As of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered a transition or implementation period of 11 months until 31 December 2020, during which it continued to be subject to EU law. EU law introduced, or implemented, after 31 December 2020 (IP completion day) is not binding on the UK. For EU legislation pre-dating 31 December 2020, a new category of domestic law, retained EU law, was introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018), and subsequently the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, and case law relating to any such retained EU law prior to the end of 2020 continued to have effect in the UK. For more information, see Practice Notes: Brexit—key legislation explained and Retained EU law and assimilated law. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 further amended this position from the end of 2023. From 1 January 2024, retained EU law which

This Practice Note covers the application of EU and UK competition law to common practices that take place within the pharmaceutical sector. The pharmaceutical sector is consistently the target of scrutiny from both the European Commission and national competition authorities, such as the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which is unsurprising given the importance of pharmaceuticals to the health of citizens, and the high financial burden that pharmaceuticals place on national healthcare systems. Anticompetitive practices that jeopardise patients’ access to innovative and affordable medicines are therefore quick to catch the attention of competition enforcers. The pharmaceutical sector has certain characteristics which distinguish it from other sectors. These include the significant investment involved in bringing a therapy to market and its high level of risk, the multiple decision makers influencing the choice of therapy used (eg healthcare professionals (HCPs), pricing and reimbursement authorities, insurers and hospitals), the high level of price controls, the importance of intellectual property (IP) rights, the high degree of regulation and the high degree of public and political scrutiny.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the application of UK competition law to digital markets. This Practice Note considers: the application of the Chapter I prohibition to digital trade including competition law issues with horizontal and vertical agreements; abuse of dominance by online platforms; UK market studies and market investigations in relation to digital markets; and changes introduced under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). This Practice Note highlights the value and difficulties associated with competition law compliance throughout the digital commerce lifecycle. Introduction to competition law and digital trading Over the past few decades, the way in which traders buy and sell goods has seen significant change. As the internet and other forms of digital connectivity embed themselves within society, traders are increasingly reliant on digital platforms to trade with business customers and consumers alike. Traders can now connect with customers across a variety of platforms, including social media, online marketplaces, and virtual reality platforms. This shift has increased audience reach and consumer choice. See

Why you need to manage this risk Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which concerns EU competition law, and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998, which concerns UK competition law, each prohibit conduct on the part of an undertaking that constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. Dominant businesses, ie businesses with a high degree of market power or economic strength, have a special responsibility. This means behaviour which was perfectly acceptable whilst that business did not have market power, suddenly becomes problematic once the business does have the requisite degree of market power. As a rough rule of thumb, once a business consistently has a market share in excess of 40%, it is likely to enjoy a dominant position. That market share typically needs to have been maintained for at least two years. However, market shares are not the only factor in determining whether a business is dominant—the market position of the company and its competitors must be tested in the context of a full examination

Why you need to manage this risk Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in respect of EU competition law, and Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, in respect of UK competition law, each prohibit agreements between undertakings and decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices that may affect trade (between Member States under Article 101 TFEU or within the UK under the Chapter I prohibition) and which have as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Failure to comply with competition law requirements can have various consequences: Consequence Further information Fines The European Commission's (Commission) and UK’s Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) principal tool for punishing anti-competitive activity is the imposition of fines on infringing companies. Each separate infringement of competition law may be punished with a fine, capped at 10% of your annual worldwide turnover. Void and unenforceable agreements Where an agreement is found to infringe Article 101(1) TFEU or Chapter I, it will be void and unenforceable

This Practice Note provides an introduction to EU and UK competition law (Competition). It is aimed at trainee solicitors and those who are new to Competition as a practice area. It focuses on the basic principles that apply and includes links to Lexis®+ UK Competition and other LexisNexis® sources and materials which provide more comprehensive information on the topics covered. User tips: Those who are new to Competition are likely to find the Overviews in each of the subtopics in the Competition practice area particularly useful. These Overviews summarise the law relating to a particular issue or aspect of Competition law, providing links to relevant content within the subtopic to help navigate the area concerned. Where something is not covered by this introductory guide, use the Topics & Tasks tab or Topics dropdown menu to browse further practice area content. This Practice Note also contains guidance to help you make the most of the Competition materials, including how to sign-up for email alerts for the latest Competition news. What is competition law? In a truly competitive market, consumers

