Apresentação
Este é um informativo diário que traz para o(a) leitor (a) notícias e casos de defesa da concorrência das principais jurisdições antitruste do mundo (CADE, FTC, Comissão Europeia, CMA etc).
Notícias
MPF junto ao Cade abre processo seletivo para cargo de assessoria
Oportunidade é para candidatos formados em Direito. Inscrições vão até 13 de janeiro
Publicado em 14/01/2025 12h56
Ministério Público Federal (MPF) junto ao Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) está com processo seletivo aberto para o cargo de assessor jurídico. A vaga é destinada a profissionais com formação em Direito.
Os interessados devem enviar seus currículos para o e-mail pgr-mpfcade@mpf.mp.br até às 12h do dia 13 de janeiro, próxima segunda-feira.
A vaga exige graduação em Direito, pós-graduação em direito concorrencial ou comercial e experiência significativa em processos administrativos relacionados ao direito da concorrência. As principais responsabilidades do cargo incluem a elaboração de minutas de peças processuais e o apoio no gabinete do procurador do MPF junto ao Cade, em Brasília.
A remuneração para o cargo é de R$ 10.355,92, acrescida de R$ 1.393,11 de auxílio alimentação. Para os candidatos que necessitem se deslocar para Brasília, é oferecido um auxílio moradia correspondente a 25% do valor do cargo.
MPF no Cade
O papel do procurador do MPF no Cade envolve, entre outras atribuições, a emissão de pareceres sobre processos administrativos relacionados a infrações à ordem econômica. O procurador também é responsável pelo encaminhamento de denúncias e representações, participação nas sessões do Tribunal Administrativo e pela condução de audiências com advogados especializados em antitruste.
Reconhecimento
O Cade tem se destacado como um excelente ambiente de trabalho, tendo recebido o Certificado de Qualidade do Ambiente de Trabalho nos anos de 2020, 2021 e 2022. Essa certificação é concedida com base no índice de clima organizacional da pesquisa FIA Employee Experience (FEEx), reconhecendo o esforço dos colaboradores em manter um ambiente agradável e colaborativo.
Além disso, o Cade é, por cinco anos consecutivos, reconhecido como um dos melhores lugares para trabalhar no Brasil, de acordo com premiação da FIA Employee. A autarquia é também considerada uma das principais autoridades antitruste do mundo, segundo a revista Global Competition Review (GCR).
Justice Department and OSHA Issue Statement on Non-Disclosure Agreements That Deter Reporting of Antitrust Crimes
Tuesday, January 14, 2025Share 
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), jointly affirmed that corporate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that deter individuals from reporting antitrust crimes undermine the goals of whistleblower protection laws, including the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019 (CAARA). CAARA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise retaliating against a worker for (1) reporting potential criminal antitrust violations and related crimes to their employer or the federal government or (2) assisting a federal government investigation or proceeding.
NDAs that undermine CAARA or otherwise interfere with employees’ freedom to report potential crime will cost the employer when the Antitrust Division makes its charging decisions and sentencing recommendations. Companies should also be aware that using NDAs to obstruct or impede an investigation may also constitute separate federal criminal violations. Any company that so interferes with its employees’ cooperation would jeopardize its ability to satisfy its obligations under the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy, which requires an applicant to “use its best efforts to secure the timely, truthful, continuing, and complete cooperation of all current and former employees.” And the Antitrust Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations guidelines consider a company’s policies around NDA and anti-retaliation training in assessing the effectiveness of the company’s compliance program.
“Members of the public are often best positioned to detect and blow the whistle on antitrust crimes,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division values this information and works to ensure that individuals are free to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or retribution.”
“By working jointly with partner agencies to break down barriers to employee reporting, OSHA is committed to strengthening our enforcement of whistleblower laws and protecting workers’ voices,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick. “This collaboration fosters a culture of accountability and upholds the integrity of worker rights.”
What Companies Should Know
Whistleblower Protections for Reporting Antitrust Crimes
Antitrust crimes hurt consumers, workers, and taxpayers — and threaten our free-market economy and democratic institutions. For over 130 years, criminal prosecutors have used antitrust laws as a charter of economic freedom to protect and promote competition.
Members of the public are often best positioned to detect and blow the whistle on antitrust crimes. Leads from the public about potentially illegal conduct enable the Antitrust Division and its law enforcement partners to uncover antitrust cartels and monopolization schemes, prosecute those crimes and protect competition. The Antitrust Division values this information and works to ensure that members of the public are free to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or retribution. The Antitrust Division protects to the fullest extent of the law the identity of those who report antitrust violations.
