Inside Competition: October 2026

DOJ wins substantial relief against Google in ad tech monopolization case. 

On September 2, 2026, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a remedies decision in United States et al. v. Google LLC. The court declined to require Google to divest its AdX ad exchange but ordered behavioral remedies after previously finding that Google unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising. The unsealed 106-page opinion, made public in mid-September, requires Google to create and support integrations between AdX and DFP and the open-source Prebid framework, requires AdX to submit real-time bids to competing publisher ad servers, and imposes data-sharing obligations allowing publishers to access and export their own data from DFP and AdX. The court also ordered Google to disclose how its advertising auctions work and prohibited AdWords from engaging in discriminatory or self-preferencing bidding into Google’s ad tech tools. The remedies apply worldwide and take effect within 60 days, and compliance will be overseen by a monitor and technical committee for six years. 

 

FTC acts to prevent interlocking directorate in Beretta–Ruger deal. 

On September 16, 2026, the FTC accepted a proposed consent order resolving concerns that a stock purchase agreement between firearm manufacturers Beretta Holding S.A. and Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. would create an illegal interlocking directorate in violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Under the proposed deal, Beretta sought to increase its investment in Ruger to as much as 25 percent of Ruger’s outstanding shares and to appoint two members of Ruger’s board of directors. The proposed order prohibits Beretta from appointing or nominating anyone to Ruger’s board unless that person is independent of Beretta, requires Beretta to provide at least 15 days’ advance written notice to the FTC before any board appointment, and bars Beretta from entering financial or other relationships with a Beretta-nominated independent director that would violate the director’s fiduciary duty or involve the exchange of non-public information about Ruger until one year after that director leaves the board. The Commission voted 2–0 to issue the complaint and accept the consent agreement, which is subject to a 30-day public comment period. 

 

DC secures $9.3 million in RealPage rent-pricing settlements. 

On September 14, 2026, District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced settlements totaling $9.3 million with JBG Smith and Mid-America Apartments resolving allegations that the landlords used RealPage’s revenue-management software and competitively sensitive landlord data to coordinate rent increases. The settlements require monetary payments and restrictions on the use of revenue-management software that relies on competitively sensitive landlord data.

 

DOJ expands beef pricing investigation to eight major grocery retailers.DC secures $9.3 million in RealPage rent-pricing settlements. 

The DOJ Antitrust Division expanded its ongoing investigation into rising beef prices by sending letters to eight major American grocery retailers. The expansion follows the Department’s May confirmation that it was reviewing possible antitrust violations in the sector. DOJ has not articulated a precise theory of liability beyond stating that the probe concerns “beef affordability,” and the letters are not identified as subpoenas or civil investigative demands. The inquiry remains at the information-gathering stage, and no allegations of unlawful conduct have been made against any retailer.

 

[Canada] Canada’s Competition Bureau settles investigation of property controls in the grocery sector. 

On September 22, 2026, the Canadian Competition Bureau settled a long-running investigation of Empire, the owner of certain major grocery store chains in Canada. In settling, Empire agreed to a ten-year Consent Agreement which requires it to no longer enforce existing restrictive covenants, enter new restrictive covenants, or request that others establish restrictive covenants that benefit Empire, and requires it to curtail its use of exclusivity clauses. In recent years, the Canadian Competition Bureau has paid close attention to property controls, particularly in the grocery sector. While such controls are not per se illegal, the Bureau explains in its 2025 Guidelines that restrictive covenants cannot be justified outside of exceptional circumstances and that exclusivity clauses are only justified in limited circumstances, such as where they go no further than necessary to encourage new entry or to allow a tenant to make investments.

 

[Canada] Canada’s Competition Bureau resolves investigation of information-sharing services in the retail fuel sector. 

On September 23, 2026, the Bureau entered into a ten-year Consent Agreement with Kalibrate Canada. The agreement resolves the Bureau's finding that Kalibrate's KMI data analytics tool was an abuse of dominance. The Bureau concluded that KMI collected and shared fuel sales volumes and prices from Canadian gas stations. The Bureau found that exchanging such detailed, competitively sensitive information increased the risk of coordination among retailers. It also noted that sufficiently aggregated, anonymized, and historical information is less likely to raise concerns. Under the Consent Agreement, Kalibrate may not share confidential or competitively sensitive information about any individual fuel retailer with another retailer. It may provide aggregated total sales data for a trade area that has at least six stations, three independent fuel brands, and three independent marketers. KMI data must also cover periods of at least one month and may be released no earlier than ten business days after the period ends. 

