on “pure” environmental projects to permitting wider pro-competitive cooperation that supports policy goals and economic growth, for example, by improving supply chain transparency, productivity, and even defense readiness.
In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) accepted a structured, crisis‑related information exchange platform, to be operated for up to six months, providing data on remaining semiconductor supplies to address acute supply risks relating to semiconductor inputs for the European automotive industry. Separately, the regulator also cleared the expansion of an existing JV enabling participating companies to carry out a Bundeswehr joint battle‑tank project, supporting the broader push for collaborative solutions in defense production within the EU Defence Readiness Roadmap.
The chair of the Dutch antitrust authority (ACM) has queried whether demand bundling and supply bunding (through joint agreements between companies) could be a means to ensure EU strategic autonomy in sectors such as energy, IT (cloud services), defense, and pharmaceuticals. He reports that the ACM is prepared to give guidance on such coordination to create “new European suppliers.”
In Belgium, the antitrust authority has published a communication clarifying the conditions under which pharmaceutical companies may exchange information specifically in the context of reimbursement applications for combination therapies in Belgium.
In January 2026, the CMA published a guide on collaboration in the higher education sector and signaled a desire to enable legitimate, pro-growth business collaboration, particularly in the eight priority sectors earmarked by the UK government in its industrial strategy for scaling and growth. And, in February 2026, the U.S. DOJ and FTC launched a joint public inquiry regarding potential additional guidance on collaborations among competitors. The agencies note that “procompetitive collaborations are not only permissible but also encouraged in a complex and dynamic economic environment” as they allow “expansion into new markets, enabling investment into innovation, and lowering production and other costs.”