CAARA protects company employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents who report certain criminal antitrust violations. CAARA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise retaliating against a worker for (1) reporting potential criminal antitrust violations and related crimes to their employer or the federal government or (2) assisting a federal government investigation or proceeding. Therefore, CAARA helps to incentivize the reporting of antitrust crimes and supports the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.
NDAs and Contractual Restrictions on Reporting May Conflict with Antitrust Enforcement and CAARA
Individuals who seek to report antitrust violations must not be deterred or prevented from coming forward for fear of adverse employment consequences.
The Antitrust Division’s work prosecuting antitrust crimes is compromised when NDAs deter individuals from providing law enforcers with relevant information on wrongdoing. When individuals believe that a corporate NDA may prevent them from reporting illegal conduct to enforcers, crimes go undetected and competition suffers. For example, some NDAs are worded so broadly as to suggest that people who report potential crimes or cooperate with law enforcement could face lawsuits and adverse employment consequences as severe as termination. This fear of retribution leads to less reporting of illegal activity and less vigorous antitrust enforcement.
NDAs that discourage individuals from reporting wrongdoing or cooperating with an antitrust investigation also undermine CAARA’s goal of protecting whistleblowers. Even the mere implication that an NDA would bar employees from reporting illegal conduct or assisting an investigation or proceeding clashes with the basic principles behind CAARA that encourage self-reporting and disclosure of wrongdoing to the government.
NDAs that Deter Reporting Will Cost Companies at Charging and Sentencing
CAARA encourages individuals to provide tips to law enforcement and cooperate in antitrust investigations, incentivizes companies to promote compliance and complements leniency and cooperation credit policies. For these reasons, NDAs that undermine CAARA or otherwise interfere with employees’ freedom to report potential crime will cost the employer when the Antitrust Division makes its charging decisions and its sentencing recommendations. Companies should also be aware that using NDAs in efforts to obstruct or impede an investigation may also constitute separate federal criminal violations. And of course, a company that interferes with its employees’ cooperation would jeopardize its ability to fulfill its obligations under the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy, which requires an applicant to “use its best efforts to secure the timely, truthful, continuing, and complete cooperation of all current and former employees.”
The Antitrust Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations guidelines, which prosecutors use to assess the effectiveness of compliance programs when making charging decisions and sentencing recommendations, make clear that the sufficiency and efficacy of a compliance program depends on the existence of “reporting mechanisms that employees can use to report potential antitrust violations anonymously or confidentially and without fear of retaliation.” The questions prosecutors ask in evaluating a compliance program include:
- Whether a company has an anti-retaliation policy;
- Whether it trains employees, managers and supervisors on the provisions of CAARA;
- Whether the company’s use of NDAs is consistent with ensuring that employees can report antitrust violations without fear of retaliation;
- Whether NDAs are used in a way that deters whistleblowers or violates CAARA; and
- Whether NDAs and other employee policies make clear that employees can report antitrust violations, including to government authorities.
Companies that fail to address retaliation, CAARA and NDAs in their policies and compliance structure risk losing out on the benefits associated with maintaining an effective compliance program when the Antitrust Division is making charging decisions and sentencing recommendations.
To report potential antitrust crimes to the Antitrust Division, contact the Complaint Center. If your complaint relates to potential antitrust crimes affecting government procurement, grant or program funding, contact the Procurement Collusion Strike Force Tip Center.
If you feel that you have been a victim of retaliation or would like to learn more about protections for whistleblowers, please see OSHA Fact Sheet.
Updated January 14, 2025
Topic
Antitrust
Component
Antitrust Division Press Release Number: 25-54
Justice Department Sues KKR for Serial Violations of Federal Premerger Review Law
Tuesday, January 14, 2025Share
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
KKR Violated Hart-Scott-Rodino Act at Least 16 Times by Withholding and Altering Documents and Failing to Make Required Filings
The Justice Department today filed a civil lawsuit against KKR & Co. Inc. and over a dozen of its investment advisors and funds (collectively, KKR) for repeatedly flouting the premerger antitrust review process. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint alleges that KKR senior executives, deal teams and investment funds evaded antitrust scrutiny for at least 16 separate transactions by failing to comply with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act).
