Recent shifts in global antitrust enforcement

Why should I read this?

Competition law investigations are increasingly coordinated by competition authorities across multiple jurisdictions. When one authority acts, others often follow.

Information-sharing between agencies is now common, dawn raids can happen on the same day across continents and investigations can run in parallel. Yet, practices and rules still differ.

For global businesses, that means one investigation can quickly become a multi-jurisdictional crisis. The same conduct may be subject to review by several authorities at once. This creates a risk of divergence in evidence, theories of harm, timelines and outcomes. Understanding these risks early and having a coordinated strategy is key.

Key trends businesses should watch:

1. Unprecedented levels of cross-border cooperation

• Authorities no longer act in isolation. Formal and informal arrangements mean investigations into the same or similar parties often launch at the same time across different jurisdictions. This collaboration enables active investigative cooperation, not just policy dialogue.

2. Different procedural rules apply

Despite closer cooperation, enforcement powers and defence rights vary widely.

• Privilege: There is no global standard. The UK protects communications between in-house counsel and the internal client, but the European Commission does not. In Asia, complexities arise: Mainland China doesn’t recognize privilege as a basis to resist disclosure, while Hong Kong does. Some jurisdictions protect only the lawyer, not the client, creating procedural challenges.

• Dawn raids: Powers differ. Many authorities can inspect without a warrant, while others (e.g., Portugal), need a judicial warrant and a judge present. Search powers vary too. Some regulators can seize data stored abroad or in domestic premises.

• Virtual inspections: Authorities such as the European Commission are testing remote-only access to systems (a big shift from traditional on-site raids).

3. Use of AI tools to detect anti-competitive behaviour

Competition authorities are launching more investigations on their own initiative. This has led to the use of AI tools to help them detect patterns suggesting anti-competitive behaviour e.g. anomalous bidding patterns as a sign of bid rigging.

4. Leniency approaches are not the same everywhere

The conditions for immunity or leniency vary. For example:

• The US offers full criminal immunity and cuts civil damages from treble to single (but only for the first applicant).

• Europe and most other jurisdictions reward later applicants with significant reductions if they provide useful evidence.

• In smaller, concentrated markets (e.g. Portugal), cultural reluctance to admit wrongdoing drives preference for settlements that offer similar discounts with less reputational impact.

5. Common theories of harm

Collaboration means authorities are targeting similar conduct. Agreements between businesses to fix wages or not hire each other’s employees are treated as serious violations of competition law, similar to price-fixing and market sharing.

• US: First to prosecute these cases criminally and remains very active.

• EU: European Commission has sanctioned such conduct for the first time, although much of this type of enforcement happens at the national level. Similar enforcement has taken place in around half of the member states.

• UK: CMA recently acted against sports broadcasters, triggering further warning letters across sectors to put businesses on notice of the need for compliance in this area.

6. Emerging theories of harm

• With stronger powers to investigate, competition authorities are pushing boundaries with new types of anti-competitive conduct, including category management as abuse of dominance, “green” cartels and algorithmic collusion.

What steps can I take to manage multi-jurisdictional investigations?

• Have teams in place for on-the-ground support when the authority arrives and coordinate on a cross border basis, working with local teams to deliver a centralized and coordinated strategy.

• Secure strong evidence (both for and against your case) early. Arguments are only as good as the evidence behind them (and evidence shapes your options and strategy).

• Be consistent in your narrative. Assume regulators are talking. Make sure your submissions don’t contradict each other across jurisdictions.

• Have a clear and overarching strategy. Actions in one jurisdiction affect others.

• Map internal issues that can slow you down and address them early. These issues can cause huge delays if you discover them only when you’re already against the clock:

• Who approves external counsel budgets?
• Who holds the keys to the data rooms, servers, cloud accounts, back-ups?
• Who needs to sign-off on a leniency application or a settlement submission?
• Who on the board must give the final green light for any major decision?

• Consider all decisions and their implications in the full context of current and potential enforcement.