We are excited to share the latest edition of the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly, a publication designed to provide a summary of key cartel1 enforcement trends across the U.S., Europe, and beyond.
In this edition we examine the key developments in Q2 2025 and lay out our expectations for what the remainder of 2025 is likely to look like in the area of cartel enforcement.
Authorities in both the U.S. and European Union (EU) are broadening their approach to detecting and prosecuting cartel behavior. While traditional cases involving price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation continue, enforcement agencies are now paying closer attention to newer areas of concern such as coordination using algorithmic pricing, sustainability collaborations, price signaling, and minority investments. As the enforcement agencies have started to consider and develop new theories of harm, it is important to closely monitor the regulatory trend and changes concerning new technologies and new potential avenues for collusive behavior.
In the U.S., the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division secured its first trial win this quarter in a wage-fixing case as part of its continued efforts to prosecute collusive conduct in labor markets. Moreover, the DOJ successfully secured criminal sanctions against multiple individuals involved in procurement collusion. The DOJ continued to prioritize concerns about algorithmic collusion and information exchanges by submitting statements of interest in private civil lawsuits.
In the EU, competition authorities are continuing to bolster their cartel detection capabilities and registering an increasing number of leniency applications. All sectors remain under scrutiny and there is increased enforcement activity by national competition authorities in an increasing number of member states. The EC and national competition authorities are also pursuing investigations using less-common theories of harm. In particular, investigations by the European Commission (EC) involve theories of price signaling, coordination using minority investments, algorithmic collusion, and labor market collusion.
DOJ Reaffirms Its Position Regarding Algorithmic Collusion via Statements of Interest
Since 2023, the DOJ has been taking the position in statements of interest filed in private plaintiff litigations that when competitors knowingly use a common pricing algorithm, it may amount to price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In March 2025, for the first time in this administration, the DOJ submitted a similar statement of interest in a case involving healthcare payors’ use of the services of MultiPlan, a company providing cost solutions powered by algorithms. The DOJ asserted: 1) express agreements to restrain trade are not necessary when defendants understand that concerted action is contemplated and participate; 2) using a common pricing algorithm can amount to concerted action even if competitors maintain pricing discretion and do not always use the algorithm in the same way; and 3) information exchanged through an intermediary can still constitute a Section 1 violation.
In June 2025, the DOJ also filed a statement of interest in a class action accusing granulated sugar producers of fixing prices. The plaintiffs allege that the sugar producers violated the Sherman Act by exchanging confidential, nonpublic pricing and inventory information through a third-party company. The DOJ stressed that the “agreement” required under Section 1 does not require evidence of direct communications between competitors. For example, an agreement to exchange information can be proven by showing competitors knew their respective information would be (or could be) exchanged. The DOJ also stressed that an information exchange can violate Section 1 whether the exchange is direct (between competitors) or indirect (via a third party). Per the DOJ, it makes no difference under the law.
We recommend that any company using a price algorithmic tool or revenue management software that ingests competitor data consult U.S. antitrust counsel to ensure their practices are compliant with antitrust laws.
DOJ and FTC File Statement in Support of States’ ESG Collusion Suit Against Financial Institutions
State Street, BlackRock, and Vanguard have been sued by the Attorneys General of 12 states, who allege that the asset managers’ ESG policies and engagement as shareholders reduced the output of coal, leading to increased prices in the U.S. On May 22, 2025, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly filed a statement of interest in support of the state AGs, recommending how the court should interpret an investor exemption outlined in the Clayton Act. The agencies argued that while antitrust safe harbors for passive investment protect most index fund investing and beneficial corporate governance advocacy, they do not protect the use of commonly managed stock in competing firms to encourage market-wide reductions in output. Also, the agencies argued that a conspiracy can exist when competitors independently accept an invitation to participate in a common plan, even absent an express agreement between competitors. The agencies further assert that where there is concerted action, it is irrelevant that the alleged agreement at issue focuses on “climate” issues, because even good motives will not validate an otherwise anticompetitive practice. In the agencies’ view, a common strategy of defendants engaging with management of competing firms in the coal industry, to obtain their commitment to reduce carbon emissions substantially, is sufficient to deprive the marketplace of independent decision-making to harm competition.
