Suzanne Rab
Suzanne Rab is a barrister specialising in UK and EU competition law and regulation. She has over 15 years of experience advising businesses, regulators and competition authorities on EU, UK and international competition law across the range of competition law, merger control and regulatory matters.
She has particular experience advising on transactions and commercial agreements and practices, including in proceedings before the UK competition and regulatory authorities and the European Commission. She has worked on some of the most high profile merger, market and cartel investigations in Europe and the UK.
Suzanne has advised on major cartel investigations, appeals and follow-on actions, including advising on the European Commission’s investigation under Article 101 TFEU in relation to air freight and appeal to the General Court and in relation to antitrust investigations into cartel activity in marine hoses.
Suzanne has particular experience advising on the antitrust and regulatory issues arising in the regulated sectors including communications, energy, financial services, pharmaceuticals, transportation and water. Suzanne has wide experience of advising businesses, governments and regulators on developing and implementing new laws and regulatory regimes in line with international best practices.
Suzanne regularly speaks at conferences, presenting on a variety of competition-related topics including merger control, sector regulation, and the role of economics in competition cases. Suzanne has made media appearances on competition law and regulatory matters, including for BBC Radio, BBC Worldwide and Bloomberg Television.
Suzanne publishes in a range of legal and trade journals including Competition Law Insight, European Competition Law Review, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice and Utilities Journal. She is regularly quoted in the quality press and media on competition law topics, including in Bloomberg, The Deal, Dow Jones, European Voice, Financial Times, The Guardian, Reuters, Wall Street Journal.
Suzanne is the author of “Indian Competition Law, an International Perspective” (first published by Wolters Kluwer, May 2012; with a supplement on cartel regulation published in January 2013). The book is the first-of its-kind international comparative analysis of the Competition Act 2002 published contemporaneously with the coming into force of Indian merger control.
Suzanne is also co-author (with Dr Alison Sprague) of "Media Ownership and Control: Law, Economics and Policy in an Indian and International Context" (Hart Studies in Competition Law, 2014).
Suzanne was called to the Bar in 2013 as a transferring solicitor advocate. In private practice as a solicitor, she has held positions and most recently partnership at leading international antitrust practices including Slaughter and May, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Hogan Lovells and King & Spalding. She has also held the role of director at PricewaterhouseCoopers working within its strategy, economics and forensics team.
Suzanne has three degrees in law, all from the University of Oxford (Oriel College). She holds a post-graduate Bachelor of Civil Law degree specialising in competition law, IP, evidence and the conflict of laws.
She is a Visiting Fellow of Imperial College London specialising in competition cases with an antitrust/ IP dimension. She has also taught at the University of Oxford. She is a senior research associate with the Regulatory Policy Institute, based in Oxford.
Suzanne is the author of “Indian Competition Law, an International Perspective” (with a supplement of cartel regulation). The book is the first-of-its-kind international comparative analysis of the Competition Act 2002 published contemporaneously with the coming into force of Indian competition law and merger control.
Suzanne is also co-author of "Media Ownership and Control: Law, Economics and Policy in an Indian and International Context".
