Abuse of a dominant position meaning

Private actions The CAT issued its judgment in Infederation Ltd v Google Inc and Others, on an application by Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited (together, Google) seeking to strike out sections of Infederation Limited’s (Foundem) particulars of claim relating to Foundem’s damages case against Google, alleging abuse of a dominant position in the market for online search. The CAT rejected the application, concluding that the proposed amendments amounted to a fresh claim that did not arise from the same, or substantially the same, facts as the original claim and was therefore time‑barred—see further, judgment NOTE—For all live private actions in the UK that have been made public, see further, UK private actions—ongoing cases tracker Upcoming dates—For dates of upcoming UK competition developments, see further, UK Competition calendar ...

Mergers The CMA confirms it has, as required, sent its report to the Secretary of State on jurisdiction and competition issues linked to RedBird IMI’s anticipated acquisition of Telegraph Media Group—see further, case page. NOTE—For a summary of mergers in which the UK government has intervened on public interest grounds under the Enterprise Act 2022, see Government interventions on public interest grounds—merger cases tracker. Antitrust OFGEM has launched a Chapter II Competition Act 1998 investigation into suspected breaches of competition law, concerning a possible abuse of a dominant position—see further, press release. NOTE—For all live behavioural probes before the CMA and sectoral regulators, see UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. Competition policy The CMA seeks inputs for its review of the Rail, Road, Inland Waterway Transport Block Exemption (RRIWTBER), assessing fitness for purpose, UK economic specifics, and impacts on UK businesses and consumers. Responses by 10 April 2024; consultation on proposed recommendations in June...

Private actions CAT refuses certification of collective proceedings against water companies The CAT handed down its judgment on a number of applications for collective proceedings orders (CPOs) issued by Professor Carolyn Roberts against six water and sewerage undertakers (Wises). She alleged the companies abused a dominant position by supplying misleading information to various regulatory bodies about the volume of pollution incidents on their networks. The CAT declined to certify the claims, finding that the abuse of dominance allegations were statute barred. Background In 2024, Professor Carolyn Roberts (the PCR) sought authorisation to bring collective proceedings on behalf of household customers of six Wises, claiming the undertakers under-reported pollution incidents (PIs) to the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat). The PCR contended that this alleged understatement meant the Wises were able to charge higher prices than would have been allowed had accurate figures been reported...

Margin squeeze Margin squeeze is a form of exclusionary behaviour aimed at rivals, intended to remove them or undermine their viability—either by driving them from the market or by deterring entry at the outset. Where a vertically integrated firm holds a dominant position in an upstream market for a vital input and also supplies that input to wholesale customers who compete at retail, it can have both the means and the incentive to exclude those competitors from the downstream market. The dominant firm compresses retail rivals’ margins by setting a high wholesale charge, a low retail price, or a mix of the two, thereby narrowing the gap between the cost of essential inputs and the price attainable in the retail market. Consequently, the spread between the dominant undertaking’s retail price for the product or service and the wholesale price it levies on its rivals is insufficient to allow an efficient retail rival to compete effectively. This weakening of effective competition downstream can, in turn, result in higher prices, diminished...

This table sets out all completed investigations by Latvia’s competition authority (the Competition Council of the Republic of Latvia—the ‘Competition Council’) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table... 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Section 11 of the Competition Law No decisions have yet been issued by the CC under Article 101 TFEU/Section 11 in 2026... 2026 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Section 13 of the Competition Law Classified advertising services — SS Issues: SS SIA allegedly abused a dominant position by imposing restrictive terms and curbing access to its online advertising platform Developments: Infringement decision announced—20/03/2026; fines totalling €186,780 imposed Speed camera licences — Burde B.V.

ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the CAT’s judgment concerning a standalone damages claim alleging abuse of a dominant position in the UK market for the sale and hire of academic dress for graduation ceremonies, said to result from exclusivity agreements. Latest development On 15 July 2022, the CAT handed down its judgment. The two applications before the CAT related to follow-on damages claims concerning the infringement identified in the Commission’s 2016 decision. The application brought by the claimants was filed on 26 June 2020. Parties Claimants Churchill Gowns Limited Student Gowns Limited (together, Churchill) Defendants Ede Ravenscroft Limited (ERL) Radcliffe & Taylor Limited (R&T) WM. Northam & Company Limited (Northam) Irish Legal and Academic Limited (ILA) (together, the E&R) Background...

We are strong but fair competitors We pursue competition with energy while upholding integrity and complying with all relevant competition laws. These laws exist to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, and to preserve effective competition. Competition laws forbid 'restraints of trade', covering certain kinds of agreements or conduct involving rivals, customers or suppliers, and can also apply to a single undertaking with a dominant market position...

1 What is dominance? 1.1 As a general guide, a firm that persistently holds above 40% of the market on a consistent basis is usually regarded as being in a dominant position. Typically, that level must be sustained for at least two consecutive years. Yet market share alone is not decisive; a company is dominant if, to a meaningful degree, it can operate independently of rivals, customers and consumers within the relevant market, rather than being constrained by them. 1.2 An organisation in a dominant position bears a ‘special responsibility’ to avoid behaviour that harms effective competition. Failing to live up to that duty may expose the business to allegations of abusing a dominant position. Identifying what amounts to abuse is not always straightforward or clear-cut. 2 Why market dominance is a concern 2.1 Dominant firms carry a special responsibility to make sure their actions do not skew or distort competition. 2.2 Such companies should routinely review their behaviour against that responsibility and question the...

Date: [ insert date ] From: [ insert name and job title ] Fair competition serves both businesses and consumers. It highlights where companies must improve and spurs organisations to pursue greater efficiency, foster innovation, lift productivity and, ultimately, become stronger businesses. 1 What is competition law compliance? Competition law exists to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour and to preserve effective competition in the markets in which they operate. Every business must comply, and breaches can bring serious consequences for companies and individuals, including substantial fines, prison sentences, director disqualifications and reputational harm. 2 How does this affect us? For [ insert organisation name ], competition law may arise in three principal contexts: cartel activity; other potentially anti-competitive agreements; abuse of a dominant position. Cartel activity Cartels are the most serious kind of anti-competitive agreement, where two or more businesses agree not to compete with one another...