Inside Competition: July 2026

Inside Competition is designed to help companies identify key legal developments in antitrust and competition law in the United States and around the globe.

In addition to reporting on antitrust litigation and enforcement actions over the previous month, this bulletin addresses policy developments, regulatory trends, and agency priorities shaping competition law today. 

Our goal is to provide insights that help businesses identify risk, respond to investigations, and compete in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Civil litigation

Jury verdict against Medtronic’s bundling allowed to stand. On February 5, 2026, a jury verdict found Medtronic liable under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and California Cartwright Act based on its use of bundled discounts and exclusive dealing involving its Advanced Bipolar Devices, sold under the name LigaSure. Medtronic subsequently sought a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied on July 6, 2026. A footnote in the court’s order accepted a novel bundled discount theory in the case – specifically, that “liability can lie even in the absence of Medtronic’s monopoly power over every product in its bundle.” This finding may have a broader impact on the antitrust treatment of bundled discounts. In the instant case, Medtronic announced plans to appeal, which would allow the Ninth Circuit to provide its view of the district court’s opinion. In a separate Delaware federal court case, plaintiff Regeneron obtained a jury verdict over defendant Amgen’s bundling of its cholesterol drug with blockbuster anti-inflammatory medications. Amgen sought to overturn that verdict through a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Regeneron filed a notice to the court citing the Medtronic opinion, showing the potential significance of the Medtronic court’s finding.

Indirect purchasers file proposed class action alleging shipping container manufacturers conspired to restrict output and fix prices. In Daybreak Express Inc. v. China International Marine Containers (Group) Co. Ltd. et al., case number 3:26-cv-05571, an indirect purchaser of shipping containers filed a putative class action in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that four China-based manufacturers, which together control approximately 95 percent of global production of standard dry shipping containers, conspired beginning in late 2019 to restrict manufacturing output and fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the defendants agreed to limit production-line hours, refrain from building new factories, cap total container volume, and install approximately 87 surveillance cameras across 49 production lines to monitor compliance, causing container prices to more than double during the COVID-19 pandemic. The civil action follows a DOJ criminal indictment unsealed in May 2026 charging the same companies and seven executives with felony antitrust violations.

Illinois federal court denies class certification in healthcare no-poach wage-suppression suit. On June 10, 2026, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied class certification in In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:21-cv-00305. The named plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of more than 6,000 senior-level and above employees alleging that three outpatient medical centers entered into no-poach agreements and shared confidential compensation data to suppress wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court first excluded the plaintiffs' primary regression analysis under Daubert, concluding it was unreliable because it measured equity compensation at vesting or exercise rather than at grant and therefore failed to capture wage suppression during the class period. Absent that regression, the court held that plaintiffs could not demonstrate predominance of common issues under Rule 23(b)(3), reasoning that the proposed class encompassed employees holding hundreds of different job titles across diverse geographic markets and industries. As a result, individualized proof would be necessary to show antitrust impact and damages.

Criminal enforcement

Nevada man pleads guilty to rigging bids for healthcare-related and other US Air Force projects. Scott G. Srodes of Las Vegas pleaded guilty to two felonies for conspiring to rig bids and to defraud the US Department of War in connection with the sale of shelving and storage products to US Air Force facilities. According to the information and plea agreement, Srodes and his co-conspirators exchanged pricing information and, at times, instructed each other on prices to quote for projects at healthcare facilities at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia and aircraft maintenance facilities at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas. The projects, valued at more than $1.8 million, were funded through the Defense Logistics Agency’s Facilities Maintenance, Repair, and Operations Program. The plea, prosecuted through the Justice Department’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force, is the second in an ongoing investigation into bid rigging and fraud impacting US military facilities. 

Civil enforcement

DOJ proposes settlement to resolve challenge to OhioHealth’s healthcare contracts. On June 16, 2026, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a proposed settlement to resolve a civil antitrust lawsuit against OhioHealth Corporation. The DOJ alleges that OhioHealth, which owns and manages hospitals and healthcare facilities in Ohio, enacted anticompetitive contract restrictions with commercial health insurers that prevented insurers from offering and notifying patients about lower-cost health plans. The proposed settlement would void current provisions in OhioHealth’s contracts that prohibit or deter insurers from offering budget-friendly health insurance plans or plan features. It also prevents OhioHealth from seeking similar provisions in future contracts and from penalizing or threatening to penalize health insurers from offering budget-conscious plans or features. 