“KKR’s rinse-and-repeat failures to provide complete and accurate information about its mergers and acquisitions were systemic,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Through document omissions, alterations, and failures to report deals, KKR threatened the integrity of the Division’s premerger reviews and, in some cases, obscured the market impact of its deals and serial acquisitions.”
The HSR Act requires parties to a merger, acquisition, or other transaction above a certain size to submit a premerger filing to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission to aid in the agencies’ enforcement of merger law. As a sophisticated private equity firm in the business of buying and selling companies, KKR is familiar with the HSR Act and its requirements. Since 2021, KKR was required to make more than 100 premerger filings under the HSR Act.
The department’s complaint alleges that over the course of two years — 2021 and 2022 — KKR failed to make complete and accurate premerger filings for at least 16 transactions. Specifically, KKR violated the HSR Act by:
- Altering documents in HSR filings for at least eight transactions. For example, in April 2021, a KKR partner instructed a deal team member to edit a portion of an Investment Committee report in advance of the HSR review process by circling the “Competitive Behavior” section of a diligence chart and writing “[need to revise for HSR purposes]” in the document. The KKR deal team member did not merely revise the language but deleted it entirely before submitting the altered document to the Antitrust Division.
- Failing to make any HSR filing for at least two transactions. KKR did not submit an HSR filing prior to consummating an acquisition valued at $6.9 billion. It also did not submit a filing prior to consummating an acquisition worth between $376 million and $919 million.
- Systematically omitting required documents in HSR filings for at least 10 transactions. KKR repeatedly certified that it had complied with the HSR Act but did not include required documents in those filings. In many cases, KKR only identified such documents in response to an Antitrust Division investigation.
The complaint cites internal documents that reveal a pervasive culture of noncompliance with the HSR Act at KKR. One KKR employee who omitted and altered multiple documents from an HSR Act filing described KKR’s approach to its premerger filing obligations: “I’ve always been told less is more 😊.” In response, a more senior executive replied, “I believe in less is more too….”
As alleged in the complaint, KKR’s conduct allowed it to repeatedly evade legally mandated scrutiny of its investment business and reap millions of dollars in revenues from closing transactions without proper prior review by the federal antitrust agencies. In some cases, KKR’s misconduct obscured the threat its deals posed to competition, including serial acquisitions affecting important markets. By preventing the federal antitrust agencies from effectively investigating the potential anticompetitive effects of KKR’s transactions, KKR imperiled competition and potentially harmed consumers across the nation.
The HSR Act authorizes civil penalties for violations of the Act at more than $50,000 per day per violation. As a result, the maximum penalty for KKR’s alleged violations exceeds $650 million. The complaint also seeks structural relief as well as other equitable relief, including compliance measures.
KKR is a global investment firm headquartered in New York. It is one of the world’s largest investment firms with over $500 billion in total assets under management.
Updated January 14, 2025
Topic
Antitrust
Component
Antitrust Division Press Release Number: 25-51
FTC Issues Policy Statement Clarifying that Independent Contractors, Gig Workers’ Organizing Activities Are Shielded from Antitrust Liability
Tags:
The Federal Trade Commission today issued a policy statement clarifying that independent contractors, including gig workers, are shielded from antitrust liability when engaging in protected bargaining and organizing activities—such as seeking better compensation and job conditions.
According to the FTC’s policy statement, the Commission will not challenge collective action by independent contractors and gig workers, which include rideshare and food delivery drivers, that provide labor services and are seeking better compensation and job conditions because such activities are exempted under the antitrust statutes.
“Companies increasingly rely on gig workers and independent contractors. As more of these workers consider unionizing to secure better pay and conditions, the FTC is making clear that the antitrust laws do not stand in the way of their efforts to collectively organize or bargain,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan.
“Gig workers shouldn’t be forced to accept low wages or poor working conditions just because they’re independent contractors,” said Hannah Garden-Monheit, Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning. “The FTC’s policy statement today makes clear that the antitrust laws do not prevent gig workers from collectively organizing to fight for a better living.”
Under the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts, the ability of workers to organize and collectively bargain over wages and labor conditions is protected from antitrust liability. However, as more workers are increasingly classified as independent contractors and gig workers, they face a patchwork of cases regarding the potential application of the labor exemption.
