Antitrust Bites – Newsletter

2025 in numbers: An overview of fines imposed by the Italian Competition Authority

Based on the information available to date, it appears that in 2025 the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) imposed total fines of over EUR1.3 billion on undertakings for violating competition law.

In two investigations the ICA found violations of the prohibition of agreements restricting competition. For these infringements sanctions of more than EUR1 billion were applied. In 2024, only one investigation into anticompetitive agreements resulted in a finding of infringement, with a fine of over EUR3 million.

One investigation found that an undertaking had failed to comply with a past decision of the ICA ascertaining the existence of an anticompetitive agreement. In this case, the Authority imposed a sanction of EUR29,587.

In four cases the ICA found violations of the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position and imposed sanctions for a total of over EUR388 million. In 2024, investigations into abuses of dominant position found three infringements, with sanctions of over EUR6.4 million.

In the context of an investigation into the abuse of a dominant position, the ICA fined a company over EUR1 million for providing incomplete responses to two requests for information pursuant to Article 14(2) of Law No. 287/1990 and Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 217/1998.

Pursuant to Article 16-bis of Law No. 287/1990, the ICA imposed a fine of EUR25,000 on a company for providing untruthful information without justified reason during a proceeding concerning a concentration between undertakings.

Regarding consumer protection, on the basis of the information available to date, it appears that the ICA imposed sanctions for a total of over EUR70.9 million (over EUR74.5 million in 2024). Of this sum, over EUR3.5 million was for failing to comply with previous ICA decisions, EUR8.6 for unfair contract clauses and over EUR58 million for unfair commercial practices and violating consumer rights.

Out of 70 proceedings concluded by the ICA in 2025 (in 2024 there were 56 proceedings), 29 found unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and/or the violation of consumer rights (24 in 2024), three were concluded with a finding of non-compliance with a past decision of the ICA (one in 2024), two were concluded with a finding of unfair contract clauses (11 in 2024) and in one case the ICA found both unfair commercial practices and unfair contract clauses. In 24 investigations the undertakings' commitments were accepted and two proceedings ended with the redetermination of the fines previously imposed by the ICA. Lastly, nine investigations ended without finding violation.

 

European Commission Guidelines on the Application of the FSR

On 13 January, the European Commission adopted guidelines on the application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market ("Regulation").

The Commission's document provides guidance on the following aspects:

• the application of the criteria for determining the existence of a distortion in the internal market as provided for by the regulation;
• the application of the balancing test provided for under Article 6 of the regulation (ie the assessment that may be carried out by the Commission between the negative effects of a foreign subsidy in terms of distortion of the internal market and the positive effects on the development of the relevant subsidised economic activity within the internal market);
• the application of the European Commission's power to require prior notification of a concentration (even where the conditions laid down by the regulation for notification are not met) and of foreign financial contributions received by an economic operator in the context of a public procurement procedure (even where such procedure is not subject to a notification obligation).

With regard to the first aspect, the guidelines provide indications for assessing whether a foreign subsidy is, first, capable of improving the competitive position of the undertaking that has received the subsidy in the internal market and, second, whether, as a result of the improvement in the undertaking’s competitive position, the foreign subsidy is capable of having an actual or potential negative impact on competition in the internal market.

With specific reference to foreign subsidies in the context of public procurement procedures, the guidelines provide information for assessing and determining whether a foreign subsidy enables, actually or potentially, an economic operator to submit an unduly advantageous tender.

As regards the balancing test, the guidelines offer clarifications on the positive effects taken into account in the assessment and on the principles applied by the Commission in comparing the positive and negative effects of a foreign subsidy.

Finally, the guidelines provide indications on the conditions under which the European Commission may require prior notification, pursuant to the regulation, of a concentration and of foreign financial contributions received by an economic operator in the context of a procurement procedure, even in the absence of the conditions that make notification mandatory.

 

Court of Justice of the EU rules on mandatory time limits for closure of the investigation stage

With its judgment of last 15 January, the Court of Justice of the EU, following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Italian Council of State, ruled on the compatibility with EU law of the power of national competition authorities to unilaterally extend the time limit for concluding the investigation stage in antitrust proceedings.