Merger review and challenges

FTC requires divestiture of four generic drugs in Aurobindo–Lannett deal. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed consent order requiring Aurobindo Pharma Limited to divest four generic drug products in order to complete its $250 million acquisition of Lannett Company Inc. The FTC alleged that the acquisition would combine two of a limited number of competitors across four generic pharmaceutical markets. That result, according to the FTC, could eliminate head-to-head competition and increase the likelihood that Aurobindo would unilaterally exercise market power while remaining competitors engaged in coordinated interaction, potentially forcing customers to pay higher prices. Under the order, the products will be divested to Quagen Pharmaceuticals LLC, a generic manufacturer. Aurobindo and Lannett are to provide transition services to enable Quagen to operate the divested assets. Aurobindo and Lannett will also be subject to a monitor. The Commission vote was 2–0, and the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposed agreement.

International

Australia

ACCC blocks Coles greenfield supermarket site under new mandatory merger regime. On June 30, 2026, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) determined that supermarket chain Coles must not acquire a leasehold interest in vacant land in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, where it planned to build a new full-line supermarket. The decision is notable as it applies Australia’s new mandatory and suspensory merger regime to a greenfield land acquisition rather than an operating business or competitor’s assets. The ACCC found that, in the Kalgoorlie market, which has limited existing grocery options, the new store would likely divert enough sales from an independent rival to force that rival’s exit. That would leave Coles operating two of the four full-line supermarkets in the area, reducing local choice, service quality, and product differentiation, according to the ACCC. The case signals the ACCC is prepared to prohibit organic expansion – not only acquisition of existing competitors – where additional capacity threatens to substantially lessen competition in concentrated local markets.  

European Union

EU increases focus on labor markets and no-poach agreements. EU competition law has increasingly focused on labor-market harms, generally treating wage-fixing and no-poach agreements as significant competition restrictions and recognizing labor as a relevant input market. Consistent with that trend, the Portuguese Court of Justice’s recent Tondela ruling held that a club-to-club no-poach pact among Portuguese football clubs may restrict competition “by object” under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by suppressing player recruitment competition without requiring proof of actual effects. These developments suggest increased scrutiny of horizontal hiring restraints under EU competition law. The Commission’s draft Merger Guidelines reinforce this trend by regarding labor markets as relevant input markets for assessing buyer-side or monopsony effects.

Germany

Germany proposes 12th amendment to Competition Act. On June 4, 2026, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy published a draft bill for a 12th amendment to the German Competition Act. The bill aims to streamline competition law proceedings and enable authorities to focus on cases that raise more significant competition concerns. Key proposals include raising general merger control turnover thresholds, expanding the transaction value threshold to cover acquisitions of targets expected to become active in Germany, and introducing a preliminary “Phase 0” notification procedure, which would allow the Federal Cartel Office to determine within two weeks whether a full filing is required. The draft also proposes a procurement screening tool to detect bid rigging in public tenders, broader legal certainty mechanisms for vertical agreements, expanded judicial review of ministerial authorizations, and further procedural digitalization. The bill remains subject to the legislative process and may be amended before adoption.

Ireland

Irish merger notification thresholds increase. On July 1, 2026, Ireland’s merger control thresholds for mandatory notifications increased as part of efforts to reduce regulatory burdens and focus enforcement on transactions most likely to raise competition concerns. Under the new regime, mandatory notification to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) is now required where 1) the aggregate turnover in Ireland of all undertakings involved is at least EUR100 million (up from EUR60 million) and 2) at least two parties each have Irish turnover of at least EUR15 million (up from EUR10 million). Businesses with Irish sales are encouraged to consider the CCPC’s unchanged call-in powers, which allow the authority to review below-threshold deals that may affect competition in Ireland. The reforms follow a public consultation and account for inflation since the thresholds were last revised in 2019. They further reflect a broader policy objective to align Ireland’s merger control regime with comparable EU jurisdictions.

Italy

AGCM launches market investigation into motor third-party liability insurance sector. On June 9, 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato or AGCM), jointly with the Italian Insurance Supervisory Authority (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni or IVASS), launched a market investigation into potential competition concerns within the compulsory motor third-party liability insurance sector. The investigation focuses on four areas: 1) whether the saturation of the bonus–malus scheme and insurers' internal merit classes hinder consumer switching and distort premium-setting, 2) whether the direct compensation scheme's inter-company settlement mechanism distorts pricing and reduces incentives to control claims costs, 3) whether barriers to data portability persist despite recent legislation on telematics devices (black boxes), and 4) whether widespread discounts and increasingly complex offers undermine the effectiveness of price comparison tools. The AGCM aims to assess whether legislative or regulatory measures could be introduced to promote competition. Interested stakeholders are invited to submit comments by July 31, 2026.

