Key takeaways
Policy Alignment: Antitrust enforcement is increasingly used to advance broader political, industrial, and security policy goals across major jurisdictions.
AI Driven Enforcement: Authorities are rapidly expanding digital forensics and AI based detection tools, enabling broader and deeper investigations.
Algorithmic Conduct: Regulators intensify scrutiny of algorithm enabled coordination, shared data platforms, and automated pricing tools.
Reporting Incentives: Leniency and whistleblower programs grow in relevance, driving more case generation and earlier authority involvement.
Rising Enforcement Pressure: Key risk areas such as labor markets and digital market dominance remain top priorities globally.
In recent years, global antitrust enforcement has undergone a profound transformation, driven by rapid technological advancements, expanding regulatory powers, and the increasing integration of competition policy with broader industrial, security, and sustainability objectives. As authorities across jurisdictions embrace new tools such as AI, data analytics, and digital forensics, companies face a dynamic and complex enforcement landscape that requires proactive compliance and strategic adaptationAs we are going into 2026, several key trends are set to define the global cartel enforcement landscape in the year ahead.
In the United States, antitrust enforcement has increasingly reflected the broader policy goals of the second Trump administration. Gail Slater, head of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ), has laid out an “America First” antitrust enforcement agenda focused on the promotion of free markets and minimization of regulation. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and DOJ under President Trump have also pledged to use antitrust enforcement to tackle key political issues such as high food prices. In December 2025, President Trump directed the creation of a “Food Supply Chain Security Task Force” within FTC and DOJ to investigate the nation's largest meat packing companies for potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation. The Task Force is focusing on the foreign-dominated conglomerates that the Trump administration contends have contributed to artificially inflating prices.
In January 2026, consistent with the broader policy goal of curtailing government waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump White House also announced the creation of a new DOJ division for “national fraud enforcement” to investigate and prosecute fraud affecting the federal government, federally funded programs, and private citizens. It remains an open question whether/how this new division’s work will intersect with the efforts of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, which was formed during the first Trump administration and has touted more than 195 investigations opened, 75 guilty pleas, and trial convictions secured, and $70 million fines and restitution collected since its inception.
In the European Union, antitrust enforcement is re-evaluated to serve industrial policy, digital sovereignty, and geopolitical resilience. The Competition Commissioner’s mission letter tasks DG COMP to update enforcement so it supports EU competitiveness, innovation, and security objectives – bringing competition tools closer to industrial‑strategy outcomes in strategic sectors (energy, defense, space, and digital). As an example, the EU Commission recently closed a consultation procedure on developing antitrust guidance for joint procurement, recycling and reuse of raw materials, aligned with the goals of the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).
In the United Kingdom, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is reshaping its approach across its antitrust toolkit in line with the government's pro-growth strategic steer, positioning the 4Ps (pace, predictability, proportionality, and process) as the organizing framework for demonstrating how effective antitrust enforcement can support investment and economic confidence.
In China, the policy objective for antitrust enforcement remains eliminating various unfair practices and administrative restrictions to ensure healthy domestic competition. However, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR)’s enforcements can often be read in combination with wider policy objectives, whether that’s to promote foreign investments, to ensure supply chain security or to protect SMEs from being abused by large tech platforms.
In Mexico, related to broader policy goals, the Mexican government citing, inter alia, government efficiency and controlled spending as arguments previously implemented reforms to do away with antitrust watchdogs Cofece, and the Telecom Institute. The enforcement of antitrust policies and laws are now consolidated under one sole roof, the new National Antitrust Commission (NAC), which is a dependent, decentralized body of the Ministry of Economics. Now, in October 2025, reformed law introduced far-reaching autonomy of state-owned enterprises, including those operating in energy-related sectors such as mineral oil and electricity. Those are no longer subject to Mexican antitrust scrutiny, granting de facto immunity on any action conducted by state agents, no matter which interests are affected.
Related articles:
Armor Fou – Can Europe build its defences without disarming antitrust?
DOJ Antitrust Chief outlines “America First Antitrust” philosophy
Conservative in name only?
