Article 102 meaning

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

This Checklist can be used to evaluate compliance of vertical agreements with EU competition law, notably under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 (VBER 2022). For analysis of the VBER 2022, see further, Introduction to the application of Article 101 TFEU to vertical agreements and The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2022/720 Framework for assessment When applying EU law to vertical agreements, it is necessary to consider: The competition rules under Article 101 TFEU: Whether the agreement is captured by Article 101(1) TFEU at all (although, in practice, the VBER 2022—and other block exemptions—may often be considered before Article 101 TFEU). Whether the agreement restricts competition at all (this is frequently overlooked)—some categories of agreement may not be restrictive of competition. Also, agency will fall outside Article 101 TFEU where there is a genuine agency situation (exercise caution, as restrictions in an agency agreement may still fall foul of Article 101 TFEU)...

Antitrust Commission launches investigation into Google’s use of publisher and YouTube content for AI training The Commission has initiated a formal competition investigation to determine whether Google has infringed Article 102 TFEU by using web publishers’ material and content uploaded to YouTube for artificial intelligence (AI) purposes on unfair terms (AT.40983). Commission’s concerns The Commission is assessing whether Google has: used web publishers’ content to produce AI-driven features on Google Search, including AI Overviews (AI-generated summaries shown above organic results) and AI Mode (a chat-style search tab), without proper remuneration and without giving publishers a meaningful way to refuse such use without risking reduced access to Google Search, and/or used YouTube material, including videos and other uploads, to train its generative AI models without compensating creators and without providing an opt-out...

Antitrust Commission issues SO to Meta over WhatsApp AI access limits; flags possible interim measures The Commission has delivered a statement of objections to Meta, outlining its preliminary assessment that Meta blocked third-party artificial intelligence (AI) assistants from accessing and engaging with users on WhatsApp, infringing Article 102 TFEU (AT.41034). The Commission considers that Meta’s behaviour risks preventing competitors from entering or growing in the rapidly expanding market for general-purpose AI assistants and has therefore indicated its intention to impose interim measures (subject to Meta’s rights of defence) to avoid serious and irreparable harm to competition. Background On 15 October 2025, Meta announced changes to its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms, effectively prohibiting third-party general-purpose AI assistants from the platform. Consequently, from 15 January 2026, Meta’s own assistant, Meta AI, has been the only AI assistant available on WhatsApp. On 4 December 2025, the Commission opened formal proceedings to examine whether this policy shift amounts to an abuse of dominance. The investigation covers the EEA, excluding Italy, where...

Antitrust Advocate General suggests Google’s refusal to provide third party access to Android Auto platform may breach Article 102 TFEU Advocate General Laila Medina issued her opinion in Case C- 233/23 Alphabet and Others, a national reference from Italy that seeks guidance and clarification on whether Google’s stance of denying third-party access to Android Auto (a mobile app for Android devices) infringes Article 102 TFEU. For context, Google is the developer of Android OS, an open-source operating system for Android mobile devices. In 2015, Google rolled out Android Auto, an app for mobile devices with an Android operating system that allows motorists to use certain smartphone apps via a car’s integrated display. Independent developers are able to produce iterations of their own apps that work with Android Auto by applying templates supplied by Google. Enel X (part of the Enel Group) delivers electric car charging services. In May 2018, it introduced JuicePass, an app which provides a suite of features for charging electric vehicles. In September 2018, Enel X...

This table outlines completed CMA, OFT and sectoral regulator investigations from 2013 under Article 102 TFEU/Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998. Only publicly disclosed cases are included. For ongoing behavioural matters, see UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals, see UK competition appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For completed Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I cases, see UK behavioural investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I Competition Act—closed cases tracker. For instances where the CMA has pursued director disqualification, see UK competition director disqualifications—cases tracker. 2025 Gas transportation — Scotia Gas Networks; Ofgem. Issue: alleged abuse of dominance. Commitments accepted—02/12/2025 Consultation on commitments launched—09/09/2025 Investigation opened—08/03/2024 Vifor Pharma (abuse of dominance) — Vifor Pharma; CMA. Issue: alleged abuse of dominance by making misleading claims about a rival iron treatment. Commitments accepted—23/05/2025 Consultation on commitments launched—10/12/2024 Investigation opened—31/01/2024 2024 ...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 9 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Overview of an OFT Chapter II and Article 102 TFEU investigation into Epyx Limited (Epyx) regarding its conduct in the UK market for supplying service, maintenance and repair (SMR) platforms. In the UK, Epyx operates the 1link Service Network SMR platform. Latest developments On 9 September 2014, the CMA confirmed it had accepted commitments from Epyx. These undertakings remove, and in some cases amend, potentially restrictive provisions in Epyx’s agreements for use of the 1link Service Network, creating clearer opportunities for rival entry, notably by making it easier for Epyx’s existing customers to move to competitors if they wish. The commitments will apply for five years. On 4 June 2014, the CMA announced it was consulting on improved...

This table outlines all concluded investigations by Spain’s competition authority (the National Commission on Markets and Competition—the CNMC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations made public are included. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Professional hairdressing products • I.C.O.N Issues: Restrictive agreements—price fixing Developments: Infringement decision issued—12/01/2026; fines totalling €1.2m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 2 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Automotive fuels • Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos • Solred • Campsa Estaciones de Servicio Issues: Concerns the Repsol Group abused its dominant position through its pricing policy that squeezed the margins of independent low-cost petrol stations Developments: Infringement decision issued—03/02/2026; fines totalling €20.5 imposed 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act ...