This newsletter is a summary of the antitrust developments we think are most interesting to your business. Partners Brian Hauserin Washington D.C. and Puja Patel in New Yorkare our editors this month. They haveselected:
Apple’s commitments in EU Apple Pay probe shed light on interaction between antitrust enforcement and Digital Markets Act
The European Commission (EC) has accepted legally binding commitments from Apple to end an antitrust investigation into the tech company’s practices in relation to its mobile wallet, Apple Pay.
After a preliminary review, the EC found that Apple has significant market power in the market for smart mobile devices and a dominant position in the in-store mobile wallet market on its operating system iOS.
The authority preliminarily concluded that Apple abused this dominant position by refusing to supply Near-Field-Communication (NFC) (i.e., “tap and go”) contactless payment technology on iOS to competing mobile wallet developers, reserving access only to Apple Pay. In the EC’s initial view, this conduct excluded rivals from the market and led to less innovation and choice for iPhone mobile wallet users.
Apple offered an initial set of commitments to address the EC’s concerns.
These included allowing third-party wallet providers free access to the NFC technology on iOS devices, without having to use Apple Pay or Apple Wallet. Apple will apply fair, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure and eligibility criteria for the grant of access, underpinned by an independent monitoring mechanism and dispute resolution system. It will also enable users to set non-Apple payment apps as their default and to use functionalities such as “Double-click” and “Face ID”.
The EC sought views on the commitments in a public market test. Following feedback, Apple bolstered its original proposal with additional commitments.
For example, Apple will extend the possibility to initiate payments at other industry-certified terminals, such as merchant phones. It will not prevent developers from combining the payment function with other functionalities or use cases (such as concert tickets). It has also agreed to shorten the dispute resolution process.
Apple was required to implement the commitments by July 25, 2024. They will be in force for ten years.
Commenting on the case, Executive Vice-President Vestager notes the EC’s decision concerns practices that are also covered by the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA). Gatekeepers designated under the DMA must ensure effective interoperability with hardware and software features used within their ecosystems, including access to NFC technology for mobile payments.
But she notes that Apple’s commitments “also bring more than what is required” under the DMA, pointing to the monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms. According to Vestager, this “shows that antitrust enforcement goes hand in hand with the DMA”.
It remains to be seen whether the EC will make similar use of its antitrust enforcement powers in future cases where there is overlap with the DMA. In the Apple Pay case, the EC opened its formal investigation in 2020, well before the DMA took effect. It may take a different approach for newer concerns, relying primarily on its DMA toolkit. We will keep an eye on how this dynamic unfolds.
In any event, we expect other tech companies to look at the EC’s decision with interest. Apple’s commitments could serve as an indication of the type of concessions the EC will accept to address concerns in similar antitrust probes, or when implementing measures to comply with the DMA, albeit that the precise detail would likely turn on the specific facts of the case.
For Apple, this is the second EC antitrust investigation to be wrapped up in 2024. In March, it was fined EUR1.8 billion after the EC found its anti-steering provisions amounted to an abuse of dominance in relation to music streaming apps (read our commentary). The company is also the subject of ongoing probes into possible non-compliance with the DMA.
Overall, these cases are further evidence of the EC’s sharp focus on the digital sector. Digital firms should continue to expect heavy scrutiny.
AI hires in the merger control spotlight with new U.K. probe and promise of EU scrutiny
In an unprecedented move, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has opened a formal merger control review into Microsoft’s arrangements with Inflection AI.
The arrangements at issue consist of Microsoft hiring certain former Inflection employees, and a non-exclusive licensing deal allowing Microsoft to use Inflection’s existing models.
The launch of the investigation comes after the CMA gathered views earlier this year on whether the arrangements resulted in a merger within the scope of the U.K. merger control rules and, if so, whether they would have an impact on competition in the U.K.
The review is unusual. It is the first time that the CMA has reviewed the hiring of rivals’ staff under the U.K. merger control regime (in contrast, e.g., to the U.S., where the agencies have been pursuing labor issues with great vigor). The CMA has notoriously taken an increasingly expansive approach to merger control jurisdiction in recent years. This case shows its willingness to apply that approach in a novel way in fast-developing markets such as AI.
