Matthew Jones

Senior Associate, Macfarlanes

Matthew has experience advising clients on merger control matters, competition litigation, regulatory investigations and bespoke behavioural-related advice.

He has worked with clients in a wide range of sectors including digital markets, financial services and the transport industry.

Matthew was on secondment at Mozilla from September 2024 to March 2025, working on digital markets competition matters, including related to the new UK regime which launched in January 2025.

He also completed a client secondment at Associated British Foods (ABF) from April 2019 to January 2020. During his time at ABF, Matthew worked on a range of different competition matters and took an active role in ABF’s competition compliance program.

Experience

Private damages actions/collective proceedings: Advising a major international bank in relation to private damages actions and collective proceedings brought against a number of Defendants arising out of alleged anti-competitive conduct in relation to foreign exchange.

Digital Markets Competition Regulation: Advising a multinational technology company on engagement with the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to the UK's digital markets competition regime.

Merger control: Advising on the competition law aspects of the sale of a UK-listed company.

Private damages actions: Advising a company active in the sports data sector on a private damages action in the Competition Appeal Tribunal brought by one of its main competitors.

Contributed to

1

IP Rights and abuse of dominance

Practice Notes

The exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) by dominant companies can cause competition problems under Article 102, TFEU (and Member State equivalents). The dividing line between anti-competitive exclusionary conduct and ‘normal’ reliance on IPRs is explored in relation to broad categories of potential abuses. The difficulties of market definition in relation to IPRs is also assessed. Patent disputes between telecoms companies and the AstraZeneca case are detailed in the context of abuse of FRAND licensing commitments and the system of patent grant. There is also a discussion on the Microsoft case and refusal to license ‘essential facility’ IPRs and unfair licensing terms and tying.

Competition