In the proceedings at issue, the appellant had challenged the legality of the extensions of the proceedings ordered by the Authority. The deadline for concluding the proceedings, initially set for 31 May 2018, was postponed twice (also in consideration of the objective and subjective extension of the investigation), until 19 July 2019.

Recalling its case-law, the Court of Justice of the EU reiterated that national rules on time limits in antitrust proceedings must ensure a balance between legal certainty and reasonable time limits, as general principles of EU law, and, at the same time, ensure effective application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to protect the public interest and avoid distortions of the internal market.

In continuity with its case-law on time limits and in view of the complexity that often characterizes antitrust investigations, the court observed that a prohibition on postponing the time limit for closure of the investigation stage of infringement proceedings could compromise the effective pursuit of the objectives attributed to NCAs. This could prevent them from conducting an investigation covering all aspects of an anti-competitive practice, forcing them to adopt a decision on the basis of potentially incomplete elements in order not to forfeit the power to sanction undertakings. The result would be a risk of impunity for facts or undertakings that were not part of the procedure from the outset.

It follows that NCAs, where this is necessary to impose effective and dissuasive sanctions, must be able to postpone the deadline for concluding the investigation stage, without prejudice to the need for the postponement not to result in exceeding the reasonable time limit referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The court specifies that the assessment of reasonableness must be carried out on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the circumstances. Among these, the court lists, by way of non-exhaustive example, the relevance of the dispute for the interested party, the complexity of the proceedings, and the conduct of the parties involved, clarifying that the assessment of reasonableness may be based on even just one of these. It follows that the complexity of the case could justify a deadline that at first sight appears too long.

The court also specified that the extension of the deadline must in any case be adopted in compliance with the right to good administration, which includes the obligation to give reasons for decisions, as a corollary of respect for the rights of defence. For that reason, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty and the requirement of foreseeability deriving from it, the decision to postpone, containing the new time limits, must be communicated to the undertaking concerned as soon as possible and, in any event, before the expiry of the current time limit. Finally, the postponement must be capable of being subject to effective judicial review pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

In the court’s view, even when postponing the time limit for concluding the investigation stage resulted in a breach of the principle of compliance with the reasonable time limit, that breach could justify the annulment of the decision only where it also entails a breach of the rights of the defence of the undertaking concerned. In that context, it is for that undertaking to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard that, because of the excessive length of the administrative procedure, it experienced difficulties in defending itself against the allegations of the NCA.

On the basis of these premises, the court concluded that EU law does not preclude national legislation allowing NCAs to postpone the time limit for concluding the investigation stage unilaterally provided that:

• the extension is adopted by means of a reasoned act and is subject to judicial review, in the presence of subsequent events that make the investigation stage more complex (such as the expansion of the subject matter or the increase in the undertakings concerned); and
• this does not result in exceeding the reasonable time limit within which that investigation stage must be concluded.

 

Council of State confirms ICA sanction against the FIGC for abuse of a dominant position

With its ruling of 7 January 2026, the Council of State upheld the ICA's appeal against the Lazio Regional Administrative Court's ruling no. 3409/2025, which had annulled the finding of abuse of a dominant position by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) in organising youth football events.

The case originates from the Authority's decision to challenge the FIGC over a unified and complex exclusionary strategy implemented by the Federation. The strategy was designed to extend and strengthen FIGC's influence not only in the competitive youth competition segment, but also in the area of recreational and amateur youth activities, a field in which numerous Sports Promotion Bodies (SPB) operate. The strategy was to be implemented through various measures, including:

• the persistent failure to enter into agreements with the SPB, which are necessary to allow the latter to organise competitive youth football events;
• the imposition, even for the 5-12 age group (“amateur” activities), of the signing of agreements with the SPB and the obtaining of specific authorisations required for clubs affiliated to the Federation to participate in sporting events organised by the SPB;
• the classification as “competitive” of the activities carried out by athletes between the ages of 12 and 17.

The Lazio Regional Administrative Court, in the first instance, annulled ICA's decision, emphasising the regulatory and organisational nature of the activities carried out by the FIGC and the failure to activate the protective measures provided by sports justice.

The Council of State reaffirmed that the autonomy granted to sports federations does not exclude the application of antitrust rules when regulatory choices affect economically significant activities. In particular, the Council confirmed the classification of the FIGC as an undertaking for antitrust purposes and confirmed that it held a dominant.