Microsoft has stated that it is “confident that the hiring of talent promotes competition and should not be treated as a merger”. The CMA has until September 11, 2024, to decide whether to clear the deal or refer it for an in-depth review.
More generally, the action in this case reflects a commitment by the CMA, set out in a recent update on Foundation Models, to step up the use of its merger control powers in AI markets.
The regulator has also considered Microsoft’s partnership with Mistral AI, ultimately concluding that it does not have jurisdiction to review the arrangements as Microsoft did not acquire the ability to materially influence Mistral’s policy. It has yet to decide whether certain other partnerships, including Microsoft and OpenAI, amount to mergers within the scope of the U.K. rules.
The CMA is not the only antitrust authority with its sights on these issues.
In the EU, in a recent speech on the EC’s scrutiny of AI markets, Executive Vice President Vestager announced that the EC is looking at “acqui-hires”, which she describes as one company acquiring another mainly for its talent. She says that the EC will “make sure that these practices don’t slip through our merger control rules if they basically lead to a concentration”. She specifically mentions Microsoft and Inflection.
Like the CMA, the EC is also looking into AI partnerships more broadly. Vestager states that where such arrangements become a disguise for one partner getting a controlling influence over the other, they would need to be reviewed under EU merger control rules. The EC decided not to open a formal merger control review into Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI, instead choosing to focus on the potential antitrust impact of exclusivity clauses in those arrangements. But Vestager notes that the EC will “keep monitoring the relationships between all the key players in this fast-moving sector”.
Elsewhere in the EU, AI continues to be on the radar of Member State antitrust authorities. Late last month, for example, the French Competition Authority (FCA) issued an opinion on generative AI. It has made a number of recommendations to lawmakers aimed at boosting competition in the sector, including making the regulatory regime more effective and using antitrust tools to their full extent. The FCA is also in favor of increasing access to computing power, supporting the “development of public supercomputers” as an alternative to cloud providers, and the opening of supercomputers to private operators, under certain conditions, for a fee.
Antitrust authorities are also keen to collaborate on efforts to ensure effective competition in AI markets. The EC, CMA and U.S. antitrust agencies have signed a joint statement setting out shared principles for protecting competition in generative AI foundation models and AI products and confirming their commitment to using their respective powers where appropriate.
Looking at all of this action in the round, the message to tech companies and AI startups is clear: make sure you take account of potential antitrust/merger control scrutiny when considering partnerships or hiring arrangements.
FTC non-compete rule in limbo after preliminary injunction in Texas court
In a significant ruling, a Texas District Court (the Court) has issued a preliminary block on the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcing its Non-Compete Rule against tax services firm Ryan and other plaintiff intervenors.
The FTC’s Non-Compete Rule—finalized in April but not due to take effect until September 3, 2024—is set to ban employers nationwide from imposing post-employment non-compete agreements on workers (with some limited exceptions).
The Non-Compete Rule faced immediate legal challenges, first from Ryan, and then others, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In granting the preliminary injunction in the Ryan case, the Court agreed with the plaintiff on a number of counts, including that the FTC lacked substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under the FTC Act of 1914 and that the Non-Compete Rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and overbroad. The Court considered that the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors would likely suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
The case is not over—the Court intends to give judgment on the merits by August 30, 2024.
In the meantime, there have been further developments. The plaintiffs’ request for the Court to expand the scope of the preliminary injunction to cover all businesses affected by the Non-Compete Rule, and not just the plaintiffs in the Ryan case, has been denied. The plaintiffs are now seeking summary judgment against the Non-Compete Rule, asking the Court to set the Rule aside on a nationwide basis.
Significantly, in a second challenge to the Non-Compete Rule, ATS Tree Services has failed to persuade a Pennsylvania federal judge to grant a preliminary injunction. Judge Hodge found that ATS’s arguments were speculative, and that the FTC is empowered to impose the Non-Compete Rule.
Find out more about the Ryan case in our alert, where we examine the impact of the injunction and what employers should be doing now in relation to their non-compete agreements. We also feature the case in our Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly publication (see below).
Belgium secures its first no-poach enforcement case
In the last couple of years, we have seen a number of regulators on both sides of the Atlantic ramp up campaigns against anticompetitive conduct in labor markets. Investigations have targeted wage-fixing agreements (where employers agree to set or fix employee wages) and “no-poach” agreements (where employers agree not to hire each other’s employees).