Dawn raids are expected to remain broad in scope. Thanks to new legal powers, national competition authorities across Europe are often accessing cloud storage and remote communications as part of their cartel enforcement activities. Companies have reported that during 2025 raids, inspectors demanded access to corporate messenger chats and backed-up phone chats. It is to be expected that these “data raids” will continue also in 2026.
Moreover, competition authorities carry on with deploying AI directly in detection and case-building. After the United Kingdom’s CMA launched an AI tool in early 2025 that ingests public‑procurement bid data to flag anomalous patterns – bid rotation, cover bidding, synchronized pricing, the Spanish competition authority has developed a similar tool to detect bid rigging, called BRAVA, which is likely to show its first results in 2026. While public bids due to the accessibility of procurement databases are well-suited for AI-based detection, it can be presumed that authorities will make use of AI for screening other types of cartels as well. We expect authorities to focus on collusion in oligopolistic, price-transparent markets.
Similarly, in the US, DOJ has prioritized the hiring of dedicated data science experts to serve in the Antitrust Division in recent years, and the FTC created an Office of Technology, which is staffed with technologists specializing in data science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other technology-related fields.
In line with its international peers, China’s SAMR has been active in constructing its digitalized antitrust review and enforcement system. SAMR has established a dedicated internal department to handle electronic evidence collection and preservation and big data analysis, among other things. In several abuse of dominance cases involving tech companies, SAMR has conducted in-depth big data analysis.
We expect that antitrust authorities will continue to increasingly tackle algorithmic coordination that can operate like a cartel by aligning decisions across companies through automated price screening and price adjustments. Here, enforcement is focusing on the collusive effects of such practices, with agencies testing whether common pricing tools and data services can substitute for traditional coordination. Litigation already reflects this trajectory.
In the US, DOJ and ten states sued a real estate services company and six multifamily residential lessors, alleging that the defendants violated the antitrust laws by using revenue management software that collects nonpublic competitively sensitive data from competing landlords in an algorithm that generates pricing recommendations for rental properties. DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the real estate services company at the end of 2025. It is also understood that DOJ investigated this same conduct criminally but closed the investigation without bringing any criminal charges.
In China, the Anti-Monopoly Law and other subordinate regulations or judicial interpretations contain provisions that specifically prohibit monopolistic conduct by using algorithms. In fact, SAMR has looked into the use of algorithms in the past, particularly in various investigations into the big techs. It is also reported that algorithms coordination may be a key concern in SAMR’s recent investigation into a large online travel agency.
As authorities begin to use AI tools to screen bid rigging or other forms of cartels, it is possible that enforcers will also try to beat algorithmic coordination with its own weapons – by using AI to detect it. In the past, Denmark shared first experiences on that.
Related articles:
Proposed DOJ settlement provides guidance on use of competitive information in algorithmic pricing tools
Recent developments in algorithmic pricing: US appeals court weighs in, enforcers stay aggressive, and open questions remain
Update on algorithmic pricing in competition law - What you need to know
In 2025, the EU debated whether leniency applicants’ admissions should be shielded from being used as evidence in private damages cases. This is aimed at removing a disincentive to come clean. Other enforcers, such as the CMA, already worked to sweeten the deal for leniency applicants. We may see further policy moves in 2026 mirroring these enforcement considerations.
Also in Europe, we have seen an increase in the use of the EU leniency tools, mainly by Asian companies. In Mexico, the leniency regime has undergone a recent reform bringing changes to the particularities of benefits granted to leniency applicants and protections against class actions for damages. In China, we have seen frequent use of leniency tools in various domestic cartel cases in recent years.
Related articles:
Creating clearer incentives: updates to the United Kingdom leniency regime finalised
Caring when sharing – the limits of leniency application disclosure
We see a growing number of antitrust investigations initiated by whistleblowers reporting anticompetitive behavior to authorities.
Most recently, there have been multiple cases where European competition authorities indicated that they opened investigations into employers’ behavior on labor markets following whistleblower reports.