Companies pursuing ESG initiatives should consult U.S. antitrust counsel to ensure their policies and related efforts are compliant with antitrust laws.
DOJ Expresses Concern over Coordination of Technology Platforms Through Trade Associations
On April 3, 2025, the DOJ hosted a forum discussing censorship in the Big Tech industry. During this forum, DOJ officials suggested that Big Tech companies might use their participation in trade associations to collude on standards related to content moderation or censorship, boxing out smaller entities that may not have resources to comply with these industry standards. The antitrust agencies have made it an enforcement priority to identify this type of conduct, and thus it is important to be mindful of the potential risk in the development and participation in the standards relating to these platforms.
Companies should be aware that the DOJ as well as foreign competition authorities are looking closely at the activities of trade associations in any industries for signs of potential collusion.
DOJ Secures Additional Guilty Pleas for Section 2 Criminal Monopolization
Since February 2025, the DOJ has obtained guilty pleas from nine defendants and sentences ranging from 10 months of home confinement to 11 years of imprisonment (as well as fines) for certain defendants indicted criminally for monopolization conduct. The DOJ had indicted these defendants for their roles in a conspiracy affecting the automobile international trade industry involving trade between Texas and Mexico. Three indicted defendants remain fugitives.
We expect the DOJ to bring additional criminal monopolization cases, although it remains to be seen what the practical impact of these charges will be, since they have been brought in tandem with violations of collusion and other statutes.
Additional Guilty Pleas Secured by PCSF
During this quarter, the DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) continued its efforts to deter procurement collusion by bringing cases involving the New York Department of Education, the U.S. Forest Service, and public schools in Louisiana and Mississippi. These three investigations collectively led to seven guilty pleas from individuals and three guilty pleas from companies. In the U.S. Forest Service case in particular, one executive was sentenced to 12 months in prison and a $20,000 fine. Another individual in that case was sentenced to three months in prison, ordered to pay a $24,000 fine, and ordered to forfeit over $1.5 million received from wire fraud.
Two executives at a U.S. military contractor in South Korea were charged with bid-rigging in 2022. One executive encouraged another company employee to delete text messages related to the bidding process after the company issued a litigation hold notice. In April 2025, the employee pleaded guilty to destruction of records, which can lead to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The DOJ has made procurement collusion its highest priority for the past several years, and there is no indication that will change in the current administration. Companies engaged in federal, state, or local procurement should ensure that their compliance policies are well-designed to safeguard against potential collusion around public procurement bidding.
Ongoing Bid-Rigging Investigation in Michigan
For the past couple of years, an investigation into a bid-rigging conspiracy of the asphalt paving industry in Michigan has led to several guilty pleas by companies and individuals. In the last few months, three executives from one company were sentenced to prison and ordered to pay criminal fines. The two founders and another executive of Asphalt Specialists LLC were all sentenced to six months of imprisonment and fines ranging from $20,000 to $500,000.
DOJ Initiates Probe into LiveNation and AEG Presents Regarding Concert Cancellation Conspiracy
In May 2025, the DOJ launched a criminal antitrust investigation against Live Nation and AEG Presents regarding alleged collusion on refund policies for COVID-19 era concerts. Relatedly, the DOJ and FTC jointly requested comments about live ticketing practices to understand the effects of scalpers, bots, and other unfair and deceptive trade practices related to live concert tickets. The agencies received more than 4,000 comments in response to the request. Prior to this investigation, on March 31, 2025, the White House released an executive order with concerns regarding the fairness of ticket purchasing for live events, directing the agencies to investigate this area.