This position is based not only on numbers (FIGC members are approximately double the number of SPB members in the seasons considered), but above all on the regulatory and conformative role attributed to the Federation within the CONI system.

The ruling identifies the core of the offence in the sequence of official communications from the Federation's Youth and School Sector. It provides:

• for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 seasons, a general ban on FIGC-affiliated clubs participating in activities organised by SPB, “pending the redefinition of the memorandum of understanding”;
• for the seasons from 2017/2018 to 2021/2022, the participation of affiliates in SPB activities was subject to the signing of an agreement with the Federation's Youth and School Sector, in a context of continuing inertia in the signing of agreements;
• for the 2022/2023 season, for a specific type of tournament, in addition to a conventional requirement, a prior authorisation mechanism was also introduced, referred to the competent FIGC offices at national, regional or territorial level, in the absence of predetermined and verifiable criteria for its issuance.

Contradicting the approach of the Regional Administrative Court, which had attached importance to the failure to challenge the press releases in the sports courts, the panel reiterated that, to recognise the abusive nature of conduct within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, its compliance with other regulations is irrelevant. The panel clarified that the antitrust assessment is independent and does not depend on either sports “prejudicial rulings” or the inaction of potentially injured parties, since the power to repress abusive conduct is not conditioned by the initiatives of operators in the sector.

In the same vein, the decision attaches importance to the failure to enter into the agreements provided for in the CONI Regulations on SPB and to the fact that, although a model agreement existed (approved by CONI as early as 2015), no agreement had been reached in the football sector for years. This situation, in the reasoning of the Court, constituted the logical background and the basis for the adoption of a unilateral federal regulation designed to hinder the activities of SPB and unduly influence the participation of FIGC affiliates in initiatives promoted by competitors.

Finally, based on the principle that, for the purpose of establishing a violation of Article 102 TFEU, it is not necessary to prove that the abusive conduct has produced effects, as it is sufficient to prove that it is capable of restricting competition based on merit, the judgement considered the econometric data used by the Regional Administrative Court (growth in membership or aggregate economic indicators) to be inconclusive, being unsuitable to deny the exclusionary capacity of a regulation that precludes or conditions the access of SPB to an essential part of the demand (the FIGC affiliated clubs).

 

ICA closes two market investigations in the air transport and school textbook publishing sectors

The ICA has recently closed two market inquiries in the air transport and school textbook publishing sectors. These are the first inquiries to be launched since the introduction of the new market investigation powers by Decree-Law No. 104 of 2023 (Asset Decree). The new powers allow the Authority to impose structural or behavioural measures on companies following a market inquiry, to eliminate any identified distortions of competition.

However, the Authority did not exercise these powers in either investigation.

The first investigation examined potential competition distortions resulting from air carriers' use of pricing algorithms for domestic routes to and from Sicily and Sardinia. It did not reveal any “collusive behaviour in relation to the functioning of pricing algorithms or to the actual pricing dynamics.” This dispelled one of the main concerns that had prompted the investigation in the first place. Instead, the competition problems identified by the Authority related to a lack of transparency and comparability of fares on the airlines' websites, which was considered likely to prevent consumers from effectively comparing prices.

To address these concerns, the ICA has begun cooperating with the European Commission, which is currently reviewing Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 on air transport services. In particular, the Authority will contribute to this process by sharing the results of its analysis.

The second investigation focused on the school textbook publishing sector. After closing the inquiry, the ICA sent a formal report to the Ministry of Education and Merit and other relevant institutions, with recommendations for intervention and supervision.

The Authority suggests intervening in this sector to:

• remove issues relating to the circularity, accessibility and usability of digital educational resources resulting from the licensing models adopted by publishers (eg one copy-one user), by defining common minimum standards and monitoring their implementation by operators;
• promote more effective modularity of school textbooks by transferring the components of books most subject to updates to a digital format, to limit the frequent release of new editions, prevent planned obsolescence and strengthen product sustainability;
• promote the development and use of open educational resources (OER);
• review the regulations that limit discounts on school textbooks, as these regulations harm consumers without providing any real benefits;
• reorganise and streamline public procurement of school textbooks by local authorities to achieve efficiency gains; and
• review the system of spending caps, which has led to distortions and inefficiencies in the adoption of school textbooks by teaching staff.