Global Antitrust & Competition Law / International Trade & Regulation

In today’s interconnected markets, antitrust law is no longer the sole domain of U.S. regulators. Competition authorities in the European Union, United Kingdom, China, India, and dozens of other jurisdictions are increasingly active in enforcing competition law, often with divergent philosophies and priorities.

As multinational corporations grow across borders and digital platforms reshape traditional market structures, legal teams must grapple with a patchwork of competition laws that vary widely in scope, procedure, and interpretation.

This article explores the global landscape of antitrust enforcement, examining core principles, major regulatory bodies, and emerging challenges that shape cross-border competition law.

What Is Antitrust Law, Globally?

Antitrust law is more broadly referred to as competition law outside the United States and aims to:

• Preserve market competition and economic efficiency,
• Prevent market dominance abuses,
• Combat cartels and collusion, and
• Safeguard consumer welfare and innovation.

While the goals are broadly similar worldwide, enforcement approaches differ substantially depending on local laws, political environments, and regulatory cultures.

Key Jurisdictions and Legal Frameworks

United States

• Statutes: Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Federal Trade Commission Act.
• Enforcers: DOJ Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission.
• Philosophy: Traditionally favors the consumer welfare standard, focusing on price and output effects.

European Union

• Statutes: Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
• Enforcer: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition.
• Philosophy: Broader view of harm, including market structure, fairness, and competitor impact.

United Kingdom

• Statutes: Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002.
• Enforcer: Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
• Post-Brexit Shift: Increasing independence in merger review and enforcement actions, often stricter than the EU.

China

• Statutes: Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), amended in 2022.
• Enforcer: State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR).
• Focus: Industrial policy considerations, data control, and platform regulation.

India

• Statute: Competition Act, 2002.
• Enforcer: Competition Commission of India (CCI).
• Growing Role: Increasing enforcement in digital markets and large M&A activity.

Global Trends in Enforcement

1. Big Tech and Digital Markets

Global regulators are taking aim at dominant digital platforms—Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Alibaba—over concerns of self-preferencing, data monopolization, and exclusionary conduct.

• The EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) creates ex-ante obligations for “gatekeepers.”
• The U.S. FTC and DOJ are pursuing aggressive litigation against tech firms.
• China has fined companies for failing merger notifications and abusing dominance.

2. Merger Control Divergence

Merger control regimes vary significantly:

• U.S.: Litigation-based; authorities must prove harm.
• EU and UK: Administrative-based; authorities can block mergers proactively.
• Brazil, South Africa, and India: Emerging markets with increasingly sophisticated review processes.

Recent cases have shown how a single regulator can block a global deal (e.g., the UK CMA blocking the Microsoft–Activision deal before later approving it).

3. Extra-Territorial Reach

Antitrust authorities increasingly assert extra-territorial jurisdiction:

• The EU has reviewed non-EU mergers with effects on EU markets.
• U.S. enforcers pursue foreign cartels with U.S. effects.
• China’s SAMR has expanded its scrutiny of deals involving foreign entities.

Compliance in a Multi-Jurisdictional World

For multinationals, compliance with antitrust laws must be strategic and localized. Consider the following best practices:

• Pre-Merger Notification: Assess and notify in all relevant jurisdictions—early coordination is key.
• Tailored Compliance Programs: Align internal policies with local laws (e.g., resale price maintenance is per se illegal in the EU, but subject to rule-of-reason analysis in the U.S.).
• Cross-Border Investigations: Prepare for dawn raids, coordinated investigations, and information sharing among regulators.
• Risk Mapping: Monitor markets for conduct risks like bundling, loyalty rebates, and algorithmic pricing.

Challenges Ahead

Fragmentation of Standards

Global companies face a legal maze: One transaction or conduct may be legal in one jurisdiction and illegal in another. This is especially true in:

• Vertical restraints (treated leniently in U.S., stringently in Asia and Europe).
• Data-driven market power (increasingly scrutinized worldwide).
• Merger thresholds and theories of harm (divergent analysis in digital or nascent markets).

Rise of Industrial Policy in Antitrust

More governments are using antitrust enforcement to pursue industrial and national security goals, such as:

• Promoting domestic champions,
• Regulating foreign investments, and
• Controlling sensitive sectors (e.g., semiconductors, AI, telecoms).

Conclusion

Antitrust law is no longer a domestic discipline—it is a globally coordinated, politically charged, and economically complex field. Businesses operating internationally must account for both the legal risks and the reputational stakes of antitrust enforcement.

As competition authorities grow more assertive, particularly in tech and emerging industries, legal teams must adopt a globally integrated, locally informed approach to compliance and litigation strategy.

Understanding the nuances of each jurisdiction is now a business imperative—not just a legal one.