The FTC’s policy statement makes clear that workers engaged in protected bargaining or organizing activity are not categorically excluded from the antitrust exemption simply because they do not have a formal employer-employee relationship with the firm with which they are negotiating regarding compensation or working conditions. According to the policy statement, the protection of all workers from antitrust liability when they are engaged in protected labor activities is firmly grounded in the statutory text, consistent with existing case law, and reflective of the original meaning of the labor exemption.
Categorically excluding all independent contractors from the protections of the labor exemption would give employers both the incentive and opportunity to exploit asymmetries in antitrust liability protection between workers, according to the policy statement. For example, businesses would have an opportunity and incentive to classify (or misclassify) their workers as independent contractors to suppress wages and to gain an unfair advantage against competitors who provide better compensation and job conditions to workers.
The Commission voted 3-2 to approve the policy statement with Commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak voting no. Commissioner Ferguson issued a dissenting statement joined by Commissioner Holyoak.
The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Media Contact
Office of Public Affairs
415-848-5121
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding the Enforcement Policy Statement on Exemption of Protected Labor Activity by Workers from Antitrust Liability
Tags:
Date
January 14, 2025
By
Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner;
Melissa Holyoak, Commissioner
File
CMA to investigate Google’s search services
Investigation to determine if Google has strategic market status in search and search advertising activities and whether these services are delivering good outcomes for people and businesses in the UK.
From: Competition and Markets Authority
Published14 January 2025
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has today launched its first strategic market status (SMS) designation investigation under the new digital markets competition regime which came into force on 1 January 2025. The investigation will assess Google’s position in search and search advertising services and how this impacts consumers and businesses including advertisers, news publishers, and rival search engines.
Google’s innovative services have generated significant benefits in the UK. Its search services are a gateway through which millions of people and businesses access and navigate the internet. In the UK, Google accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries, and more than 200,000 UK advertisers use Google’s search advertising. Search is vital for economic growth. It facilitates businesses connecting with each other, with investors, and with their customers. And it generates a wealth of data that can be used to develop new AI products and services to foster innovation.
Given the importance of search as a key digital service for people, businesses and the economy, it is critical that competition works well. Effective competition ensures people benefit from greater choice, new and innovative services, and have control over their data. Search services are also important as a route to access the news. Effective competition could help ensure that people can access a wide range of content and that publishers are treated fairly for the use of their content.
For businesses, effective competition could keep down the costs of search advertising, equivalent to nearly £500 per household per year, in turn lowering prices across the economy. An effective, competitive market could also allow businesses to innovate in a way which creates alternatives to traditional search services, including by, for example, ensuring that new AI start-ups can compete with Google and other existing players on an equal footing.
Under the digital markets competition regime, the CMA may designate firms with SMS in relation to a particular digital activity. Once designated, the CMA can impose conduct requirements or propose pro-competition interventions to achieve positive outcomes for UK consumers and businesses.
The CMA’s investigation will assess whether Google has SMS in the UK search and search advertising sectors and, in parallel, consider whether conduct requirements should be imposed in the event of a final designation decision.
The issues that will form part of the CMA’s investigation include:
- Weak competition and barriers to entry and innovation in search. The CMA will assess how competition is working and if Google is using its position to prevent innovation by others. This includes whether barriers to entry are preventing other competitors from entering the market, in particular whether Google is able to shape the development of new AI services and interfaces, including ‘answer engines’, in ways which limit the competitive constraint they impose on Google Search.
- Possible leveraging of market power and ensuring open markets. This will include investigating whether Google is using its position in the market to self-preference its own services, for example specialised search services covering shopping and travel.
- Potential exploitative conduct. This will include investigating the collection and use of large quantities of consumer data without informed consent, and the use of publisher content without fair terms and conditions (including payment terms).
Potential conduct requirements could include, for example, requirements on Google to make the data it collects available to other businesses or giving publishers more control over how their data is used including in Google’s AI services.
The CMA will take a proportionate and transparent approach to this investigation which must be completed within 9 months. It will now focus on engaging a wide range of stakeholders – including advertising firms, news publishers and user groups – as well as gathering evidence from Google before reaching a decision by October 2025.
Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said:
Millions of people and businesses across the UK rely on Google’s search and advertising services – with 90 per cent of searches happening on their platform and more than 200,000 UK businesses advertising there. That’s why it’s so important to ensure these services are delivering good outcomes for people and businesses and that there is a level playing field, especially as AI has the potential to transform search services.
It’s our job to ensure people get the full benefit of choice and innovation in search services and get a fair deal – for example in how their data is collected and stored. And for businesses, whether you are a rival search engine, an advertiser or a news organisation, we want to ensure there is a level playing field for all businesses, large and small, to succeed.
