The latest edition of our Competition in Africa Report offers a detailed analysis and overview of recent developments in competition law enforcement and competition policy in 32 African jurisdictions. This report also provides an overview of regulatory and legislative dynamics and challenges in selected markets.
2023 was a transformative year for the Indonesian Competition Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, KPPU). Among others, the KPPU updated its merger control regulation and case handling regulation, introduced guidelines to help corporations identify issues in bid rigging, and updated its guidelines to define the relevant market and mechanism for payment of administrative fines by instalments. The transformation continues with the new KPPU leadership and issuance of regulation on case handling for unfair contract terms.
In the past few years, enforcement against restrictive labor market agreements has become a priority for many competition authorities worldwide. As a result, certain HR practices are in the spotlight of antitrust enforcers and may result in significant fines or even criminal liability. For more information, please read our briefing document, International Antitrust Onslaught against HR practices: Act now to stay ahead of the game.
On 20 May, the US District Court for the Central District of California affirmed a seven-figure jury verdict and granted a permanent injunction in a rare Robinson-Patman Act decision. The RPA is an antitrust statute that prohibits certain kinds of price discrimination in goods purchased for resale. The case, LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, was pursued by a group of local wholesaler plaintiffs that claimed a defendant eye drop manufacturer and its subsidiaries sold the plaintiffs eye drops on less favorable terms than the defendant’s club store wholesale customer.
The Indonesian Competition Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha, KPPU) has been carrying out enforcement against unfair contract terms (UCT) since February 2022, resulting in six decisions with three infringement findings. KPPU has the authority to examine UCT cases based on Law No. 20 of 2008 on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, as amended (“Law 20/2008”), and recently introduced a regulation on the procedures for handling UCT cases, in the form of KPPU Regulation No. 2 of 2024 (“New UCT Case Handling Regulation”). This new regulation revoked KPPU Regulation No. 4 of 2019 on the same topic.
In recent years, competition law enforcement has continued to intensify in key emerging markets in the EMEA region. In our 60-minute “quick hits” webinar, we will provide an update on the latest key competition law developments, compliance tips, and pointers on what is on the horizon. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 at 15:00 BST / 16:00 CEST for one hour.
We are pleased to present the second edition in 2024 of Ukrainian Laws in Wartime: Guide for International and Domestic Businesses, a brief overview of the key features of wartime legislation.
The UK Government passed the long-awaited Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (“Act”) on 24 May 2024. Some provisions of the Act take effect immediately (for example, new controls over foreign ownership of newspapers), but most provisions will enter into force in Autumn this year following the conclusion of a public consultation on important legislative guidance. The Act introduces radical new digital sector regulation – akin to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act – in addition to expanding the UK Competition & Markets Authority’s consumer protection powers and introducing significant reform of the UK competition regime.
By means of Resolution 98/2024, the Secretariat of Industry and Commerce regulates the procedure through which companies and individuals avail themselves of the leniency benefit provided by the Antitrust Law No. 27,442.
The US District Court for the Southern District of Texas has granted a motion to dismiss the FTC’s lawsuit filed by private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (WCAS), but denied the motion to dismiss filed by its minority-owned portfolio company, US Anesthesiology Partners, Inc. (USAP). The FTC alleged that WCAS and USAP developed and pursued an anticompetitive acquisition strategy to “roll-up” multiple Texas-based aesthesia practices in violation of federal antitrust law. The court granted WCAS’s motion to dismiss because it found that its minority, non-controlling stake in USAP was insufficient to support a violation of federal antitrust law.