Most recently, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) for the first time sanctioned private security services companies for agreeing not to hire each other’s employees.
The BCA Prosecutor General noted that such no-poach arrangements are “unacceptable given their adverse effects on workers and the proper functioning of the economy”. The authority also pointed to “the growing body of precedents in Europe” that makes clear that such practices are “illegal by object” under the antitrust rules, i.e., that, by their very nature, they have the potential to harm competition.
In total, the BCA imposed fines of over EUR47m on Securitas, G4S and Seris for their participation in what it described as various “severe and longstanding” cartel practices. In addition to the no-poach arrangements, the BCA concluded that the firms fixed minimum hourly rates for security guards within the framework of a professional association and coordinated bidding intentions and prices in tender procedures. The fines were significantly reduced under the BCA’s leniency and settlement programs. Interestingly, while 11 individuals have won immunity from prosecution, proceedings remain pending with respect to one other individual.
Our May edition of Antitrust in focus picked out other recent enforcement action in the context of the EC’s policy brief on labor market practices. We note that, while the EC is yet to issue a labor market infringement decision, this is in large part due to the limited geographic scope of arrangements, meaning national authorities are often better placed to intervene. EC enforcement could, however, be in the pipeline. This month the authority announced it has opened a formal investigation into possible anticompetitive agreements in the online food delivery sector, including suspected no-poach arrangements. The EC notes that these practices could have been facilitated by Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo (held from 2018, before Delivery Hero acquired sole control of Glovo in 2022). Delivery Hero has already issued an investor notice warning of a fine that may exceed EUR400m.
In Switzerland, a preliminary investigation by the Competition Commission has found evidence of anticompetitive agreements in the labor market. However, rather than opening a formal investigation, it intends to cooperate with stakeholders to develop best practices with a view to creating legal certainty and helping businesses to comply with antitrust rules.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. and as discussed in our article above, the FTC’s current focus is on implementing a rule banning employers from imposing non-compete restrictions.
We will continue to keep you posted as labor market developments arise in new jurisdictions and sectors.
ECJ’s Servier judgments clarify analytical framework for pay-for-delay cases
In last month’s Antitrust in focus we reported that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had issued significant rulings in the Servier case.
The ECJ confirmed that the “pay-for-delay” agreements reached between Servier and several generic medicine manufacturers in relation to the hypertension drug perindopril were anticompetitive, in breach of EU antitrust rules. Under these agreements, in return for payments from Servier, the generic manufacturers committed not to dispute patents relating to the drug and not to enter the market with generic versions of it.
However, the ECJ annulled the General Court (GC)’s findings on other aspects of the case:
- It held that the GC was wrong to conclude that the agreements with generics company Krka were not anticompetitive (asking the lower court to take another look at one of these agreements). Significantly, the ECJ followed recent case law on the criteria for assessing whether an agreement is anticompetitive “by object”, refining the analytical framework set out in previous pay-for-delay rulings on this point.
- It slightly reduced Servier’s fine in relation to its agreements with Lupin, finding that the GC incorrectly calculated the duration of the infringement.
- In relation to the abuse of dominance element of the case, the ECJ ruled that the GC incorrectly analyzed the market definition and should not have concluded that the relevant market was broader than perindopril.
Find out more about the ECJ’s reasoning, and how the rulings clarify and refine the framework for analyzing pharma pay-for-delay arrangements, in our blog post.
EU pharmaceutical disparagement case settled with commitments
In recent years we have seen an uptick—at least in Europe—in antitrust enforcement action focused on alleged disparagement of competing pharmaceutical products.
At EU level, the EC sent formal objections to Teva in 2022, alleging it abused a dominant position by engaging in a disparagement campaign against competing multiple sclerosis drugs, as well as misusing patent procedures (see our commentary). The case is ongoing three years after it was opened in March 2021.
The EC’s second pharmaceutical disparagement investigation has been wrapped up more quickly, in just two years.
The authority has preliminarily found that Vifor may be dominant in several national markets for the provision of intravenous iron medicines. It is concerned that Vifor has abused this dominant position by disseminating potentially misleading information about the safety of an iron deficiency treatment marketed by Vifor’s closest rival in Europe. According to the EC, this could have hindered the uptake of the rival drug.