States Consider Industry Ban for Pharmaceutical Executives
Certain states are considering imposing a remedy that bars the executives who were involved in price-fixing and market allocation schemes related to generic drugs from working in the pharmaceutical industry. This discussion was prompted by several state enforcers and follows the FTC’s action seeking a lifetime ban against Vyera Pharmaceuticals founder Martin Shkreli for allegedly monopolizing an HIV medicine.
This is a novel remedy in the U.S. for cartel conduct. While convictions and guilty pleas under the Sherman Act require debarment from government contracting, it is not common for the DOJ to seek bans preventing individuals from working in their employer’s industry. We will continue to monitor whether any states impose a ban on individual executives in the pharmaceutical industry.
Emma Burnham Steps Down as Director of Criminal Enforcement
Emma Burnham, Director of Criminal Enforcement at the Antitrust Division, departed the DOJ in May 2025 after 11 years in a variety of roles. The Director is the Antitrust Division’s second highest criminal enforcement official. As Director of Criminal Enforcement, Burnham was involved in authorization, oversight, and approval of all criminal investigations and prosecutions, and she played a key role in developing and implementing criminal policy initiatives.
Omeed Assefi currently serves as the new politically appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement at the Antitrust Division and is expected to continue with the criminal enforcement priorities pursued by the DOJ during the first term of the Trump administration, such as government procurement collusion and labor market collusion.
Antitrust Division and FBI Launch Online Portal to Pursue International Antitrust Fugitives
On February 13, 2025, the DOJ and the FBI announced a new online portal that will allow for easier access to information regarding the status of fugitives. Currently, there are 75 individuals charged with antitrust crimes who have evaded prosecution. To date, the Antitrust Division has successfully extradited 11 individuals who had avoided prosecution for Sherman Act or related crimes.
We expect this portal to enhance the DOJ’s ability to pursue fugitives who try to avoid criminal antitrust prosecutions in the United States.
EC and UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Separately Fine Car Manufacturers, Trade Organizations over Vehicle Recycling Cartel
On April 1, 2025, the EC announced that it had fined 15 car manufacturers and an industry association a total of around €458 million (approximately US$505 million) for participating in a cartel regarding the recycling of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) from May 2002 to September 2017. The EC found that the parties colluded on two aspects:
- they agreed not to pay car dismantlers for processing ELVs. In particular, they agreed to consider the recycling of ELVs to be a sufficiently profitable business, and therefore not to remunerate car dismantlers for their services (so-called “Zero-Treatment-Cost” strategy). The companies also shared commercially sensitive information on their individual agreements with car dismantlers and coordinated their behavior towards dismantlers; and
- they agreed not to promote how much of an ELV can be recycled, recovered, and reused and how much recycled material is used in new cars. Their goal was to prevent consumers from considering recycling information when choosing a car, which could lower the pressure on companies to go beyond legal requirements.
The investigation, which was initiated following a leniency application, found that the industry association was the facilitator of the cartel, having organized numerous meetings and contacts between car manufacturers involved in the cartel. All the 16 participants in the cartel agreed to settle the investigation.
On April 1, 2025, the UK's CMA announced a settlement of its investigation into the same conduct involving fines totaling over £77 million (approximately US$99 million) for 10 car manufacturers and two industry associations.
Companies should be aware that technical discussions in the context of industry associations can present potential competition concerns. They should ensure that their compliance policies cover these risks and are up to date.
Updates on Construction Chemicals Investigation and Polish Concrete Cartel Investigation
On April 25, 2025, Cemex filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing material developments from Q1 2025. Among them, Cemex revealed that the EC had issued an additional request for information (RFI) on March 28, 2025, as part of its ongoing investigation into a suspected cartel in the construction chemicals sector. The probe concerns chemical admixtures and additives used in concrete, cement, and related construction products.
This RFI follows an earlier phase of the investigation that began in October 2023, when several antitrust regulators around the world—including authorities in the EU, UK, U.S., and Turkey—launched inquiries into potential collusion in the supply of chemical admixtures. That same year, the EC also carried out an unannounced inspection of Cemex’s French offices.