Publications
“The OFT’s Higher Education Report: Could do Better”, Regulatory Policy Institute, Letters & Notes on Regulation”, No 3.2, July 2014
“The special responsibility of dominant owners”, Property Law Journal – July/ August 2014
“The fire and Furnace of land covenants”, Property Law Journal – June 2014
“The New EU Technology Transfer Block Exemption: A Note of Caution”, Journal of Economic Law and Practice – May 2014
“Vertical ‘hardcore’ restrictions of competition in Europe”, ABA International Committee Newsletter – Spring 2014
“Neighbourhood Watch”, New Law Journal – 14 March 2014
“New Lease of Life”, Estates Gazette – 9 January 2014
“The Red, White and Blue: Mrs Murphy Revisited”, Competition Economics Group Briefing Paper – December 2013
“Media plurality (déjà vu), The DCMS consultation”, Competition Economics Group Briefing Paper – October 2013
“Media plurality and the UK agenda, The House of Lords call for Evidence”, CEG Economists Group Briefing – 11 June 2013
“Indian Cement Cartel: An International Comparative Analysis”, National Law School of India University Journal, Vol II 2013 (2013)11NLSJ – May 2013
“Protection meets competition”, China Business Law Journal – May 2013
“Switzerland Probes Abuse of Dominance in Pay TV Sports”, Competition Economics Group Briefing Paper – 17 May 2013
“Beyond Spectrum Spaghetti: the move to a single mobile market”, Competition Law Insight – April 2013
“The March of Media Reform: A UK Perspective on Australia”, FTI Whitepaper – 9 April 2013
“EU Competition Law and Joint Sales in LNG”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter - April 2013
“Application of Competition Law to the Energy Sector: Changes to UK Concurrency Regime”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter - March 2013
“Russia Gives Go-Ahead to Rosneft’s Acquisition of TNK-BP”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter – February 2013
“Competition Law and the Energy Sector – EU, UK, and Beyond; Looking Ahead to 2013”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter – February 2013
“New Competition Law in the United Arab Emirates: Implications for Doing Business in the Middle East”, ABA Section in International Law, Hot Topics in International Law – 31 January 2013
“Breaking seals in competition investigations – a ‘pandora’s box’ for compliance”, Financier Worldwide Market Outlook – January 2013
“Playing Power Games - Just how competitive are the energy companies?”, Competition Law Insight - 13 November 2012
“Competition Law Enforcement in India - Is the New Devil in the Data?”, Competition Law Reports - October 2012
“UK Cartel Regulation”, West Law - September 2012
“Getting to the Seoul of Price Fixing”, Financier Worldwide - September 2012
“UK Launches Motor Insurance Market Investigation”, King & Spalding Client Alert - 2 October 2012
“Indian Competition Law: 10 Years On - An International Perspective”, Competition Law Reports - August 2012
“Delivering expert knowledge to global counsel”, International Law Office - 20 July 2012
“Legal Privilege at home and abroad”, American Bar Association, Business Torts and RICO News - Summer 2012
“EU internal Energy Market Legislation Not Fully in Force”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter - June 2012
“EU and Swiss competition law: navigating the boundaries”, Swiss Review of Business and Financial Market Law – July 2012
“Voice of Experience”, The Glasshammer - 23 April 2012
“India turns up the heat on cartel enforcement with first fines in the energy sectors”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter - April 2012
“Healthy Competition: China v India”, China Business Law Journal - April 2012
“4G or not 4G”, Competition Law Insight - 20 March 2012
“ICC tribunal decides claim on commitments attached to European Commission’s merger approval”, Lexology - 29 February 2012
“EU Proposals on Transparency and Country-By-Country Reporting”, Financial Fraud Law Report - February 2012
“Natural resources and keeping your head above water in the EU”, King & Spalding Energy Newsletter - February 2012
“Competition and corruption”, Competition Law Insight - 13 December 2011
“Dawn raids, and criminalisation of cartels in Mexico and beyond -- Are you ready?”, Latin Lawyer – 24 November, 2011
Practice Areas
Panels
- Consulting Editorial Board
- Specialist Panel
4 Contributions by Suzanne Rab
![EU 2014 Competition Law Damages Directive: Private Enforcement Overview: Harm Presumption, Pass-on, Disclosure, Limitation, Joint Liability, and UK Implementation [Archived]](images/default-source/pa-pool/5.tmb-small.jpg)
PRACTICE NOTES
EU 2014 Competition Law Damages Directive: Private Enforcement Overview: Harm Presumption, Pass-on, Disclosure, Limitation, Joint Liability, and UK Implementation [Archived]
ARCHIVED –
This archived practice note sets out information on the EU Damages Directive and captures the position as at its commencement on 27 December 2014. It is not maintained or updated.
After nearly a decade of debate, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers endorsed a new EU directive on private damages actions for breaches of competition law (the Directive).