Vifor has entered into legally binding commitments to address the EC’s concerns. The company will launch a “multi-channel communication campaign” to rectify and undo the effects of the potentially misleading messages. It has also agreed not to engage in promotional and medical communications about the rival drug’s safety profile unless based on specific information. Additional compliance measures will be implemented.
The U.K. CMA opened a similar investigation into Vifor earlier this year.
Watch out for our upcoming blog post, where we will examine the Vifor cases in the context of the wider landscape of disparagement enforcement across Europe.
FTC interim staff report takes aim at pharmacy benefit managers
Since 2022, the FTC has been investigating the impact of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) on competition. It has now published an interim staff report that alleges that the activities of PBMs have limited the accessibility and affordability of key prescription drugs.
PBMs are described in the staff report as “middlemen” in the prescription drug industry who are hired to, for example, negotiate rebates and fees with drug manufacturers and reimburse pharmacies for patients’ prescriptions.
According to the staff report, the PBMs’ “enormous power” over the pharmaceutical supply chain has allowed them to profit “at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists”.
The staff report highlighted several potential competition issues arising from increasing concentration—the six largest PBMs manage close to 95% of all U.S. prescriptions, with the top three accounting for nearly 80% (in 2023)—and vertical integration with large health insurers and speciality and retail pharmacies.
For example, the staff report alleges that PBMs can “significantly influence” what drugs are available to patients and at what price, as well as which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications—without transparency or accountability to the public.
In addition, the staff report identifies a concern that vertically integrated PBMs may be steering patients to their affiliated pharmacies and imposing “unfair, arbitrary, and harmful contractual terms” on independent pharmacies that can impact their ability to stay in business and the prices they offer to consumers.
In terms of access to low-cost competitor drugs, the staff report also alleges that PBMs are excluding generic and biosimilar drugs in return for increased rebates from brand pharmaceutical manufacturers. The staff report considers that the rebating practices “urgently” warrant further scrutiny and potential regulation.
FTC Chair Lina Khan stated that the agency “will continue to use all [its] tools and authorities to scrutinize dominant players across healthcare markets”.
PBMs challenged the staff report, indicating, among other things, that it failed to consider data that shows that PBMs have reduced prescription drug costs and have increased access to medications.
One FTC commissioner issued a dissenting statement.
We frequently report on how the U.S. antitrust agencies are prioritizing health care markets. Our May 2024 edition of Antitrust in focus detailed the formation of a new health care task force as well as antitrust intervention in health care M&A and other initiatives.
U.S. antitrust agencies focus on private equity funds and serial acquisitions
Until relatively recently, private equity buyers were viewed as largely benign from an antitrust perspective. Now this is starting to change, with antitrust authorities across the globe beginning to raise concerns about the incentives of private equity firms.
The U.S. antitrust agencies have been at the forefront of this new focus.
In particular, the FTC has targeted private equity buyers and their role in serial acquisitions:
- In 2022, the FTC challenged two acquisitions of veterinary clinics by private equity firm JAB Consumer Partners, imposing robust “prior approval” and “prior notice” requirements on future acquisitions in the sector.
- Last year, the agency filed a groundbreaking complaint against private equity fund Welsh Carson and a portfolio company, challenging a series of consummated acquisitions and other conduct over a number of years. Casting a shadow over the FTC’s enforcement efforts, a judge has since dismissed the case against Welsh Carson (see our commentary).
But there is no evidence that this setback will stop the agencies from continuing to home in on private equity. They have:
- Issued new Merger Guidelines explicitly targeting serial acquisitions. The guidelines state that the agencies will examine the impact of a strategy of consolidation through acquisition to determine if it could adversely impact competition.
- Proposed a revamp of the U.S. merger control process. If adopted, a revised pre-merger filing form will ask for information on prior deals for up to ten years.
- Called for public input. Earlier this year, the FTC, Department of Justice, and Department of Health and Human Services issued a request for public comment seeking information on non-reportable deals in the healthcare industry. A couple of months later, the agencies announced they were seeking input on serial acquisitions.