Spain

CNMC opens proceedings against major Spanish banks for public statements on future commercial policies. On June 16, 2026, the Spanish National Commission on Markets and Competition (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia or CNMC) initiated infringement proceedings against several Spanish banks for a possible violation of Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU. The CNMC has up to 24 months to investigate and issue a final decision.

CNMC updates guidance on competition compliance programs. On June 9, 2026, the CNMC approved an updated version of its guidance on competition compliance programs. The revised guidance preserves the core structure and assessment criteria introduced in the 2020 version while offering additional clarification on their practical application. Notably, the revised guidance more clearly distinguishes between the potential relevance of effective compliance programs for the mitigation of fines and their role in obtaining an exemption from, or lifting, a debarment from public procurement contracts. The guidance also incorporates references to recent Supreme Court of Spain rulings addressing procurement debarment. The CNMC reiterated that compliance programs will be assessed based on their actual effectiveness in practice rather than on their formal design alone. The Commission further underscored the importance of fostering a genuine culture of compliance within organizations.

Government of Spain nominates new CNMC president and board members. On June 23, 2026, the Government of Spain nominated Juan José Ganuza as President of the CNMC and Carmen Balsa, Marina Echebarría Sáenz, and Joan Capdevila i Esteve as Board members. The appointments remain subject to scrutiny before the Economy Committee of the Spanish Congress and subsequent formal approval. According to media and practitioner commentary, Ganuza's nomination is viewed as a technical and broadly consensus-oriented appointment, which may indicate continuity in the CNMC's current approach to competition enforcement and economic analysis. The new leadership team is expected to oversee the authority’s response to emerging challenges in digital markets, artificial intelligence (AI), and energy regulation while continuing efforts to strengthen the CNMC’s technical capabilities.

United Kingdom

CMA accepts first buyer side exiting firm defense in UK bakeries merger. On June 16, 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cleared Associated British Food PLC (ABF)’s acquisition of Hovis Group Limited, accepting for the first time a buyer side exiting firm defense. Although ABF’s Allied Bakeries business and Hovis competed in UK bakery products, the CMA determined that ABF would likely have discontinued Allied Bakeries due to declining demand and rising energy costs. The CMA further determined that there likely would not have been an alternative purchaser of Allied Bakeries. The CMA therefore concluded that the transaction may not be expected to substantially lessen competition.

CMA imposes “world-first” AI publisher requirement on Google. On June 3, 2026, the CMA imposed a new conduct requirement on Google Search under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, increasing publishers’ control over how their content is used in generative AI search features. Described by the CMA as a “world-first,” the requirement requires Google to provide effective opt-out controls, greater transparency regarding the use of publisher content, clearer attribution, and safeguards against retaliation where publishers choose to withhold their content. Although the requirement is limited in scope to Google and UK search outputs, it may signal intensifying regulatory scrutiny of AI-driven content use while shaping licensing arrangements with Google and other generative AI providers more broadly.

  

Contacts

Learn more about our Antitrust and Competition practice by contacting our editors and contributors:

Managing Editors: Gregory J. Casas (Austin), Becky L. Caruso (Short Hills), Emily Collins (Austin)

Administrative Editors: William Conway (Washington, DC), Janie Rowland (Austin), Claire Smith (Austin), Emily Kral (Washington, DC)

Contributors: Lucy Arkwright (Dublin), Alessandro Boso Caretta (Rome), Brian J. Boyle (Philadelphia and Washington, DC), Mandy Chan-Lucero (San Francisco), Daniel Colgan (Brussels), Darach Connolly (Dublin), Amanda Cooper (Los Angeles), Thomas Corrigan (Phoenix), Stephen Cosenza Jr. (San Francisco), Deyanira Cuellar Sandoval (San Francisco), Sander De Volder (Brussels), Matt Evans (London), Gábor Fejes LL.M. (Budapest), Dr Justus Herrlinger (Hamburg), Joaquín Hervada (Madrid), Miguel Higuero Ureña (Madrid), Javier Huerta Rebollo (Madrid), Alexandra Kamerling (London), Dr Jonas Kranz LL.M. (Hamburg), Jack Mansur (Philadelphia), Kayla Martin-Blue (Philadelphia), Antonia Mordino (Washington, DC), Paolo Morante (New York), Caroline C. Olsen (Washington, DC), Michal Orzechowski LL.M. (Warsaw), Sophia Prümen LL.M. (Brussels), Amadeu Ribeiro (New York and São Paulo), Jeremy Sher (London), Wrede Smith (Washington, DC), Sam Szlezinger (London), Claus Wenzler (London), Simon Uthmeyer (Melbourne)

 

^{For professional responsibility reasons, these summaries may not include discussions of developments relating to certain matters.}