In the US, the recent launch of a new whistleblower program is expected to generate additional cartel cases. The new program is a joint effort between DOJ and the US Postal Service (USPS), and offers qualifying whistleblowers who provide credible information about violations affecting the USPS up to thirty percent of any criminal fines recovered as a result of the reported information. The first reward under the new program – $1 million to a whistleblower who provided information related to an alleged bid-rigging conspiracy among online car auction companies – was announced by DOJ in January 2026. DOJ leadership has said that they do not expect the new whistleblower initiative to undermine DOJ’s longstanding Leniency Program and view the new program as another tool to help the agency with case generation. At a minimum, the new program adds an additional factor to the analysis for any company considering seeking leniency in the United States. DOJ has reportedly received a number of applications from potential whistleblowers since the program was launched in July 2025.
While international cartel enforcement is widely understood to have been hovering at decades-long lows in recent years, there are some signs of increased enforcement. The CMA, the EU Commission, and the DOJ have been engaged in a years-long cross-border investigation into alleged coordinated price-fixing and market allocation by the world’s four biggest fragrance houses in the US, Switzerland, and Germany. While no resolutions have been announced in that matter so far, in October 2025, one of the fragrance houses agreed to pay $26 million to settle private civil litigation claims stemming from the same conduct understood to be the focus of the international investigation. In addition, while not public, we are also aware of other ongoing cartel investigations in which international enforcement agency coordination appears to be occurring.
Looking ahead to 2026, the enforcement of abuse‑of‑dominance cases is likely to continue to increase globally, given the strong momentum created by intensified scrutiny of digital markets. In May 2025, the EU Commission issued its first fines under the DMA and announced further potential DMA fines. In parallel, the EU Commission continues to fine tech companies with hefty fines under EU antitrust rules (Art. 102 TFEU). In the United Kingdom, in 2025 the CMA launched initial investigations using its new digital markets powers (DMCCA) and in January 2026 proposed its first set of conduct requirements.
We also expect other jurisdiction such as Brazil and Asian jurisdictions to show continued growth in dominance‑related enforcement, in particular in the tech sector. While fine levels remain well below Europe’s, authorities across the region have been increasing scrutiny of digital‑market conduct and implemented rules on digital market regulation (in particular, in Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia). In Mexico, the reformed law takes exploitative behavior into focus.
By contrast, the United States is likely to maintain its comparatively restrained trajectory, given that overall enforcement intensity has trended lower relative to other jurisdictions.
Related articles:
Federal judge says Meta is not a monopoly, ending FTC’s long-running antitrust case against the social media company
In 2026, the intersection of ESG initiatives and antitrust enforcement is expected to be defined by increasing scrutiny but regulatory divergence.
In the US, Republican state attorneys general are intensifying investigations into climate alliances, net‑zero commitments, and sustainability standards, treating certain ESG collaborations as potential cartels. Cases against big US finance companies illustrate a broader move to challenge horizontal shareholding and coordinated sustainability behavior under antitrust law, with 2026 expected to become a record year for related state‑level enforcement. Federal enforcers have also expressed support for using the antitrust laws to target ESG collaboration, citing President Trump’s efforts to increase domestic energy production, including coal.
In Europe, by contrast, there is a continuous trend to further integrate sustainability into competition policy. This is shown, e.g., by the first informal approving guidance issued by the EU Commission to port terminal operators which jointly purchase and set minimum technical specifications for battery-electric container-handling equipment used in ports. At the same time, however, the EU Commission (and the CMA) issued a fine of €458 million to 16 major car manufacturers for allegedly agreeing on practices that were allegedly detrimental to ELVs. Further, national authorities such as the CMA, the Dutch ACM and the French competition authority, have also approved sector‑wide initiatives aimed at recycling, ESG reporting, and emissions reduction.
Related articles:
FTC and DOJ support Republican State Attorneys General in antitrust case targeting corporate ESG initiatives
Antitrust enforcement in labor markets has shifted from steady progress to landmark action. Regulators continue to target wage‑fixing, no‑poach, and restrictive non-compete agreements, treating them as serious restraints on worker mobility and compensation.