Partners Elaine Johnston and Puja Patel, and associate Ben Stievater, provide their views on each of these points and look ahead to what private equity firms can expect—read their commentary here. This article first appeared in the CPI Antitrust Chronicle (see the A&O Shearman Antitrust team in publication section below).
NFL Sunday Ticket trial results in USD4.7 billion antitrust class action verdict
The National Football League (NFL) suffered a significant defeat in court this month in a long-running claim brought by two classes of subscribers—one residential and the other commercial—of the DirecTV “Sunday Ticket” package, which enables subscribers to access all the NFL’s Sunday afternoon games.
Jurors found that between 2011 and 2023, the league, its 32 teams and DirecTV violated the Sherman Act by overcharging Sunday Ticket subscribers, which resulted from an unreasonable restraint of trade and an illegal monopoly. The plaintiffs were awarded around USD4.7bn in damages—USD4.6bn to the residential class and almost USD97m to the commercial class.
The plaintiffs took particular issue with the exclusive arrangement between the NFL and DirecTV, and the resulting restrictions on telecasts, claiming that fans who want to watch “out of market” games were forced to subscribe to Sunday Ticket, or be limited to watching a smaller number of local games. They also argued that the price of Sunday Ticket was artificially inflated in order to placate broadcasters of free Sunday NFL games, who saw Sunday Ticket as a threat to the viewership of their free, over-the-air broadcast of Sunday NFL games.
If the jury’s verdict stands, the USD4.7bn sum will be tripled under federal antitrust law, to make the damages punitive and deter others from similar offences. This could mean a final sum of around USD15bn.
The NFL has described the jury’s verdict as “runaway” and has urged a federal judge to reverse the verdict or grant a new trial. Among other arguments, it says that the jury erroneously rejected the damages models submitted by the plaintiffs and made an “irrational” award (it not being one of the three distinct damages models the plaintiffs had presented to the court—plaintiffs had sought damages of over USD7bn).
The final outcome of the case is hotly anticipated.
The case highlights that juries will not necessarily award damages according to what parties present at court.
More broadly, it is an important reminder that sports leagues as well as their governing bodies are (with some exceptions) subject to antitrust rules in the same way as other entities. At EU level, for example, we have seen recent court rulings on regulations governing competitions in football and ice skating (see our commentary). Member State antitrust authorities continue to investigate sporting bodies at national level, including a number of probes into no-poach agreements.
The message to sports entities on both sides of the Atlantic: building antitrust compliance measures into policies and regulations is crucial.
Australian sustainability collaboration guidance promotes authorization exemption route to assist green transition
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has become the latest antitrust authority to set out a clear marker as to how it will assess sustainability collaborations against antitrust law. It has published a draft guide to help businesses understand the antitrust risks that may arise when working together to achieve positive environmental outcomes.
The draft guide provides examples of low-risk collaborations, that are unlikely to breach the antitrust prohibitions. These include certain ways of jointly funding research into reducing environmental impact, pooling information about suppliers and committing to an industry-wide emissions reduction target.
Significantly, the draft guide also explains how ACCC authorization may be available when it is satisfied that any likely public detriment—such as a lessening of competition—is outweighed by the likely public benefit of the proposed conduct.
Crucially, ACCC authorization provides a legal exemption from Australia’s antitrust prohibitions. If granted in advance of a collaboration, that collaboration can be implemented without risk of ACCC or third-party legal action for breach of antitrust law.
The guide sets out a notably broad range of sustainability-related public benefits that the ACCC may consider as part of its authorization assessment. They could take the form of, e.g., reduced greenhouse gas emissions, benefits for biodiversity and water systems, or waste reduction.
In contrast to the position at EU level, there is no requirement that the public benefits from a collaboration to flow back to the consumers that are impacted by that collaboration. The ACCC can take sustainability benefits into account that flow to society generally, with a particular focus on public benefits to Australians. Examples given in the guide include agreeing to only acquire from suppliers who meet environmental standards and agreeing not to use plastic wrap on products.
Businesses will be required to provide concrete evidence and information substantiating any sustainability claims, the need to work collectively, and the proportionality of the collaboration.
