Global trends in merger control enforcement for mining and metals

The key takeaway for companies active in the mining and metals space is that geopolitical competition over access to critical minerals is reshaping the regulatory landscape for M&A. Governments and regulators are intervening in transactions more assertively, and on novel grounds—even where deals do not have any meaningful impact on competition.

Europe

In Europe, the European Commission (EC) is currently carrying out an in-depth “phase 2” investigation into MMG’s acquisition of Anglo American’s Brazilian nickel business. This is a case in point: MMG (majority-owned by China Minmetals) does not currently produce or sell any nickel, so the transaction does not directly increase concentration or affect competition. Instead, the EC's concern is the diversion of coveted low carbon ferronickel away from EU stainless steel producers to China—a theory of harm based on security of supply and geopolitical competition, in markets that should technically be assessed globally.

But there are two sides to every coin: the influence of politics and industrial policy within the merger control process also creates fresh opportunities for dealmakers. The EC recently published draft guidelines on the assessment of mergers hint at a more permissive approach towards “mega mergers” seeking to achieve scale and efficiencies—proposing changes to the review framework that would place greater value on overall European industrial strength and resilience. Our team has unpacked this in more detail in this EU merger control article.

United States

In the U.S., the same policy objectives are crystallizing in a different way. The Trump administration has sought to secure access to strategic metals through direct investment deals, making significant resources available for the development and operation of projects, on the condition that supply will be guaranteed for the U.S.

This includes investments in overseas assets (the government recently backed a USD9 billion acquisition of a stake in Glencore’s strategic copper and cobalt operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo), as well as domestic production (the government has announced a USD7.4bn partnership with Korea Zinc to build a smelter in Tennessee; and established a landmark partnership with MP Materials to expand its rare earth mining and processing capabilities in California, and prevent supply to China).

This is all happening in parallel to the Trump administration showing a clear willingness to directly opine on and intervene in ordinary Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) approval processes, and generally pushing agencies towards a more permissive business-friendly approach. Ultimately, where a transaction catches the President’s attention, the key to approval might be striking a deal that furthers the “America First” agenda.

China

China’s antitrust authority, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), already has a well-established practice of considering industrial policy aims alongside competition issues. SAMR continues to be a very active enforcer, imposing remedies on five transactions in 2025, nearly all of which involved behavioral commitments relating to supply in strategic sectors.

Notably, its clearance of greenfield lithium production joint venture between SQM and Codelco in Chile was conditional on ten-year supply-continuity obligations, including minimum volumes and pricing obligations for Chinese customers. SAMR is also currently carrying out an in-depth “phase 3” of the proposed Anglo American/Teck Resources merger.

Australia

Australia overhauled its merger control regime earlier this year, shifting to a mandatory and suspensory approval requirement. With notification thresholds set relatively low, and sometimes catching global deals with limited nexus to Australia, there has already been a substantial uptick in the number of filings reviewed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). But early indications are that this is just a shift in process, not substance—despite the material increase in cases reviewed, intervention levels have so far been low. Our team recently reflected on the impact of the new rules for dealmakers here.

A final note

Finally, a quick note on our sister Global antitrust enforcement report, which analyzes data on behavioral antitrust enforcement actions in a similar way. This year’s exercise also found that regulators are increasingly looking to “strike a deal,” seeking to enforce rules more efficiently through “soft” enforcement tools. Politics is also shaping enforcement action, though regulators are tending to focus finite resources on markets that directly impact the cost of living (food, energy, housing, pharma, etc.).

One area to keep an eye on for companies active in mining and metals sectors is ESG collaborations: regulators in Europe continue to consider (and adopt) frameworks that allow competitors to collaborate in relation to sustainability initiatives, opening up opportunities to do more in this space. But this will need to be managed carefully and on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis: in the U.S., the FTC has publicly voiced its skepticism of companies using ESG initiatives as a means for collusion.