 

[Romania] Romanian Competition Council fines Philips Romania for obstructing a dawn raid. 

On September 9, 2026, the Romanian Competition Council fined Philips Romania RON5.18 million (approximately EUR1 million) for obstructing an unannounced inspection. According to the authority, an employee uninstalled the WhatsApp application from a mobile device used for professional purposes after being informed that the inspection was underway, preventing inspectors from accessing potentially relevant information. The inspection, conducted between July 28 and 30, 2026, forms part of an investigation involving Philips Romania and ten distributors and resellers active in markets for medical ultrasound equipment and patient monitoring devices. The sanction concerns the obstruction of the inspection procedure and does not constitute a finding in relation to the alleged anti-competitive conduct under investigation. Under Romanian competition law, undertakings that fail to cooperate with or obstruct inspections may face fines ranging from 0.5 percent to one percent of their turnover achieved in the preceding financial year. 

 

[Poland] UOKiK fines major supermarket chain and transport companies for exchanging competitively sensitive information that affected competition. 

In a press release issued on September 22, 2026, the President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) announced that it had imposed fines totaling more than PLN570 million (USD150 million) on Jeronimo Martins Polska, the owner of the Biedronka retail chain; 29 transport companies; and eight individuals for participating in a labor market no-poach arrangement. According to UOKiK, transport companies serving the retailer's distribution centers agreed not to recruit one another's drivers, while the retailer coordinated and enforced the arrangement. The conduct allegedly lasted from 2017 to 2024 and may have affected the employment conditions of several thousand drivers. One participant received a 50-percent reduction of its fine under the leniency program. The decision is not yet final. 

 

[Poland] UOKiK imposes record fines on pharmaceutical wholesalers for information exchange. 

On September 21, 2026, the President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) announced that it had imposed more than PLN 900 million (USD236 million) in fines on Poland’s largest pharmaceutical wholesalers for exchanging commercially sensitive information, including medicine prices, sales volumes, and trading conditions offered to pharmacies. According to UOKiK, the practice, which allegedly continued for more than ten years, enabled participants to reduce competitive pressure and avoid price wars. Fines were imposed on Neuca, Farmacol-Logistyka, Farmacol, and Świat Zdrowia, while Polska Grupa Farmaceutyczna avoided a fine under the leniency program after cooperating with the investigation. The decision is not yet final. 

 

[Ireland] ER Travel v. DAA: High Court finds abuse of dominance in Dublin Airport car rental dispute. 

On August 6, 2026, Ireland’s High Court in ER Travel Limited v. Dublin Airport Authority plc (DAA) granted a declaration that DAA engaged in concerted conduct and abused its dominant position in breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Sections 4 and 5 of the Irish Competition Act 2002 by restricting ER Travel’s ability to provide car rental services at Dublin Airport. 

ER Travel operated a low-cost model whereby customers were shuttled to an “off-airport” site to collect rental vehicles. DAA took steps to prevent this model on the basis that car rental operators were required to use “on-airport” facilities made available by DAA through a tender concession process. ER Travel alleged that DAA's conduct unlawfully restricted competition by excluding off-airport operators from the market for short-term car rental services at Dublin Airport.

The High Court ruled in favor of ER Travel, characterizing DAA's conduct as exclusionary rather than a traditional refusal to provide access to an essential facility. The High Court rejected DAA's reliance on the Oscar Bronner (1998) line of EU case law, finding that the Bronner criterion of indispensability does not automatically apply whenever a dominant undertaking interacts with a competitor. Instead, the High Court drew heavily on recent CJEU jurisprudence, such as Android Auto (2025), which articulated an effects-based analysis for assessing whether a dominant platform operator may lawfully refuse access or interoperability to third parties. Applying that framework, the High Court ruled that DAA had used its gatekeeper role to unlawfully hinder the emergence of a low-cost alternative car rental business model at Dublin Airport. 

 

[Denmark] Wolt found to have abused dominant position in Danish meal delivery market. 

On August 26, 2026, the Danish Competition Council found that Wolt Danmark ApS, owned by US-based DoorDash, Inc. through its Finnish parent company, Wolt Enterprises Oy, had abused its dominant position in the Danish market for meal-ordering platforms with delivery during the period from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024. According to the Council, Wolt’s market share increased from 50 to 60 percent in 2022 to 70 to 80 percent in 2024, while competitors including Foodora, Dream Delivery, and Just Eat exited the market. 

