On 20 January, the UK Government announced a consultation on planned reforms to the UK’s merger and markets regime. Key proposed changes include narrowing certain jurisdictional thresholds, centralising Phase II decision-making within the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Board through removal of the Phase II independent panel (CMA Panel), and the introduction of a new “single-phase” market investigation review process.

Whilst reform may be welcome to businesses in some respects, the proposals are likely to further centralise decision-making power within the CMA, as well as increasing the oversight of Government in the administration of key aspects of the UK’s antitrust regime. For merger decisions in particular, the removal of the CMA Panel, combined with the Government’s commitment to retain the judicial review standard of appeal, may reignite calls for a full merits review standard to be introduced alongside the proposed reforms.

Why now? 

Having gained a reputation for taking bold stances on global mergers with arguably limited nexus to the UK (e.g., Facebook/Giphy and Sabre/Farelogix), the CMA has sometimes been accused of deterring some transactional investments in the UK economy. As part of a wider Regulatory Action Plan, the Government in January 2025 replaced the incumbent CMA Chair, Marcus Bokkerink, with Doug Gurr (formerly a global VP and the head of Amazon UK). The Government also committed to reviewing and narrowing the UK’s notoriously broad jurisdictional thresholds under the Enterprise Act 2002.

A resulting flurry of activity has already seen the CMA prioritising cases that have a direct impact on UK consumers or businesses; adopting a more neutral stance towards behavioural remedies in suitable cases; and promising to increase the pace, predictability, and proportionality (the “4Ps”) of its enforcement activities, in particular for merger reviews.  

The proposed reforms consolidate and entrench this direction of travel.Continue Reading “Operational transformation” at the CMA -What the latest announcements mean for UK antitrust enforcement

On 11 December 2025, the Council and European Parliament reached political agreement to revamp the EU’s Foreign Investment Screening Regulation.  The revamp aims at responding to perceived growing risks to national and economic security in the EU. It forms part of the EU’s recently unveiled Economic Security Doctrine. While the full text has not…

Continue Reading The EU adopts revamped regime to screen foreign investment

The figures are fresh off the press: the European Commission published its Fifth Annual Report on the screening of foreign direct investments (“FDI”) into the European Union (“EU”) just a few days ago.[1] Like the previous editions, the Fifth Annual Report offers a statistical overview of the EU FDI framework’s…

Continue Reading EU’s Fifth FDI Annual Report: Five trends in Europe’s screening activities

The war in Ukraine, and other recent geopolitical conflicts, has underscored the need for EU-based defence capabilities to scale up to face these challenges. Several EU initiatives which have sought to stimulate investment are starting to bear fruit, as the European Defence Agency recently reported record high defence spendings in the EU (€350bn for 2024…

Continue Reading Five Key Points on FDI Screening in the EU Defence Sector

On June 25, 2025, the European Commission adopted the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (CISAF) to promote the EU’s goals for decarbonization and competitiveness. CISAF makes permanent the relaxed State aid compatibility rules adopted under the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF). It will be in effect from June 25, 2025 until December 31…

Continue Reading The European Commission adopts the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework

On 2 June 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) fined the food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo EUR 329 million for engaging into cartel conduct through agreeing not to poach each other’s employees, exchanging competitively sensitive information, and allocating geographic markets.

The decision signals increased antitrust scrutiny of labour-related arrangements between rivals  and…

Continue Reading European Commission issues first no-poach decision in labour markets, warning against the collusive risks of minority shareholdings

Introduction

On Thursday 8 May 2025, the EU took another important step towards revamping its framework to screen foreign investment, with the European Parliament adopting an amended version of the bill (the “EP Bill”, available here). That vote has now cleared the way for the next step in the legislative process: the tri-partite negotiations between the European Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament (aka “trilogue”) to arrive to a final text that will become law.

The EP Bill endorses the Commission proposal[1] that sought to bring more harmonisation/oversight over Member States, but also goes further and makes several ambitious additions to the Commission proposal in particular, the EP Bill would: (i) give new decision-making powers to the Commission in an area where such powers previously have squarely rested in the hands of the EU Member States, (ii) expand the list and scope of sectors in which foreign investments could undergo screening, and (iii) require reporting and screening of greenfield investments above a certain amount in many sectors.

This post explains these key proposed changes for non-EU investors and sets out how we see the prospects of these changes surviving the remainder of the legislative process.Continue Reading EP Approves Draft FDI Regulation Giving Extensive Powers to EC

The UK Parliament has passed emergency legislation to enable the government to direct the use of assets of British Steel, and to take control of assets if directions are not followed.

The government’s stated intention is “continuing the support of steel production in the UK [which] involves preserving current production capacity to ensure resilience in the production of steel”. The new law creates new powers for the government to intervene in relation to steelmaking businesses whose assets are at risk of ceasing to be used. If the operation of a steelmaking blast furnace, such as those operated by British Steel, is stopped, restarting its operation can be prohibitively expensive and it may be permanently unusable.

Following negotiations with its current owners (the Chinese steelmaker Jingye Group) on the future of British Steel, the government announced on Friday its intention to recall Parliament the following day to introduce a draft bill and complete the full legislative process within a single day. The bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal asset on Saturday 12 April, coming into force on the same day, as the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (the “Act”).

This is the first time that Parliament has responded to a perceived crisis in a UK industry by extending the government’s powers to intervene in specific industries for “public interest” reasons since 2008, in the context of the Global Financial Crisis. In that case, Parliament passed legislation to enable the government to nationalise the Northern Rock bank (and subsequently other banks), and later that year the government’s public interest intervention powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 were expanded in order to allow the government to override competition concerns in the Lloyds/HBOS merger. In contrast to previous measures that provide the government with powers to acquire businesses and to intervene in potential mergers and acquisitions between businesses, the new Act applies outside of the context of a transaction or takeover. Specifically, the new Act applies where specific assets may cease (or have ceased) to be used in a steel manufacturing business but the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of the assets should continue.Continue Reading UK passes emergency legislation to authorize “public interest” directions on use of British Steel assets

In November 2024, the UK’s High Court (the “Court”) issued its judgment on the first appeal of a Final Order (“Order”) imposed by the UK government (acting through the Secretary of State) under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act 2021 (the “NSIA”).

Under UK public law, decisions such as the Order can only be challenged on a judicial review basis – i.e., on the process and not on the merits. The Court not only confirms this position, but also clearly indicates limits to the scope of UK courts’ powers to opine on the substance of national security risk and reveals a wide margin of discretion for the UK government.Continue Reading Five takeaways from the first court challenge to a UK NSIA Final Order

On 16 January 2025, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published a position paper, as it had announced last year, on the “interplay between data protection and competition law” (“Position Paper”).

In this blogpost, we outline the EDPB’s position on cooperation between EU data protection authorities (“DPAs”) and competition authorities (“CAs”) in the context of certain key issues at the intersection of data protection and competition law.

Key takeaways

  1. In the interest of coherent regulatory outcomes, the EDPB advocates for increased cooperation between DPAs and CAs.
  2. The Position Paper offers practical suggestions to that end, such as fostering closer personal relationships, mutual understanding, and a shared sense of purpose, as well as more structured mechanisms for regulatory cooperation.
  3. The EDPB is mindful of the Digital Markets Act’s (“DMA”) significance in addressing data protection and competition law risks.

Continue Reading EDPB highlights the importance of cooperation between data protection and competition authorities