Strengthening investigative powers signifies a continued appetite for enforcement

Dawn raids rebooted: digital-age powers and home searches

Of the 31 jurisdictions surveyed, 22 (71%) confirmed that the regulator had carried out dawn raids during 2025. Although this represents a slight dip compared to 2024, this by no means signifies that regulators are slowing the pace, with multiple raids carried out by the European Commission (EC) and regulators in Canada, Germany, Spain, and Japan.

Dawn raids focused on suspected bid-rigging in several jurisdictions. For example, Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) carried out a raid as part of an investigation into an alleged cartel in bus transportation bidding processes. In the Netherlands, the antitrust authority conducted unannounced raids in connection with its investigation into possible bid-rigging by three contracting companies in a municipal tender process. This ties with authorities’ increased focus on bid-rigging enforcement.

This activity looks set to continue in 2026. In Europe, 2026 has already seen confirmed raids in the French auditing and financial reporting certification sector, the Spanish airport services sector, and the Dutch IT sector. Even in the U.S., where dawn raids have been comparatively uncommon in recent times, the start of 2026 has seen the Department of Justice (DOJ) executing search warrants on the premises of semiconductor companies for suspected price fixing.

In the context of dawn raid enforcement, regulators have been pushing for increased investigative powers, including to effectively search business records in a digital age where relevant information could be held in the cloud.

For example, the EC’s review of its EU antitrust enforcement framework under Regulation 1/2003 includes exploring new powers that would allow officials to access documents remotely without physically entering company premises. How these proposed changes will operate in practice remains to be seen, but the legislative proposal for the revised regulation is expected before the end of 2026.

In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has already banked such powers. The entry into force of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) gave the authority a suite of greater evidence-gathering powers, including the ability to require the production of electronic data stored remotely.

Interestingly, the CMA was granted warrants to conduct unannounced inspections of the premises of waste management services companies in June 2025 as part of an investigation into alleged market sharing. The warrants included extensive provisions for the CMA, where necessary, to take possession of electronic devices where the documents themselves could not be extracted. Named CMA officers also gave undertakings on how the CMA would deal with any personal mobile phone devices which it wished to search and seize, including returning any SIM card on the phone within two hours and taking all reasonable steps to ensure access to a substitute phone. The raid was not without opposition, with one raided party unsuccessfully applying to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for further information from the CMA to support its application for the search warrants.

2025 also saw success for the EC in the courts. The EU General Court dismissed Red Bull’s challenge to the EC’s 2023 dawn raid of its premises, finding, among others, that the EC had sufficiently stated the reasons for the inspection and underscoring that it enjoys wide discretion in choosing whether to deploy intrusive investigative tools, such as inspections, over, e.g., requests for information. Red Bull is appealing the decision.

Notably, domestic dawn raids are now a permanent feature as post-Covid working patterns have remained more flexible. Reflective of that, the DMCC Act also gave the CMA “seize and sift” powers at private homes. Notably, in November 2025, the CAT granted the CMA a warrant to search the home of a managing director who falsely denied using his personal phone for work purposes during a dawn raid at his company’s premises. The ruling highlighted that, in the UK at least, dishonesty during a dawn raid can have severe consequences.

Modernizing investigative tools

Across jurisdictions, authorities are modernizing their investigative toolkits to identify anticompetitive conduct, including through combining data science with classic investigatory powers and by widening available channels for the provision of whistleblower evidence.

Most obviously, authorities are targeting bid-rigging in public tenders. In its draft annual plan, the CMA confirmed that it is “prioritizing action on public procurement” and investing in relevant data and AI detection tools. Meanwhile, jurisdictions across Europe are following suit, with competition watchdogs in France and Ireland signaling their desire to improve screening capabilities. Spain’s antitrust authority has made efforts to improve its bid-rigging AI tool to detect algorithmic collusion. For more on algorithmic collusion, see Cartel fines surge to highest level since 2021.

The EC is also taking a proactive approach to monitoring information exchange including via public channels— see Cartel fines surge to highest level since 2021 describing the EC’s surveillance of investor calls in a tire cartel case.

Incentivizing whistleblower-led reporting channels also remains a focus in certain jurisdictions, complementing other evidence-gathering tools available in the enforcer’s arsenal.

• In the U.S., the DOJ launched its Whistleblower Rewards Program in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the USPS Office of Inspector General. Under the program, eligible whistleblowers may be entitled to receive up to 30% of the fine at the DOJ’s discretion (where the fine exceeds USD1 million).
• In January 2026, the DOJ made its inaugural USD1m whistleblower award after information received led to the conclusion of a bid‑rigging case against an online used‑vehicle auction platform.
• While the DOJ’s strategy appears to be aimed at correcting the regulators’ dependence on leniency applications, there are arguments suggesting that whistleblowing tools may directly affect companies’ incentives to seek leniency out of concerns that if they do not come forward, whistleblowers, such as employees, and customers may report them instead.

The race to the door: continued momentum for leniency and policy developments

Overall, 26 immunity/leniency cases were decided in 2025, representing a small increase from 21 in 2024.

In the UK, all three cartel cases in 2025 were initiated by an immunity or leniency application while, for the EC, it was two out of three (67%).

Significantly, the immunity applicant in the automotive starter battery cartel avoided a reported USD1.13 billion fine and the immunity applicant in the end-of-life vehicle recycling cartel avoided a fine of around USD40m. In the end-of-life vehicle recycling cartel, as well as other companies winning substantial leniency reductions, all parties received a 10% settlement reduction. It represents the largest settlement case concluded by the EC in terms of the number of companies involved.

In general, the EC's, director for cartels, Maria Jaspers has stated that the volume of leniency applications remains “healthy.” Elsewhere, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore and the Canadian Competition Bureau have both publicly flagged an uptick in the number of leniency applications received. This contrasts with a broader sense that the costs and uncertainty associated with seeking leniency, including the prospect of follow-on private litigation and exposure to liability in other jurisdictions, have greatly impacted the leniency pipeline across many jurisdictions globally.

2025 saw notable developments to the applicable frameworks in both Brazil and the UK to further incentivize applications. 

• In September 2025, CADE issued an updated edition of its Antitrust Leniency Programme Guidelines that, among other changes, expressly expanded the list of conduct eligible for leniency to include wage‑fixing, no‑poach agreements, buyers’ cartels, and exchanges of sensitive information. On the ground, 2025 saw four infringement decisions delivered in Brazil in cases in the industrial and manufacturing sector, which were initiated by an immunity/leniency application, leading to aggregate fines of USD5.2m.
• The CMA also implemented changes to its leniency guidelines in October 2025, with key changes intended to incentivize Type A immunity applicants (those who report cartel activity prior to the launch of an investigation). Under the new guidance, being the first to put down a marker is the only way to ensure immunity from penalties, director disqualification, criminal prosecution, and public contract exclusion and debarment, thus creating a more significant distinction between Type A and subsequent applicants. It firmly puts the focus back on the “race to the door” for leniency.