The decision addresses three abuses arising from terms in Wolt’s agreements with restaurants: 1) an exclusionary abuse from narrow price parity clauses preventing restaurants from offering lower prices through their own sales channels; 2) an exploitative abuse arising from the combination of those parity clauses and promotional discount terms, creating an asymmetry to the detriment of restaurants; and 3) an exploitative abuse arising from the combination of the parity clauses and a term allowing Wolt, without the prior restaurant consent, to grant customers compensation of up to DKK400 per order at the restaurants’ expense. 

The Council ordered Wolt to cease the conduct immediately, refrain from equivalent practices, inform all affected trading partners, and document its compliance within 15 working days. The Council has also decided to bring the case before the courts with a view to imposing a fine. Wolt may appeal the decision.

Fifth Circuit affirms dismissal of broker’s antitrust challenge to NAR's mandatory membership rules. 

On September 9, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a Texas broker’s suit in Eytalis v. National Association of Realtors (NAR), et al., No. 25-10970 (5th Cir.) The broker’s Third Amended Complaint alleged that requiring brokers to join the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the Texas Association of Realtors (TAR), and the Wichita Falls Association of Realtors (WFAR) to gain access to the local multiple listing service was an illegal tie. The court held that the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations failed to establish antitrust injury or standing under the Sherman Act. Further, the plaintiff forfeited the Clayton Act challenge by failing to brief it on appeal.

 

Illinois federal court largely denies motions to dismiss in frozen potato price-fixing litigation. 

On September 17, 2026, Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings largely denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in In re Frozen Potato Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-11801 (N.D. Ill.). The case involves purchaser classes alleging that Lamb Weston, McCain, J.R. Simplot, and Cavendish conspired to fix frozen potato prices in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, in part by sharing sensitive sales and pricing data through Circana’s PotatoTrack platform. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged parallel price increases supported by “plus factors” indicative of an agreement, including the PotatoTrack data exchange and a highly concentrated market. 

 

Court enjoins New York ban on algorithmic rent-setting software. 

On September 29, 2026, Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York partially granted RealPage's motion for a preliminary injunction in RealPage, Inc. v. James and denied the New York Attorney General's motion to dismiss. The challenged statute, New York General Business Law § 340-B, prohibits building owners from using algorithmic rent-setting software to set rents. The court treated RealPage's algorithm-driven pricing recommendations as commercial speech subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court enjoined only Section 3 of the law because it sweeps in software using only public data when a narrower rule was available.

 

[Sweden] EUR1.3 billion in damages awarded to PriceRunner. 

On July 1, 2026, the Patent and Market Court in Stockholm awarded approximately EUR1.3 billion in damages to PriceRunner, now owned by Klarna, in a follow-on action against Google. The claim was based in part on the European Commission’s June 2017 decision finding that Google had abused its dominant position by systematically favoring its own price comparison service over competitors in search results. PriceRunner alleged that the infringement continued until the end of 2023. The court found that Google’s conduct caused compensable loss to PriceRunner on all national markets covered by the dispute, including during the period after the infringement decision. It nonetheless held that part of the claim was time-barred and declined to award run-off damages, resulting in an award of approximately EUR1.3 billion out of the roughly EUR 7.2 billion sought. Both parties have appealed. 

 

Federal court dismisses Michigan’s antitrust suit against oil companies. 

On September 22, 2026, the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed People of the State of Michigan v. BP PLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich.). Michigan alleged that four major oil companies conspired to suppress renewable energy and maintain supracompetitive prices in the transportation and primary energy markets in violation of the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The court held that Michigan lacked antitrust standing because overcharges for energy served as the only cognizable antitrust injury, while other alleged injuries – reduced electric vehicle supply, delayed renewable energy infrastructure, increased insurance premiums, and depressed home values – were “at most, ‘collateral damage’” to the relevant markets. The court further concluded that Michigan failed to plausibly allege proximate causation because the causal chain between the alleged 1979 conspiracy and present-day energy overcharges depended on the consideration of numerous market forces.

 

Consumers file antitrust class action alleging AI firms agreed to slow development.  