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective, a number of developments, including (among other things): (1) the Government launching a consultation on turnover and control regulations under the DMCCA 2024, (2) the CMA launching a consultation on the assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation, (3) the CMA provisionally finding that the Spreadex/Sporting Index merger raises competition concerns, (4) a number of CAT judgments in relation to CPOs, and (5) the latest cases where the Government has intervened under the NSI Act 2021. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) a national reference from Portugal in which the Court of Justice’s recommended that a 10-year information exchange between credit institutions can constitute a ‘by object’ restriction, (2) the Commission’s decision to close its Article 102 TFEU investigation into EPEX Spot SE’s conduct on the intraday trading market, (3) publication by the Commission of a Staff Working Document providing guidance on the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, and (4) a number of Court of Justice judgments dealing with State aid issues.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes developments from a UK perspective, including: (1) a report published by the CMA on competition and market power in labour markets, (2) the CMA’s announcement that it has launched an investigation into Vifor Pharma over suspected anti-competitive behaviour regarding the supply of intravenous iron deficiency treatments to the NHS. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the Court of Justice recommending in national reference from Bulgarian that rules setting minimum remuneration for lawyer breach Article 101 TFEU, and (2) the Commission sending a statement of objections in relation to its Article 101 investigation into the Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon market, (3) the Commission publishes a statement on announcement by Amazon and iRobot to abandon their transaction, (4) the General Court judgment to uphold an appeal regarding the Commission’s decision to partially waive commitments in Nidec/Whirlpool merger, (5) the Commission publishing a report on enforcement of EU antitrust and merger control rules in the pharmaceutical sector between 2018–2022, and (6) the Commission issues practical guidance for Member States on how to assess the existence of aid for risk finance measures.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the CMA’s decision to launch a consultation on proposed changes to the CMA’s guidance on applications for leniency and no-action in cartel cases, (2) publication by the CMA of guidance on how mergers are investigated, and (3) publication of guidance by the CMA on how it will deliver the 4Ps to support growth under the new digital markets competition regime. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the Commission’s decision to fine Apple €500m for breaching its anti-steering obligation under the DMA, (2) the Commission’s decision to close its investigation into Apple's user choice obligations under the DMA, (3) the Commission’s decision to issue its preliminary findings in relation to its non-compliance investigation into whether Apple’s new contractual requirements for alternative app distribution breach the DMA, (4) the Commission’s decision to fine Meta €200m for breaching the DMA obligation to give consumers the choice of a service that uses less of their personal data, (5) publication by the Commission of its second annual report on the DMA, (6) the Court of Justice’s judgment concerning a national reference from Poland on exemption from property tax, (7) a judgment from the General Court dismissing Symrise’s appeal against a dawn raid in the Commission’s fragrance cartel investigation, and (8) a judgment from the General Court dismissing an appeal regarding Deutsche Lufthansa’s challenge against the Commission’s decision to grant Frankhurt Hahn airport aid following referral back from Court of Justice.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) publication by the CMA of a report analysing past industrial policies to inform the government’s design of a new industrial strategy, and (2) publication of the government’s response and refinements to the subsidy control regime following consultation. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) an AG opinion concerning a national reference from the Netherlands regarding jurisdictional issues in two cartel damages actions, and (2) an AG opinion concerning a national reference from Spain seeking clarification on the limitation period in the context of a damages claim for infringement of competition law.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the Court of Appeal’s judgment dismissing appeals against the CAT’s judgments regarding third-party litigation funding arrangements the Competition Act, collective proceedings may be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) by a class underpinning collective claims against Apple, Sony, Visa and Mastercard, (2) the CMA consults on modified commitments from AJBA parties to strengthen competition on UK–US air routes, and (3) the CMA launches a consultation on commitments in the housebuilders anti-competitive information exchange investigation. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the General Court’s judgment partially upholding an action concerning the Commission’s decision authorising dawn raid at Michelin’s premises, (2) the Commission publishes antitrust guidance in the automotive sector for the licensing of standard essential patents, (3) the Commission publishes guidance on a sustainability agreement to reduce CO2 emissions in European ports, (4) the Commission’s decision to fine Alchem for participating in pharmaceutical cartel, (5) the Commission launches a consultation on the first review of the Digital Markets Act, (6) the Court of Justice’s judgment annulling the General Court’s order regarding French port tax aid complaint and refers the case back to the General Court, and (7) the Court of Justice’s judgment concerning a national reference from Latvia on when State aid is deemed ‘granted’ in circumstances where aid is unlawfully refused.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes a number of EU developments, namely: (1) the Court of Justice dismissing an appeal against the Commission’s prohibition of the proposed JV between TyssenKrupp and Tata Steel, (2) the Court of Justice ruling that some FIFA rules on transfer of players may restrict EU competition, (3) the Court of Justice dismissing numerous appeals relating to Commission’s re-adopted decision concerning the Italian concrete reinforcing bars cartel, (4) the Court of Justice dismissing two appeals against a German COVID scheme for companies’ uncovered fixed costs, and (5) an AG’s opinion suggesting that the Court of Justice should allow an appeal and set aside the General Court’s judgment which annulled the Commission’s decision approving aid to Timișoara Airport in favour of Wizz Air.