In the US, DOJ recently secured its first-ever guilty verdict in a criminal antitrust labor market case when a federal jury convicted a defendant for engaging in a wage-fixing conspiracy for home health care nurses. DOJ AAG Gail Slater said that the agency considers any conduct that harms competition for workers to violate the antitrust laws and has committed to continue to work to protect workers and zealously prosecute illegal wage-fixing agreements. Reinforcing this agenda, the FTC launched a dedicated task force to crack down on unfair employment practices, pledging to continue to target illegal non-compete agreements that harm competition.
In Europe, enforcement has moved decisively to the EU level: In 2025, the EU Commission ruled that no‑poach agreements can constitute a breach of competition law and fined two food delivery companies a total of €329 million. Alongside this, many national competition authorities across Europe have continued their enforcement efforts with the first decisions already being reported in 2026.
In the United Kingdom, in April 2025 the CMA fined a number of broadcasting and production companies for colluding on rates of pay for freelance workers, and in September 2025 it published detailed guidance on how to ensure antitrust compliance on labor markets.
In China, SAMR previously summoned four major pig-breeding enterprises regarding a non-poach agreement signed between them. Although no formal investigation was launched and no fines were imposed, the regulator by way of a 'soft order' required for the rectification of their conduct. While the case appeared domestic in scope, SAMR’s decision to publish it on its official website served as a clear signal to market players that non-poach or non-compete agreements may cross antitrust compliance redlines.
Related articles:
Hiring in the hot seat – the CMA publishes new guidance on labour markets
FTC sets new course for enforcement of noncompete agreements
Table for none – European Commission serves fines for Labor Market Cartel
In the EU, recent EU Commission reviews revealed that many behavioral remedies failed to achieve their intended goals. The studies recommend greater reliance on structural or hybrid remedies, signaling a move away from the traditional hierarchy that favored behavioral measures. However, the EU Commission (as well as a US District Court Judge) recently decided against divestiture measures and for behavioral measures.
The United Kingdom is also a notable exception, with the CMA recently signaling a more flexible stance on (merger) remedies, a willingness to consider more creative solutions and to reassess the balance between structural and behavioral remedies, in line with the 4Ps framework.
In the US, recent settlement agreements on merger remedies have included significantly more structural than behavioral remedies, with FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson warning that behavioral remedies should be treated with substantial caution.
In China, SAMR, at least in the sphere of merger control, has been generally consistent with its use of remedies where needed. Historically there were more behavioral remedies rather than structural remedies, but in recent years we also see relatively frequent use of structural remedies or hybrid remedies.
Related articles:
Fixing the Fix? The EU Commission’s Study on Antitrust Remedies
4ps and 3 themes: an overview of the CMA's merger remedies review
Conclusions & practical next steps
As we move further into the second half of the decade, global antitrust enforcement is marked by rapid technological advancement, expanding regulatory powers, and the integration of competition policy with broader industrial, security, and sustainability objectives.
To navigate this complex and dynamic environment, companies should consider the following practical steps:
- Upgrade digital dawn raid and search warrant preparedness: Ensure protocols cover not only physical documents but also cloud storage, messaging apps, and mobile devices. Regularly train staff on how to respond to broad scope “data raids” and forensic imaging, including remote access scenarios.
- Monitor and mitigate algorithmic coordination risks: Review the use of shared data platforms, pricing tools, and third-party services for potential collusive effects – even absent explicit agreements.
- Leverage and prepare for leniency opportunities: Stay informed about evolving leniency policies, including new incentives and protections for applicants. Establish clear internal processes for early detection and swift decision-making regarding self-reporting. Also consider the risks of whistleblowers approaching authorities before a leniency application has been filed.
- Align ESG and sustainability initiatives with antitrust guidance: Seek informal guidance from authorities where available, and document pro-competitive benefits of ESG collaborations. Monitor regulatory divergence between the EU and the United States and adapt compliance strategies to manage cross-border risks.
- Strengthen labor market compliance: Review and update your antitrust policies on wage-fixing, no-poach, and non-compete agreements in light of recent enforcement and court decisions. Train HR and management on the competition law risks in employment practices.
- Engage early with legal experts: Involve antitrust counsel and technical experts proactively to assess risks in business models, digital tools, and market strategies. Build internal capacity to respond to data-driven investigations and to explain algorithmic systems to authorities.