The ACCC points to several instances where it has already granted authorization for agreements involving sustainability-related public benefits. These include a collaboration between major supermarkets that managed disruptions to in-store collections of soft plastics for recycling during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Overall, the ACCC is keen to articulate that antitrust law is not “an immovable obstacle for collaboration on sustainability that can have a public benefit”. It expects to finalize its guide late this year. We will follow developments closely, including any authorizations granted in the meantime.
EU national antitrust authority approvals add to sustainability guidance
In the EU, as previously reported, national antitrust authorities are publishing details of their analysis of individual sustainability initiatives. These provide useful clarity as to how such initiatives can stay on the right side of antitrust law. That trend has continued this month.
Most notably, in France, hot on the heels of a notice on its “open door” policy, the FCA has published its first informal guidance.
Two professional organizations representing operators in the animal nutrition sector had requested informal guidance on a draft guide providing a standardized methodology for calculating products’ environmental footprint.
The informal guidance draws out some important factors the FCA considers relevant to ensuring compliance with antitrust rules:
- Operators should not exchange any sensitive information beyond what is objectively necessary and proportionate to the preparation, implementation, adoption, and modification of the guide.
- The common methodology should be public, voluntary, and non-exclusive in order to not disincentivize each company from going further than recommended in the draft guide. The guide must be clear that only a standardization of the carbon footprint is proposed, and not of the greenhouse gas footprint or the environmental footprint in general.
- The methodology and data should be based on scientifically-sound underlying principles. A standardized methodology resulting in competitors collectively misleading, even unintentionally, their customers on the real environmental impact of their projects would pose an antitrust risk in cases where the environmental impact is a parameter of competition.
Significantly in this case, the authority expects the organizations to rapidly shift towards qualitative data specific to each manufacturer (or its suppliers) instead of sector average data, which prevents manufacturers from highlighting their decarbonization efforts or those of their partners and leveraging those efforts as a competitive advantage.
In addition, the authority highlighted the plan to use third-party verification and validation of the data produced as a means to guarantee quality.
Compared to the FCA, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has already been very active in providing informal guidance on sustainability initiatives. This month it published another, relating to a collaboration on recycling coffee capsules.
Nine producers of coffee capsules will make joint investments in sorting machines. These machines will enable waste-processing companies to better pick out plastic and aluminum coffee capsules from the residual waste for subsequent recycling.
Notably, the ACM’s informal guidance stresses the importance of the producers continuing to invest and innovate in order to make coffee capsules more sustainable, for example through compostable packaging.
At EU level, while the EC has not yet issued informal guidance on a specific sustainability initiative, its Director-General for Competition, Olivier Guersent, has confirmed that the authority has had “several” discussions with companies relating to “large international alliances”. However, these cross-border cases were reportedly ultimately dropped due to parties’ concerns that they would not receive favorable outcomes in other jurisdictions.
Antitrust authorities are taking different approaches to the antitrust assessment of sustainability agreements. There is divergence between the EU and the U.K., for example, and, as reported above, between the EU and Australia. The U.S., meanwhile, maintains a firm “no ESG exemption” line. It is important for businesses that operate across these jurisdictions to remain on top of these developments.
Need-to-know: updates on U.S. antitrust litigation
Our Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly publication analyzes notable U.S. litigation decisions, orders, and developments. From an antitrust perspective, we have featured the following cases over the past month:
- Plaintiffs win preliminary injunction blocking the FTC’s ban on non-competes (read here and see the article above)
- Eastern District Court of New York finds circumstantial evidence enough to defeat summary judgment motion in antitrust case against Unites States Soccer Federation and Major League Soccer (read here)
- Federal Trade Commission unanimously votes to block vertical mattress merger (read here)
You can access Need-to-Know Weekly in full here. If you would like to be added to the distribution list, contact us at litigation_weekly@aoshearman.com.
A&O Shearman Antitrust team publications
Recent publications by members of the team include:
- Elaine Johnston (partner, New York), Puja Patel (partner, New York) and Ben Stievater (associate, New York): Antitrust focus on private equity funds and serial acquisitions, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, June 2024, Volume 2 (also see above for summary)
- Francesca Miotto (partner, Brussels) and Mark Taylor (counsel, Brussels): European Union chapter of In-Depth: Intellectual Property and Antitrust. Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Lexology In-Depth: Intellectual Property and Antitrust - Edition 9. For further information, please visit: https://www.lexology.com/indepth.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.