More information can be found on the CMA’s search services investigation case page.
More information on the digital markets competition regime can be found via the CMA’s explainer page.
Notes to Editors
1 . Search advertising is where an advertiser pays for its advert to appear next to the results from a user’s search on an internet search engine. The investigation relates to Google’s general search and search advertising activities. A description of these activities and the main Google products included is set out in the investigation notice.
2 . The statutory deadline for this investigation is Monday 13 October 2025.
3 . Anyone with an interest in the CMA’s Google Search investigation is invited to comment until Monday 3 February.
4 . Under the digital markets competition regime, the CMA may designate firms with SMS in relation to a particular digital activity. If designated, the CMA could impose conduct requirements or introduce pro-competition interventions to achieve positive outcomes for UK consumers and businesses. For any business to be able to be designated with strategic market status it must be found to have:
- Substantial and entrenched market power in a digital activity linked to the United Kingdom
- A position of strategic significance
- Global turnover of more than £25 billion or UK turnover of more than £1 billion
5 . The CMA set out on 7 January that it expects to launch SMS designation investigations in relation to two areas of digital activity during January. This is the first of those investigations.
6 . The regime forms part of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act which received Royal Assent in May 2024.
7 . Today’s announcement comes at a time when other authorities around the world, including in the US, Europe and Australia are also taking a close look at Google’s search activities. The CMA is in regular contact with these other authorities.
8 . For media enquiries, contact the CMA press office on 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk
La CNMC inicia un estudio sobre la urbanización del suelo para mejorar el acceso a la vivienda
Sector: Nota de prensa
Ámbito CNMC: Promoción de Competencia
- La escasez de suelo y las restricciones para el desarrollo urbanístico pueden limitar la vivienda disponible y elevar su precio.
- El estudio formulará recomendaciones para agilizar la urbanización del suelo, reducir costes y acelerar plazos, en beneficio de los ciudadanos.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha iniciado un estudio sobre la transformación urbanística del suelo para mejorar el acceso a la vivienda en nuestro país.
Impulso de la urbanización del suelo
El suelo es un elemento necesario para la construcción de vivienda y representa un porcentaje muy importante de su precio. Por eso, la escasez de suelo y las restricciones en el desarrollo urbanístico pueden reducir la vivienda disponible y elevar su coste. Para evitarlo, la urbanización del suelo debería ser un proceso ágil y rápido en la medida de lo posible, manteniendo las garantías necesarias.
En esta línea, el estudio de la CNMC identificará los elementos que restrinjan de forma innecesaria la eficiencia y competencia del sector, y formulará una serie de recomendaciones para mejorar su funcionamiento.
La CNMC anima a cualquier persona con información relevante sobre el sector a ponerse en contacto con la Subdirección de Estudios e Informes del Departamento de Promoción de la Competencia a través de la siguiente dirección de correo electrónico: dp.estudios@cnmc.es.
El Plan Estratégico 2021-2026 de la CNMC incluye entre sus objetivos la protección de los consumidores, particularmente los más vulnerables, así como el impulso de la productividad y la eficiencia económica.
La CNMC, de acuerdo con el artículo 5.1 de la Ley de creación, tiene entre sus funciones la promoción de una competencia efectiva en los mercados mediante, entre otros, la realización de estudios y trabajos de investigación en materia de competencia, así como informes generales sobre sectores económicos, en su caso, con propuestas de liberalización, desregulación o modificación normativa.
Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.
La CNMC multa al Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona por incumplir sus resoluciones
Sector: Nota de prensa
Ámbito CNMC: Competencia
- En 2018, la CNMC sancionó al ICAB y a otros ocho colegios de abogados por elaborar, publicar y difundir baremos de honorarios.
- Tras la sanción, el ICAB aportó unos criterios orientativos para la tasación de costas adecuados al cumplimiento de la resolución sancionadora.
- En la vigilancia del expediente, la CNMC detectó que en realidad el ICAB estaba aplicando y difundiendo esos criterios como verdaderos baremos.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha sancionado al Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona (ICAB) con 500.000 euros por incumplir dos resoluciones dictadas en un expediente sancionador por recomendaciones de precios sobre los honorarios que cobran los abogados a sus clientes en los procesos judiciales (SNC/100/24 ICAB).