The Directive received formal adoption on 26 November 2014, following sign-off by the Parliament and Council, and appeared in the Official Journal on 5 December 2014; it took effect on 27 December 2014, with Member States afforded two years from that date to transpose its measures into domestic law.
The Directive is intended to guarantee that anyone suffering loss caused by an infringement of competition law can effectively pursue full compensation.
Its overarching purpose is to tackle obstacles to the effective enforcement of competition rules in the majority of Member States and to set minimum standards and common approaches within the relevant procedural rules...
Competition
PRACTICE NOTES
EU competition law and intellectual property: Articles 101/102, technology transfer (TTBE), SEPs/FRAND, compulsory licensing, pay-for-delay, patent pools, litigation, settlements and copyright
STOP PRESS :
On 30 April 2026, the European Commission approved an updated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) together with accompanying Guidelines, supplanting the 2014 framework. The updated TTBER took effect on 1 May 2026. This Practice Note cites the TTBER and the Guidelines and is in the process of being refreshed to mirror these amendments. Finding equilibrium between intellectual property rights (IP/IPRs) and competition law is a longstanding issue. At a glance, the objectives of IPRs and competition law can seem at odds. In broad terms, IPR owners are entitled to govern access to, and seek payment for, exploitation of their exclusive rights. By contrast, competition law pursues open markets and restrains the misuse of market power. The Commission has acknowledged that the interplay of IPRs and competition law can raise concerns and create apparent friction. It has equally recognised that they are ultimately complementary, each guiding the other, meaning a careful balance is needed when assessing whether the exercise of IPRs aligns with competition law. Despite this complementarity, applying competition law to commercial conduct involving IPRs can still provoke contentious questions, particularly where monopoly rights and market power intersect within open markets and the balancing exercise required...
Competition
PRACTICE NOTES
EU competition law: standardisation and standard terms—Article 101 TFEU analysis, safe harbours, FRAND and case examples under the pre-2023 Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines (Archived)
ARCHIVED:
Revised Horizontal Guidelines were published in the Official Journal on 21 July 2023. This Practice Note was produced with the previous Horizontal Guidelines in mind and is no longer maintained. For up to date content, please refer to the relevant section in Practice Note: Analysing horizontal co-operation agreements under EU competition law.
Standardisation (or standard-setting) is widely practised and has a pivotal role across many industries and in society more broadly, delivering clear advantages, such as:
stimulating innovation
assuring product quality and safety
enabling interoperability/compatibility
reducing transaction costs
Agreements on standards primarily seek to establish technical or quality requirements that current or future production processes, methods or products must meet, for instance to ensure compatibility between products designed to work together.
Standardisation agreements may cover a range of matters, including harmonising different grades or sizes of a particular product, or setting technical specifications in markets where compatibility with other products or systems is necessary or essential.
A clear example is the GSM standard for mobile phones, given the evident economic benefits when handsets adhere to the same standard so that users on different networks can connect with each other...
Competition
PRACTICE NOTES
Tying and bundling under Article 102 TFEU: dominance, foreclosure and efficiencies in digital markets—Commission approach and case law (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Teams)
Tying and bundling
Within EU competition law, tying and bundling are chiefly examined as forms of abusive dominance. Article 102(d) TFEU expressly refers to tying, describing it as requiring counterparties to accept supplementary obligations that, by their nature or according to commercial usage, are unconnected with the subject of the contract. Numerous EU investigations have flagged tying and bundling by firms holding market power (i.e., dominance). These include prominent matters in traditional goods and services, and in newer technology markets, exemplified by cases concerning Microsoft’s integration of its media player and browser with its operating system. In recent years, the free provision of digitised, internet-based products and services has increasingly been cast as anti-competitive tying or bundling, particularly in complaints aimed at Google and Meta. This trend has prompted questions over whether the established approach of competition authorities to tying and bundling is well-suited to tackling potential foreclosure concerns in emerging markets...
Competition
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