On September 18, 2026, in Buist et al. v. Anthropic, PBC et al., No. 3:26-cv-10693 (N.D. Cal.), four consumers who subscribe to paid artificial intelligence (AI) assistant services filed a putative nationwide class action alleging that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google agreed to restrain the pace of AI development in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that on September 12, 2026, Anthropic’s CEO published an essay titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” calling for “industry-wide coordination” to impose “limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress,” and that OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google publicly endorsed the proposal. Plaintiffs further allege that representatives of Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google have been meeting regularly since July 2026, and that OpenAI’s CEO stated that AI progress “should be slower than it otherwise could be.” Plaintiffs seek treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act and injunctive relief under Section 16 to prohibit defendants from maintaining any horizontal agreement concerning the rate of AI product development.

 

DOJ statements of interest on algorithms, information exchanges, and worker restraints.

The Antitrust Division filed a series of statements of interest in private litigation outlining its views on several open legal questions. In In re MultiPlan, DOJ argued that competitors’ joint use of a common pricing algorithm can constitute concerted action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and described algorithmic coordination as a “growing threat.” In In re Granulated Sugar, DOJ opposed a defense motion that threatened to raise the pleading bar for Section 1 information-sharing claims. In In re Frozen Potato Products, DOJ maintained that reciprocal information sharing may constitute concerted action and rejected the idea of a safe harbor for aggregated or backward-looking data. In In re Turkey, DOJ rejected any intermediate “hybrid” category between horizontal and vertical agreements.

DOJ investigates Nvidia's $17 billion Groq licensing transaction. 

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Nvidia structured its $17 billion licensing deal with AI chip startup Groq to evade antitrust review. The probe focuses on whether the December 2025 arrangement, which licensed Groq’s inference chip technology and brought senior leaders to Nvidia, was designed to avoid premerger notification requirements under the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. 

 

[Canada] Nortera and B&G Foods abandon Green Giant and Le Sieur deal following Competition Bureau challenge in Canada.

On October 6, 2026, the Interim Commissioner of Competition issued a statement confirming that Nortera and B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS) have jointly decided not to proceed with Nortera's proposed acquisition of B&G Foods Canada's Green Giant and Le Sieur Canadian processed vegetable business. In August 2026, the Canadian Competition Bureau filed an application before the Competition Tribunal seeking to block Nortera Foods Inc.'s proposed acquisition of the Canadian processed vegetable operations of B&G Foods, Inc., including the Green Giant and Le Sieur brands. The Bureau alleges that the transaction would substantially lessen competition in the supply of processed vegetables in Canada, where Nortera already holds a leading market position. According to the Bureau, the combination of Nortera's existing portfolio with the Green Giant and Le Sieur brands would eliminate meaningful head-to-head rivalry, likely resulting in higher prices, reduced product choice, and diminished incentives to innovate for Canadian retailers and consumers. The Bureau is seeking an order to prevent the closing of the transaction or, alternatively, a divestiture remedy sufficient to restore competition. For more information, see the Competition Bureau's backgrounder. 

[Spain] Spanish regulator publishes study on cloud services and competition. 

On September 16, 2026, Spain's National Commission on Markets and Competition (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia or CNMC) published the conclusions of its study on the functioning of cloud services. The study found that a small number of global providers control 60 to 70 percent of the market and identified significant barriers to entry and commercial practices that may hinder effective competition. The CNMC’s recommendations address technological lock-in, public procurement design, access for smaller providers, and sovereignty-based restrictions.

A central theme is adapting Spain's public procurement framework to cloud-service delivery so that procurements remain open to a broad range of providers and do not favor particular business models. The CNMC also cautions against unjustified "sovereignty" criteria in procurement specifications and calls for equipping procurement bodies with sufficient technical capacity to evaluate offerings effectively. The study complements EU-level instruments such as the Data Act and the Digital Markets Act.

 

[Sweden] Sweden releases new rules on public commercial activities. 

On August 1, 2026, the Act (2026:578) on public commercial activities (Sw. Lagen (2026:578) om offentlig säljverksamhet) came into force, replacing the relevant provisions of the Swedish Competition Act (Sw. Konkurrenslag (2008:579)). The Act prohibits public entities from engaging in commercial activities that improperly affect private companies’ ability to operate in the market. According to the Act, conduct is considered improper where the public entity has advantages that the private company lacks, such as access to public financing. The Act also introduces certain obligations taking effect on January 1, 2027, including a requirement for public entities to evaluate their commercial activities every four years and to prepare a separate report for those activities. The Swedish Competition Authority supervises compliance and may order a public entity to cease an infringement, discontinue part of an activity, or pay a market-disruption fee. The Authority’s decisions may be reinforced by penalties for non-compliance.