While the UK’s CMA subsequently closed its investigation in January 2025, citing lack of administrative priority, investigations in other jurisdictions remain active.
Separately, on June 9, 2025, Poland’s competition authority (UOKiK) announced a new investigation into an alleged cartel among concrete manufacturers. The authority searched the premises of six companies, suspecting price fixing and market allocation.
The cement sector has been a regular target of cartel investigations in various jurisdictions around the globe. The ongoing investigations show active and deepening investigations, which may involve RFIs to relevant suppliers, customers, and competitors in the sector.
EU Court Backs EC Dawn Raids in Fragrance Cartel Probe
On April 30, 2025, the EU’s court of first instance, the General Court (GC), dismissed Symrise’s challenge to the EC’s unannounced inspections at its sites in Germany and France. The raids, conducted in March 2023, form part of a broader cartel investigation into alleged coordination and exchange of sensitive business information among suppliers of consumer fragrances and fragrance ingredients.
The GC held that the EC had sufficient justification to conduct the inspections based on the information available at the time, key pieces of which were obtained by the EC using its ex-officio detection tools.
Companies should be aware of competition authorities’ increasing focus on detecting cartels using tools such as market monitoring, complaints from individuals, screening public procurement data, and obtaining information from other public bodies, including criminal enforcement agencies. They should ensure that their compliance and dawn raid policies are effective and up to date.
CMA Closes Fragrance Cartel Investigation into Symrise
On May 19, 2025, the CMA announced that it had closed its investigation into Symrise AG on administrative priority grounds. The CMA is continuing its 2023 investigation of an alleged cartel in markets for the supply of fragrances and fragrance ingredients against Firmenich International SA, Givaudan SA, and International Flavors and Fragrances Inc. In 2024, the CMA widened the scope of the investigation to include alleged agreements not to poach each other’s employees.
Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under UK and EU competition law and that antitrust regulators in Europe are increasingly targeting employee no-poach agreements. Companies should review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date, effective, and appropriately focus on risks arising out of improper information sharing, including among HR professionals.
EU Top Court Adviser’s Opinions on Agent Fees and No-Poach Agreements in Sports Cases
On May 15, 2025, Advocate General (AG) Emiliou delivered opinions in three high-profile sports cases before the EU Court of Justice (ECJ), with potential relevance to price/wage and no-poach agreements generally.
In RRC Sports (Case C-209/23), the AG considered whether rules governing football agents’ fees amount to a potential restriction of competition “by object.” He found that while the rules introduce a mechanism which affects the calculation of the maximum rate of fees that can be charged by agents for certain types of service they cannot be easily considered by object restrictions because they do not set any specific binding maximum level of fees.
In Rogon (Case C-133/24), the AG considered whether rules on using players’ agents could be justified. The AG suggested to the ECJ that the so-called “sporting exception” under EU competition law should apply to regulations of a sports association concerning services provided on markets either upstream or downstream of the association’s activities, as long as these services are capable of having a direct and significant influence on the association’s core activities. While associations may have some margin of appreciation in acting thus, the regulations must be necessary and proportionate in light of a legitimate objective in the public interest. This assessment should take into account how proximate or distant the association’s activity and the affected third-party activities are.
In Tondela (Case C-133/24), the AG considered that while no-poach agreements belong to a category of agreements that is typically restrictive of competition, they have to be assessed in their legal and economic context, including their objectives. In the case at hand, which concerns an appeal against the decision of the Portuguese competition authority imposing fines of €11.3 million (approximately US$12 million) on football clubs for an alleged agreement not to hire football players from other clubs who unilaterally terminated their employment contracts, the AG recommends that the no-poach agreement should not be considered a restriction by object if its genuine rationale was to preserve the fairness and integrity of the sports competition affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ECJ is not bound by the AG’s opinions and will provide rulings at a later date, on which the referring national courts will base their respective judgments.