En marzo de 2018, la CNMC sancionó al ICAB y a ocho Colegios de Abogados por realizar recomendaciones de precios mediante la elaboración, publicación y difusión de baremos de honorarios, conductas prohibidas por el artículo 1 de la Ley 15/2007 de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC) (nota de prensa).
Tras la sanción, el ICAB aportó a la CNMC unos nuevos criterios orientativos para la tasación de costas. En este documento el ICAB establecía pautas o directrices generales para la tasación de costas, en lugar de los baremos o instrumentos para la cuantificación directa de los honorarios por los que había sido sancionado.
En febrero de 2020, la CNMC dictó una Resolución —como parte del procedimiento de vigilancia (VS/0587/16) del expediente de 2018— en la que declaró que los criterios orientativos para la tasación de costas presentados por el ICAB eran adecuados para cumplir la Resolución de 2018. En la misma resolución la CNMC advertía que seguiría vigilando la actuación de los colegios “con vistas a garantizar que no utilicen ni difundan los antiguos criterios ya sancionados u otros similares”.
Expediente sancionador
Sin embargo, la CNMC acreditó después que el ICAB había difundido los criterios orientativos validados por la CNMC para que se aplicasen en la práctica como verdaderos baremos de honorarios. Con esta difusión, realizada especialmente en sesiones de formación, se transformaban las indicaciones genéricas de los criterios orientativos en unos porcentajes concretos y, en definitiva, en un sistema de cálculo automático para la tasación de costas. La difusión se produjo entre más de 4.000 abogados del ICAB, además de entre profesionales colegiados en colegios de abogados de otras demarcaciones territoriales.
Esta práctica constituye un incumplimiento de las resoluciones de 2018 y 2020, tipificado como una infracción muy grave en el artículo 62.4.c) de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia.
Pago voluntario y reducción de la multa
Antes de aprobarse la resolución, el ICAB pagado voluntariamente la multa propuesta (500.000 euros), acogiéndose al artículo 85.3 de la Ley 39/2015, que permite reducir, como mínimo, un 20 % la sanción si la entidad paga por anticipado. El importe de la multa, una vez aplicada la reducción, ha sido de 400.000 euros.
Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.
La CNMC analizará la concentración Bondalti Chemicals/Ercros en segunda fase
Sector: Nota de prensa
Ámbito CNMC: Competencia
- Bondalti notificó la adquisición del control exclusivo de Ercros el pasado 9 de julio de 2024.
- La operación puede suponer riesgos para la competencia en los mercados de sosa cáustica e hipoclorito sódico, por lo que requiere un análisis en mayor profundidad.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha acordado, con fecha 18 de diciembre de 2024, el inicio de la segunda fase del análisis de la concentración Bondalti Chemicals/Ercros (C/1480/24).
La operación consiste en la adquisición del control exclusivo de Ercros por parte de Bondalti, a través de una oferta pública de adquisición (OPA) hostil que fue presentada el 5 de marzo de 2024.
Apertura de la segunda fase
El sector económico afectado por la operación es la fabricación de productos básicos de química orgánica e inorgánica, en especial los mercados del cloro y sus derivados, en los que se solapa la actividad de las partes.
La potencial adquisición puede suponer riesgos para la competencia en los mercados de sosa cáustica e hipoclorito sódico y, por ello, la CNMC ha acordado analizar la operación en segunda fase. Este paso no prejuzga las conclusiones definitivas que la CNMC pueda alcanzar sobre la concentración.
Análisis en profundidad
Durante la primera fase del procedimiento, la CNMC ha investigado la situación de competencia en los mercados afectados. Esto facilitará el análisis en segunda fase, que estudiará en mayor profundidad la operación y, en particular, los mercados afectados de sosa cáustica e hipoclorito sódico.
Durante esta fase, Ercros y otros terceros con interés legítimo podrán presentar alegaciones. Bondalti, por su parte, también podrá formular alegaciones y aportar más información. Además, se solicitará un informe preceptivo a las comunidades autónomas en las que la concentración incida de forma significativa.
La resolución final que apruebe la CNMC podrá autorizar, aceptar compromisos, imponer condiciones o prohibir la operación de concentración Bondalti Chemicals/Ercros.
Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.
Ouverture d’une consultation publique sur l’introduction d’un système de contrôle des concentrations pour les opérations sous les seuils de notification
Publié le 14 janvier 2025
Tirant les conséquences de l’arrêt Illumina/Grail de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne du 3 septembre 2024, l’Autorité de la concurrence s’est engagée à identifier les moyens existants ou nécessaires pour s’assurer qu’aucune concentration, même non soumise à une notification préalable, ne porte atteinte à la concurrence sur le territoire français.
