EU and Competition

Subscribe to EU and Competition via RSS
Directly below view of London city skyscrapers at dusk

The consultation aims to make jurisdictional thresholds more predictable, enhance the CMA’s political accountability, and improve interactions between businesses and the regulator.

By Stephanie Adams, Greg Bonné, Ludmilla Le Grand, David Little, Jonathan Parker, and Simon Pritchard

On 20 January 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on a package of reforms to the UK competition regime — aimed at supporting economic growth while delivering benefits for consumers and businesses and maintaining the independence of…

portion of trees against office buildings

Whilst not a sea of difference apart, the two regimes present notable distinctions for companies operating on both sides of the Channel to navigate.

By David Little and Alexandra Luchian

Upon its expiry on 31 May 2022, the 2010 Vertical Block Exemption Regulation was replaced by the 2022 Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) in the EU and the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (VABEO) in the UK. The European Commission (EC) issued its Vertical Guidelines at the same time whilst the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its VABEO guidance in July 2022. Both the EU VBER and the UK VABEO allowed a one-year transitional period for agreements concluded before 1 June 2022 to be brought in line with the new regimes.

With both regimes now applicable to “old” and “new” vertical agreements alike, this blog post provides an overview of the key differences between the EU VBER and the UK VABEO. It follows and updates our previous blog post which included an outline of the main similarities and differences between the draft UK VABEO and the draft EU VBER (as of September 2021).[1]

Recent developments at the CJEU give some shape to the practical implications of Article 17 of the Copyright Directive.

By Jean-Luc Juhan, Susan Kempe-Mueller, Deborah Kirk, Elva Cullen, Alex Park, Pia Sophie Sösemann, Victoria Wan, and Amy Smyth

7 June 2021 was the implementation deadline for the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (EU) 2019/790 (the Copyright Directive), yet just four EU Member States (including Germany and the Netherlands) have fully transposed the Copyright Directive, whilst four others (including France and Denmark) have transposed only parts of the Copyright Directive. The delay in implementation is perhaps unsurprising given the controversial nature of certain of the Copyright Directive’s provisions, in particular Article 17.

Recent developments have started to add colour to how Article 17 may work in practice, and how it might align with the broader regulation of platform liability for infringing content. This blog post will discuss these developments and analyse the implications for platforms and rights holders.

The proposals include certain notable changes, while also mirroring the current UK framework and the European Commission’s planned approach in many respects.

By David Little, Alexandra Luchian, and James Mathieson

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has proposed replacing the retained Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation (Retained VABER), which has applied in the UK following the country’s departure from the EU and will expire on 31 May 2022, with a UK Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (UK VABEO). The CMA’s proposals include a number of changes intended to reflect evolving market conditions and enforcement practice, and to widen the CMA’s existing powers.

Concurrently, the European Commission is consulting on the draft revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and Vertical Guidelines, planned to enter into force in the EU at the same time as UK VABEO.

This blog post provides an overview of the key similarities and differences between (i) Retained VABER and the proposed UK VABEO, and (ii) the proposed UK VABEO and the draft EU VBER.

The new rules follow coordinated regulatory and antitrust scrutiny of overcharging loyal customers.

By David Little, Victoria Sander, Gregory Bonné, and Anuj Ghai

On 28 May 2021, the FCA published a policy statement setting out new pricing practices rules for insurers and insurance distributors. The new rules follow a September 2020 consultation paper and final report. The FCA’s objective is to improve the way general insurance markets function, in particular by preventing firms from “price walking” customers (a pricing behaviour that the FCA considers anti-competitive) and ensuring that firms deliver fair value. The new rules also aim to increase transparency for customers who are renewing their insurance products.

Notably, the new rules:

  • Prescribe the information that firms must give to customers whose insurance products automatically renew
  • Include criteria that firms must take into account when determining whether a product offers value for money
  • Attempt to prohibit price walking

The FCA believes that price walking distorts competition and leads to higher overall prices for customers and that regular switching can help to bring prices down.

