antitrust - Loewe/Gucci/Chloé - anticompetitive agreements - pricing and Resale Price Maintenance

The European Commission fined three major luxury brands—Loewe, Gucci, and Chloé—a total of €157 million for engaging in resale price maintenance (RPM), a serious antitrust violation.

The companies restricted how retailers could price and promote goods both online and in stores, effectively controlling discounts and sales. In 2023, the three brands dropped the offending policies and cooperated with investigators. Their cooperation earned reduced fines.

The entire fashion industry is on the alert:  manipulative pricing controls will not be tolerated in the EU.

Regulatory - tiktok/meta - digital services act - content regulation

The European Commission issued preliminary findings on October 24, 2025, concluding that TikTok and Meta Platforms violated obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

Both TikTok and Meta are allegedly hindering the removal of illegal content from their platforms. TikTok argued that data-access obligations may conflict with GDPR privacy safeguards and called for regulatory clarity. Meta disputed claims of noncompliance, citing recent changes to its content reporting systems.

The findings are preliminary and carry no immediate legal effect. If breaches are confirmed, Meta and TikTok could face fines up to 6% of their global annual turnover.

Regulatory - MEta - Consumer and data Protection - data and the digital economy

The German Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (VZBV) claims that Meta’s advertising of Facebook as “free and always will be” is misleading under EU consumer law, because users pay indirectly by providing personal data, which Meta monetizes through targeted advertising.

The central question raised before the European Court of Justice is whether providing personal data can be legally recognized as a form of payment or “cost” under consumer protection law when users access digital services. Meta’s defense has argued that users understand “free” to mean no monetary charges.

The CJEU will decide what “free” means in the digital economy, when personal data is the currency, and whether such practices are lawful under both consumer and data protection laws.

Regulatory - EU/Korea - Trade Regulation - Data transfer
South Korea has officially recognized the European Union’s data protection rules as equivalent to its own, creating a two-way system that allows personal data to move freely between South Korea and the EU without additional legal barriers or user consent requirements.

It took effect immediately after the announcement by South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) in Seoul, marking a milestone for global data privacy cooperation. The new framework covers all personal data except for financial data, which is excluded for now because South Korea’s financial data regulator is not considered fully independent in its data protection function. This arrangement allows for data flows related to outsourcing of processing, data access, provision to affiliates, and storage abroad under certain legally defined conditions.

The move is expected to boost trade, travel, research collaboration, and shared initiatives on issues like privacy, AI, and digital trust by cutting compliance costs.

Copyright/Antitrust litigation - Microsoft - Abuse of Market Power

ValueLicensing, a reseller that buys and resells pre-owned perpetual licences of Microsoft software (notably Windows and Office), claimed that Microsoft violated UK and EU competition law (and related EEA law).

ValueLicensing argues that Microsoft, which dominates the market for new licences and subscription versions, used that dominance to suppress the secondary market in pre-owned licences. Microsoft allegedly imposed terms or incentives on customers that effectively restricted or penalised those customers from reselling their perpetual licences. Microsoft argues that ValueLicensing infringed on its copyright.

The case centers on whether copyright exhaustion applies to software licenses, and whether Microsoft abused its market dominance to block resale and push cloud subscriptions, resulting in alleged anticompetitive harm and loss of revenue for ValueLicensing.

Antitrust - Google ADtech - Abuse of Market Power

Google’s adtech arm breached European competition law. The European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion, joining a US judgment from earlier this year that also ruled Google’s adtech operations violated American antitrust law.

Both regulators are signaling that only a structural remedy — specifically, forcing Google to divest its Ad Manager business (including AdX and DoubleClick for Publishers/DFP) — would fully resolve Google’s conflicts of interest. Google argues that such divestitures would cause “extreme devastation” for the adtech sector and prefers limited behavioral remedies, but regulators remain unconvinced.

Google has 60 days to propose remedies to the EU, which will likely mirror the proposals given to the US judge.

Regulatory - Zalando - Digital Service Act

The General Court rejected Zalando's appeal against its designation as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065).

Under the DSA, Zalando published two figures for its average monthly active recipients (AMAR) in the EU:

• 83.341 million for the platform taken as a whole (Retail + Partner Programme).
• 30.836 million based on the proportion of gross sales value generated by the Partner Programme (37% of 83.341 million), which Zalando argued represented the activity of an "online platform."

The Commission designated Zalando as a VLOP because the total AMAR of 83.341 million exceeded the DSA threshold of 45 million.

Zalando argued that it is not an online platform because Zalando actively controls and modifies the content/information provided by third-party sellers. The AMAR calculation should only count active recipients exposed to information from third-party sellers, which Zalando argues is below the thresholds for designation as an online platform. Zalando also argued that the DSA treats marketplaces (like Zalando) the same as social media/networks and creates a competitive disadvantage.

The General Court dismissed Zalando's action in its entirety. Importantly, the Court held that marketplaces are capable of generating systemic risks (e.g., illegal/dangerous products, consumer protection issues) under Article 34(1) DSA, justifying the application of heightened VLOP obligations.

Regulatory - EU/US Data Transfer - Trade Regulation
The General Court of the European Union found that the US ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU under the new Data Privacy Framework.

The Court reviewed whether the procedural and substantive guarantees in place under the new US legal regime provide sufficient "essential equivalence" to EU standards. The Court upheld the Commission’s assessment that US law now meets the adequacy standard of Article 45 GDPR.

The judgment confirms that transatlantic data transfers from the EU to the United States can proceed under the current EU-US Data Privacy Framework without risk of automatic suspension or invalidation. This provides businesses with legal certainty, continuity, and reduced compliance burdens for many cross-border operations involving personal data, especially those relying on cloud, SaaS, and U.S.-based service providers.

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.