Dans ce cadre, l’Autorité ouvre la présente consultation publique pour recueillir les observations des parties prenantes jusqu’au 16 février 2025.
Communiqué de presse du 14 janvier 2025
L’Autorité de la concurrence ouvre une consultation publique jusqu’au 16 février 2025 sur les modalités d’introduction d’un système de contrôle des concentrations susceptibles de porter atteinte à la concurrence et ne franchissant pas les seuils de notification en vigueur
Guia
How the UK’s digital markets competition regime works
Details on the new digital markets competition regime, and how it will promote competition in digital markets.
From: Competition and Markets Authority Published7 January 2025
Last updated14 January 2025 — See all updates
Get emails about this page
Contents
- The digital markets competition regime
- Benefits of the regime for the UK
- Criteria for Strategic Market Status
- Stages of an SMS investigation
- What happens as a result of an investigation
- Design and approach
- Administering the regime
Print this page
The digital markets competition regime
From January 2025, new responsibilities for the CMA came into force under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
The new ‘digital markets competition regime’ enables the CMA to promote competition in fast-moving digital markets, while protecting UK consumers and businesses from unfair or harmful practices by the very largest technology firms.
The regime will unlock opportunities for more innovation and economic growth across the UK tech sector, benefitting companies of all shapes and sizes – along with the investors who back them. It will also help people and businesses across the UK, who rely on access to critical digital markets, to get a fair deal.
On 14 January 2025, the CMA launched the first investigation under the regime, focused on Google’s activities in search and search advertising.
More information about this investigation is available on the investigation page, where updates will be provided: SMS investigation into Google in relation to general search and search advertising.
Benefits of the regime for the UK
The regime provides a unique opportunity to encourage the benefits of investment and innovation from the largest digital firms, while ensuring a level playing-field for the many start-ups and scale-ups across the UK tech sector. The multitude of UK businesses and consumers who depend on the largest firms for critical products and services will also benefit from more innovation, more choice and more competitive prices.
- opportunities to harness the benefits of continued investment and innovation by the very largest firms
- unlocking expanded opportunities for investment and innovation by creating a level playing field for start-ups and scale-ups (many UK-based) to succeed
- strengthened opportunities for UK consumers and business customers, those who rely on key platform services, to benefit from greater choice, more innovation and lower prices
People can:
- make informed choices, with defaults and choice architecture aiding decision-making
- use the products and services that best meet their needs, regardless of what other products and services they use and who they are provided by
- easily switch providers, without losing access to their data and content
- be protected from exploitation and unfair or misleading practices
To ensure that businesses:
- that rely on Strategic Market Status (SMS) firms do not face exploitation or anti-competitive behaviour by those firms
- have a fair chance to compete with SMS firms, including through appropriate access to data and functionality
Driving economic growth and improved productivity by:
- harnessing the benefits of continued investment and innovation by the very largest firms
- expanding opportunities for investment and innovation by creating a level playing field for start-ups and scale-ups (many UK-based) to succeed
Criteria for Strategic Market Status
The heart of the regime is proportionality. It is designed to apply only to the very largest firms. If certain conditions are met, these firms can be designated with Strategic Market Status (SMS) in relation to a particular digital activity.
In the first investigation under the regime, the CMA will consider whether Google, which accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the UK, has SMS in the provision of search and search advertising services.
The CMA will carry out investigations within a 9 month statutory timeframe to consider whether to designate a firm with SMS.
To assess whether the conditions for an SMS designation are met, the CMA will carry out evidence-based investigations, consulting and engaging with a wide range of stakeholders.
The conditions are:
- UK turnover of more than £1 billion or global turnover of more than £25 billion
- substantial and entrenched market power in relation to the digital activity
- a position of strategic significance
The CMA must carry out a forward-looking, five-year assessment to decide whether a firm has ‘substantial and entrenched’ market power in a particular digital activity. To make sure the regime keeps up with developments in fast-moving digital markets, SMS designations are time-bound for review every 5 years.