The AG’s opinions, if followed by the ECJ, would continue a line of recent ECJ cases such as SuperBock and Budapest Bank, emphasizing the need to consider the legal and economic context of agreements when determining whether they have the object of restricting competition, which is a concept that must be interpreted strictly.
EC Fines Food Delivery Companies over Cartel Facilitated by Minority Stake
On June 2, 2025, the EC announced that it had fined food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of €329 million (approximately US$356.1 million) for participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. In July 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a minority non-controlling stake in Glovo (reported to be 15 percent) and progressively increased this stake through subsequent investments. In July 2022, Delivery Hero acquired sole control over Glovo. According to the EC, starting from Delivery Hero’s first acquisition of a minority shareholding in Glovo in July 2018, and until July 2022, the companies progressively removed competitive constraints between them and replaced competition with multilayered anticompetitive coordination.
The EC stated that the companies leveraged Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo and i) agreed not to poach each other's employees, ii) exchanged commercially sensitive information, and iii) allocated geographic markets. Glovo’s fine was set at the statutory maximum, and both received a 10 percent fine reduction for acknowledging their participation in the cartel and agreeing to settle the case.
Companies with minority stakes in competitors, particularly those with board representation, should take appropriate measures to prevent sharing of competitively sensitive information or coordination of the companies’ commercial conduct.
EC Fines Pharmaceutical Company Ending Long-Running Cartel Investigation
On July 4, 2025, the EC announced that it had fined pharmaceutical company Alchem €489,000 (approximately US$529,000) for participating in a cartel involving the setting of minimum prices and allocated sales quotas for N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (SNBB), a key ingredient in Buscopan and generic abdominal antispasmodics. Alchem also exchanged sensitive commercial information with competitors. The cartel spanned over 12 years, from November 2005 to February 2018.
In October 2023, the EC adopted a settlement decision and imposed fines totaling €13.4 million (approx. US$14.3 million) against six companies for their participation in the same cartel. Alchem chose not to cooperate in the settlement procedure. The EC cooperated with competition authorities in Australia and Switzerland in this investigation, the latter of which issued its own fines on April 10, 2025 (see below).
The EC continues to prioritize antitrust enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector, targeting cartels involving price fixing, market allocation, and information exchange. Companies, particularly those in the pharma sector, should ensure their compliance policies are up to date and effective. Companies should also consider whether they may have been affected by the cartel sanctioned by the EC and may be able to claim damages.
Swiss Competition Authority Hits Pharma Firms in First-Ever Active Ingredient Cartel Case
On April 10, 2025, the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) announced that it had fined several pharma companies a total of CHF600,000 (approx. US$0.73 million) for agreeing to fix the minimum sales price of the Active Pharma Ingredient (API) butylscopolamine bromide (SNBB), allocating quotas, and exchanging commercially sensitive information.
According to COMCO, Boehringer Ingelheim, Alkaloids of Australia, Alkaloids Corporation, Alchem, C2 PHARMA, Linnea, and Transo-Pharm participated in the cartel affecting the active ingredient SNBB, which is used to produce abdominal antispasmodic drugs. C2 PHARMA received full immunity for revealing the cartel, while Transo-Pharm and Linnea received partial immunity from fines for cooperating with the investigation. COMCO noted that this was the first time it had fined a cartel concerning an API, and that it had cooperated with the EC (please see above) and Australian competition authorities.
This first-ever fine involving an API may signal broader scrutiny of API supply chains. Pharma and life sciences companies should revisit compliance programs, particularly around pricing and information-sharing. U.S. buyers or partners affected by the cartel may have grounds for civil damages.