This recent CJEU decision raises a number of considerations for content rights holders and for those seeking to link to content online, across both the EU and the UK

By Deborah Kirk, Luke Vaz, and Amy Smyth

Under UK and European laws, the rights of copyright holders include the right to restrict or prohibit reproduction or communication of their original work. Broadly, this means that any such reproduction or communication of the content requires consent from the copyright holder.

In the digital age, it has become increasingly difficult to regulate for this right in practice, with internet users able to replicate and communicate works using a plethora of channels (for instance, re-posting social media content, framing and inline linking of visual and media content). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and UK and EU member state national courts have grappled for a number of years with the particular question of whether hyperlinking constitutes communication of the underlying content that it links to (principally in the CJEU cases of Svensson (2014), GS Media (2016), and Filmspeler (2017), and the English courts TuneIn (2021) case) and whether therefore it could constitute an act of copyright infringement if the hyperlinking does not have the consent of the copyright owner.

In VG Bild-Kunst, the latest CJEU case on this topic, the court held that hyperlinking may constitute communication of the underlying content if the rights holder has implemented technical measures to restrict such linking and the linking circumvents those restrictions. The court also held that, for the purposes of restricting linking, a rights holder may impose contractual obligations on a licensee to implement technical measures to prevent such linking. The CJEU’s emphasis in this decision was on the need for effective technical measures to be implemented (or contractually required) to restrict linking, as evidence of the rights holder’s intention to limit its consent to the communication of its content.

Italian Securities Commission returns to ordinary reporting requirements for listed issuers.

By Antonio Coletti, Isabella Porchia, Guido Bartolomei, and Marta Negro

The Italian Securities Commission (CONSOB), by press release dated April 12, 2021, announced its decision to end the more stringent reporting requirements originally introduced on April 9, 2020, as a response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial markets. While the more stringent requirements were renewed in three month increments, they will not be renewed after April 13, 2021. Starting April 14, investors will be required to comply with the pre-pandemic reporting requirements.

More stringent reporting obligations regarding relevant shareholdings and investment objectives for Italian-listed issuers will continue until 13 April 2021.

By Antonio Coletti, Guido Bartolomei, Marta Negro, and Isabella Porchia

On 13 January 2021, the Italian Securities Commission (CONSOB) adopted Resolution 21672 (the Resolution), further extending for three months the more stringent reporting requirements for relevant shareholdings and investment objectives in certain Italian-listed issuers with high current market value and/or spread ownership structure. The more stringent reporting requirements will now end on 13 April 2021. The Resolution extends the provisions of 9 April 2020, which were later extended until 13 January 2021

The more stringent reporting obligations for certain Italian-listed issuers will continue until January 13, 2021.

By Antonio Coletti, Isabella Porchia, Guido Bartolomei, and Marta Negro

The Italian Securities Commission (CONSOB) has adopted Resolution 21525, extending for a period of three months — from October 13, 2020, to January 13, 2021 — the provisions of Resolutions 21326 and 21327 of April 9, 2020, as later extended by Resolution 21434 of July 8, 2020 (the Previous Resolutions). The provisions imposed stricter reporting obligations of relevant shareholdings in certain Italian-listed issuers that were selected taking into account their high current market value and/or spread ownership structure (see updated lists, available only in Italian, set out in CONSOB Decisions 39/2020 and 40/2020).

CONSOB reported that this further extension was motivated by the continuing uncertainty about the evolution of the economic and financial situation generated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The initiative includes a competition law sustainability “sandbox” in which market participants could team up to work on sustainable business projects.

By David Little and Pierre Bichet

The Greek Competition Authority (HCC) has announced a public consultation on how competition law rules might be adapted to promote more sustainable business practices. The HCC published a Staff Discussion Paper and held a digital conference to launch the consultation.

The HCC’s exploratory proposals outline a number of novel concepts, including: (1) the creation of a competition law sustainability “sandbox” in which market participants could team up to work on sustainable business projects with some measure of protection from competition rules; and (2) the establishment of an “Advice Unit” comprising experts from different regulatory authorities who could provide informal advice on sustainability-related initiatives. The proposals also envisage the publication of general guidelines defining the contours of legitimate cooperation between rivals on sustainability projects.