A firm has a position of strategic significance if it has at least 1 of the following:
- significant size or scale in the digital activity
- a significant number of other firms use the digital activity to carry out business it can extend its market power to a range of other activities
- it can substantially influence how other firms behave, in respect of the digital activity or otherwise
Stages of an SMS investigation
An SMS investigation will usually last 9 months. The stages are:
- launch of the designation investigation
- consultation period
- proposed decision
- consultation period
- final decision
At least 9 months before the end of the five-year designation period, the CMA must open a new SMS investigation to re-assess the firm’s status.
What happens as a result of an investigation
If the CMA designates a firm with SMS, it will have 2 key tools: Conduct Requirements and Pro-Competition Interventions.
Through Conduct Requirements, the CMA will be able to guide the behaviour of SMS firms, tackling conduct that could undermine fair competition, or exploit people and businesses.
Through Pro-Competition Interventions, the CMA will be able to address specific competition problems arising from a firm’s market power in a particular digital activity.
The regime also provides for additional merger reporting requirements on SMS firms, to make sure the CMA has earlier sight of mergers and acquisitions that could harm competition in digital markets.
Conduct requirements
The CMA may put in place one or more tailored rules for SMS firms – steps that require them to take certain action or to stop a specific activity. These requirements may be put in place where doing so would be proportionate to achieve specific positive outcomes for users (or potential users) of the digital activity. These are fair dealing, open choices, or trust and transparency.
Pro-competition interventions
Once a firm has been designated with strategic market status, the CMA may investigate whether anything relating to the designated digital activity (for example, the behaviour of a firm or the structure of a sector) is harming competition.
If the CMA finds an adverse effect on competition, it can design and test interventions to address these competition problems and any harmful effects on users. This might include giving people the power to transfer their data easily between providers; or requiring firms to make sure different products and services work smoothly together (‘interoperability’), so businesses can more easily innovate and compete.
New merger reporting requirements
SMS firms must report mergers with a UK connection, and a value of £25 million or more, to the CMA before their completion. Where the CMA is concerned a merger might cause competition problems, it will launch a merger investigation under its normal merger review process.
Design and approach
The way rules are designed and applied matters if the UK is to maximise its international attractiveness to innovators and investors. The new regime has been created with this in mind, representing a unique combination of ‘best-in-class’ features, which the CMA is committed to implementing in an open, transparent, solutions-focused way.
Proportionality
The regime applies only to the very largest technology firms – those with substantial and entrenched market power in a particular digital activity. The CMA will also take a highly tailored, bespoke approach to identifying and addressing specific harms.
Process
The process for investigations and interventions will be participative and transparent, including constructive engagement with SMS firms and other stakeholders to resolve concerns quickly and effectively where possible.
Predictability
Interventions are developed through a forward-looking, iterative and open process, providing the predictability that is critically important to businesses. Designations are limited to a maximum of 5 years before the CMA must consider whether they should be renewed, varied or revoked. This provides certainty whilst enabling the CMA to take account of technological and broader market changes.
Pace
Designation investigations have a 9-month statutory timeline, with the CMA able to consult on conduct requirements at the same time, helping us to reach positive outcomes faster. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act also provides for a new general duty of expedition for the CMA, including in relation to the digital markets competition regime, which means pace will be a key focus.
Administering the regime
The CMA will actively monitor interventions to make sure they are effective, avoid unintended consequences, and are targeted where they can have the most positive impact.
The most significant decisions under the regime will be taken by the CMA Board and a new Digital Markets Board Committee.
The CMA will coordinate with other regulators domestically and set out arrangements for doing this in published memoranda of understanding.
Many of the issues the CMA will tackle are cross-border in nature, so it is also working closely with international partners to help shape a regulatory landscape that supports investment and innovation in the UK.
Read the full guidance for the digital markets competition regime and merger reporting requirements for SMS firms.
Updates to this page
Published 7 January 2025
Last updated 14 January 2025 + show all updates
Decisões
Comissão Europeia
UNICREDIT / CNP UNICREDIT VITA
Merger
Last decision date: 14.01.2025 Simplified procedure
EPCG / IDS
Merger
Last decision date: 13.01.2025
CMA
Sonoco / Eviosys merger inquiry
- The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has investigated the completed acquisition by Sonoco Products Company of the Eviosys group, from entities managed by KPS Capital Partners LP and Crown Holdings, Inc.
- Updated: 14 January 2025
Autorité de la Concurrence
Secteur(s) :
25-DCC-07
relative à la prise de contrôle conjoint de la société Calao 177 par les sociétés Clemisor et ITM Entreprises
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 14 janvier 2025