CMA Fines TV Production Companies in Labor Cartel Investigation, Closes Second Labor Cartel Investigation in TV Production Sector
On March 21, 2025, the CMA announced a settlement decision fining sports broadcast and production companies in the UK for sharing sensitive information about fees for freelance workers such as camera operators and sound technicians. The CMA found 15 instances between 2014 and 2021 where a pair of companies shared information on how much they would pay freelancers assisting with the production and broadcasting of sports content such as major football games and rugby tournaments. One company received immunity from fines for alerting the CMA, while four others agreed to pay fines totaling £4,240,356 (approximately US$5.6 million).
On the same day, the CMA announced that it had closed a separate investigation relating to non-sports TV production and broadcasting on administrative priority grounds. The CMA stated that it had suspected several TV production companies of having shared competitively sensitive information about the rates of pay and/or terms and conditions agreed with, or to be offered to, individuals and companies active in the production, creation, and/or broadcasting of television content in the UK, excluding sports content. The exchanges mainly happened via an email forum between representatives of the production companies.
Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under UK and EU competition law and that antitrust regulators in Europe are increasingly targeting employee no-poach agreements. Companies should review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date, effective, and appropriately focus on risks arising out of improper information sharing, including among HR professionals.
Belgian Competition Authority Issues a Landmark Cartel Decision Involving Over-the-Counter Medicines
On April 24, 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) announced the imposition of fines totaling €11.2 million (approximately US$12.75 million) on pharmaceutical companies Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Haleon in a settlement decision concerning anticompetitive practices related to category management agreements for over-the-counter (OTC) medicines.
The BCA found that the three companies participated in a category management arrangement that spanned over 15 years, collaborating with distributors to determine the placement of OTC medicines in pharmacies, and included a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance. Although the BCA outlined that category management arrangements are not necessarily anticompetitive, this particular arrangement was held to be anticompetitive as it resulted in the exclusion of competing products from the planograms used in pharmacies, and the favoring of participating companies’ own offerings.
While category management arrangements have historically not been an enforcement focus in Europe, it is not uncommon for a first investigation in one area to lead to others in the same area. Companies are advised to review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date and effective.
France Fines Tech Consultancies in Labor Cartel Investigation
On June 11, 2025, the French Competition Authority (FCA) announced that it had sanctioned two separate no-poach agreements between Ausy (now Randstad Digital) and Alten, on the one hand, and Expleo and Bertrandt, on the other. These companies are active in the engineering, technology consulting, and IT services sectors. The FCA imposed fines totaling €29.5 million (approximately US$34.1 million), with Alten being fined €24 million (approximately US$27.7 million), Bertrandt €3.6 million (approximately US$4.2 million), Expleo €1.9 million (approximately US$2.2 million), and Ausy receiving immunity from fines due to having alerted the FCA.
The agreement between Ausy and Alten was in place between 2007 and 2016 and prohibited the companies from poaching and hiring business managers and required the companies to consult each other when moves were planned. The agreement between Bertrandt and Expleo was in place between February and September 2018 and prohibited the companies from poaching and generally hiring each other’s employees. The FCA closed its investigation regarding a third agreement between Ausy and another company, finding that there was insufficient evidence of a “non-aggression pact” between the companies concerning their employees. The FCA also closed an investigation into non-solicitation clauses in partnership contracts between several of the companies, finding that these clauses did not have an anticompetitive purpose, and that there was insufficient evidence of anticompetitive effects.
Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under French and EU competition law. Antitrust regulators in Europe are increasingly targeting employee no-poach agreements and closely scrutinizing non-solicitation clauses. Companies should review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date and appropriately focus on risks arising out of improper information sharing and agreements relating to the hiring of employees.
Lithuanian Court Overturns Massive Pharma Fine over Joint Price Lobbying
On June 18, 2025, a Lithuanian court overturned a €72 million (approximately USD 78 million) fine imposed on eight pharma companies and a pharmacy association for allegedly coordinating responses to government drug price caps.
The Lithuanian Competition Council interpreted the pharmaceutical companies’ and pharmacy association’s collective actions (i.e., submitting harmonized markup data and a “model pharmacy” cost analysis to the Ministry of Health) as evidence of an anticompetitive agreement.
