Antitrust - META under investigation in Italy - Abuse of Market Power

Meta faces an Italian antitrust probe for pre-installing its Meta AI chatbot on WhatsApp in March 2025 without user requests, which regulators allege may be an abuse of dominant position and illegal "tying" under EU law, risking user lock-in and limiting competition. Meta argues that Meta AI is optional, not forced, and pledges cooperation with investigators, who are working alongside the European Commission.

Meta AI appears prominently in the app, combined with the search bar, and cannot be removed. Regulators are concerned that linking Meta AI with WhatsApp could unfairly channel Meta’s massive user base to its AI service, potentially stifling competition and encouraging user dependency or "lock-in".

The probe is being conducted in close coordination with the European Commission, amidst broader EU scrutiny of AI and data practices. Remedies could include severing the automatic link between WhatsApp and Meta AI, or forcing support for competing AI bots in WhatsApp.

Antitrust/Regulatory - Prosus/Just Eat Takeaway - Merger control

Prosus (owned by Naspers) won EU antitrust clearance for its €4.1B acquisition of Just Eat Takeaway.com by pledging to reduce its stake in rival Delivery Hero. Prosus will reduce its 27.4% to a much smaller percentage.

The EC's primary concern related to likely reduced competition between Just Eat Takeaway and Delivery Hero in Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, and Spain. More precisely, the EC believed that the acquisition would result in a market structure facilitating tacit coordination between the two companies.

To address the EC's concern, Prosus agreed to cut its shareholding below an undisclosed low threshold within a year and suspend voting rights and board influence at Delivery Hero for the long term.

Antitrust/Regulatory - DoorDash/Deliveroo - Merger control
DoorDash has requested EU approval for its £2.9 billion takeover of UK food delivery company Deliveroo.

The deal, announced in May and already cleared by the UK antitrust regulator, would allow DoorDash to expand into nine new countries with Deliveroo, broadening its reach to more than 40 countries.

The EU's Foreign Subsidies Task Force, which sits within DG COMP, has also chosen not to launch a deeper probe under the Foreign Subsidies Task Force, indicating limited regulatory issues.

Antitrust LITIGATION - Lithuanian Basketball wage control- cartel

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is to decide whether a collective decision by Lithuanian basketball clubs not to pay players during the Covid-19 crisis amounted to an illegal wage-fixing agreement under EU antitrust law.

The referral stems from a 2021 decision by Lithuania’s competition authority, which fined the national basketball league and 10 clubs for collusion. A similar Portuguese football case is also pending, where Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou suggested that Covid-related restrictions might be lawful in that unique situation.

Both cases illustrate the increasing application of antitrust law to sports, with the CJEU scrutinizing collective action by clubs, leagues, or governing bodies.

Regulatory - Digital Markets Act - Google Self-Preferencing Practice

eDreams ODIGEO, a major European online travel agency, has publicly claimed that Google continue to violate the EU's Digital Markets Act by engaging in "self-preferencing."

Google’s "self-preferencing" refers to the practice of systematically giving its own services—such as Google Shopping, hotel booking, transport, financial, and sports results—more prominent placement and visibility within Google Search, ahead of rival services.

The European Commission has preliminarily found that this treatment violates Article 6(5) of the Digital Markets Act, which prohibits gatekeepers like Google from favoring their own products over those of third parties in search rankings, indexing, and display.

ODIGEO calls for a "zero-tolerance" enforcement strategy to ensure the regulatory framework is respected and that gatekeepers cannot ignore EU law without consequence.

Antitrust - Abuse of Dominance - Apple under investigation in Spain 

The Spanish antitrust probe into Apple’s App Store concerns  a potential about abuse of dominant position. Apple allegedly imposes a mandatory pricing schedule on developers distributing apps for iPhones and iPads via its App Store.

This case is part of a broader coordination among European regulators with the European Commission to avoid duplicating efforts under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The EC’s actions—under the Digital Markets Act (DMA)—have targeted Apple’s restrictions on “steering” (preventing developers from informing users about alternative purchasing channels) and other contract terms, particularly regarding music streaming apps and new requirements for alternative app distribution and payment options. 

The Spanish probe focuses on whether Apple is imposing unfair commercial conditions through its  mandatory pricing schedule for all app developers distributing through the App Store in Spain. This probe addresses abuse of dominance in a broader sense and is grounded in both Spanish and EU competition law.

The EC and Spanish investigations both relate to Apple’s App Store terms and potential anti-competitive behavior. There is a recognized risk of parallel scrutiny due to the interconnected subject matter. Both authorities are careful to clarify their respective powers and the coordination process.

Regulatory - Digital Market Act - Meta challenges the European Commission's €200 million fine

The fine imposed in April 2025, centered on Meta’s "pay or consent" model, which forced users to either pay a subscription fee or use Facebook and Instagram for free if they consented to their personal data being used for targeted ads.

The EC’s stance is that Meta’s practices undermine consumer choice. Meta argues the penalty is unlawful and contends there is a fundamental disagreement between the company and the Commission about what constitutes compliance. Meta points out that it has introduced a third option, the “less-personalized ads” (LPA) model. Discussions are ongoing with EU authorities about whether this LPA option satisfies DMA requirements. Meta objects to the Commission’s position that the LPA version must be free.

Meta is challenging both the substance of the fine and the Commission’s interpretation of compliance under the DMA, especially regarding what user choices should be available and whether the company has the right to charge for certain types of service.