However, the Vilnius administrative court reversed this finding, concluding that what took place was a form of joint lobbying (i.e., a coordinated effort to influence regulation) rather than collusion to fix prices. The court accepted that the participants’ shared claims (rising operational costs and risk of insolvency) were legitimate justifications, not pretexts to conceal a cartel.
Companies should be aware that while jointly lobbying the government and using trade associations for such purposes is generally permissible, it can raise antitrust risks if it involves the sharing of competitively sensitive information or agreements concerning the market conduct of the participating companies.
Belgian Competition Authority Conducts Unannounced Inspections in the Personal Care and Retail Sectors
On June 24, 2025, the BCA confirmed that it was conducting several unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the personal care and retail sectors. The BCA stated that it had received information indicating possible infringements of European and national competition law regarding the prohibition of anticompetitive agreements.
Companies should be aware that exchanging competitively sensitive information poses a risk under Belgian and EU competition law. Companies are advised to review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date and effective.
Hong Kong Lands First Criminal Conviction for Cartel Probe Obstruction
On February 28, 2025, the Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC) welcomed the conviction of an employee of a cleaning company, marking the first ever criminal prosecution and conviction for noncompliance with the HKCC’s investigation powers.
The case originated from an investigation into a suspected price-fixing cartel among cleaning service companies. During the HKCC’s unannounced inspection at the offices of the implicated companies an employee of one of the cleaning companies attempted to dispose of and conceal five documents and several computer links connected to the investigation. This action led the HKCC to refer the case to the Hong Kong Police Force for criminal investigation.
The employee in question was convicted for disposing of and concealing documents related to the HKCC’s investigation and was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment but was granted bail pending her appeal.
Hong Kong law stipulates penalties for noncompliance with HKCC investigatory measures, including fines of up to HK$1,000,000 (approximately US$127,000) and imprisonment for up to two years for individuals who destroy or conceal documents requested by the HKCC. Additionally, obstructing the HKCC’s searches or providing false information can also result in similar penalties.
Companies should be aware that competition agencies focus on pursuing suspected obstructions with their investigative powers. Employees should be trained on the legal risks of obstructing searches or tampering with evidence.
Australian Court Finds Oil and Gas Service Company Guilty of Cartel-Inducing Schemes
On April 24, 2025, following an action led by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Australia’s Federal Court ruled that Qteq Pty Ltd, an oil and gas services provider, engaged in cartel-inducing conduct by attempting to coerce suppliers into illegal agreements.
The court found that between 2017 and 2019, Qteq sought to push competitors into contracts containing cartel terms, such as market sharing, bid rigging, and refusing to supply certain services to major oil and gas clients.
Companies should be aware that attempted cartel conduct is illegal in certain jurisdictions, including Australia or Hong Kong, and reflect it in their compliance policies and training.
China: Tianjin Market Regulator Fines Companies, Individuals over Pharma Cartel
During May and June 2025, according to public reporting, the market regulator of Tianjin province fined at least four pharma companies as well as at least five individuals for running a cartel for active pharmaceutical ingredient dexamethasone sodium phosphate. The three companies received combined fines of RMB362 million (approximately US$51 million). Four key executives received fines of RMB600,000 (approximately US$83,000) each, while a fifth individual who had initiated and facilitated the cartel but was not affiliated with any of the pharma companies received the maximum fine of RMB5 million (approximately US$694,000).
Companies, particularly those in the pharma sector, are advised to review their compliance policies to ensure they are up to date and effective. China’s antitrust regulators highlighted the pharma sector's importance, and it is not uncommon that a first investigation in a sector leads to others in the same sector.
Footnotes
1While “cartel” under competition law is typically reserved for competitor collusion to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets, the legal framework around what constitutes a “cartel” is expanding. Any company seeking to collaborate with another company should be mindful of this legal framework. Our aim is to provide practical guidance to ensure company collaborations do not cross the line into improper collusion.
