March Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues

Welcome to this edition of the Sidley Antitrust and Competition Bulletin — thoughts on topics that are top of mind for Sidley’s global Antitrust and Competition team and why they may matter to you.

• New HSR form vacated, old HSR form reinstated
• The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission seek public comment on competitor collaborations with a view to providing guidance
• The Federal Trade Commission signals a significant shift in how it will pursue merger challenges
• The European Union and the United Kingdom sign a Competition Cooperation Agreement
• The UK authority is showing greater appetite for sector-by-sector studies. Following a request from the UK government, the Competition and Markets Authority launches a market study into private dentistry
• The Italian Competition Authority launches a market investigation into quantum computing
• The European Commission continues to give signals about its intention to reshape enforcement policy in its ongoing review of the EU Merger Guidelines

Read more on how this news can affect your business below....

Fifth Circuit denies the FTC’s application for a stay pending appeal; old HSR form back in effect: As detailed in the February Antitrust and Competition Bulletin, last month U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas issued a decision setting aside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 2024 Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rule and premerger reporting requirements. The FTC appealed the decision and sought a stay of the district court’s order while the case was pending. On March 19, the Fifth Circuit denied the FTC’s request for a stay. Following that order, the FTC announced it would accept HSR filings using the old form, and parties could voluntarily file using the new form. The case will proceed to merits briefing.

Why it matters: Parties to HSR-reportable transactions can now decide to file on either form. These updates do not affect whether a transaction may be notifiable under the HSR Act.

DOJ and FTC seek public comment for competitor collaboration guidelines: On February 23, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the FTC announced a joint public inquiry soliciting input on updating guidance regarding competitor collaborations and joint ventures. This effort seeks to remedy the absence of competitor collaboration guidance following the December 2024 withdrawal of the 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors.

The DOJ and FTC have outlined a series of topics on which they are inviting comment, including specific areas where guidance would be beneficial (e.g., joint licensing arrangements, conditional dealing); new business models and technologies that could benefit from clarification (e.g., algorithmic pricing, data sharing, labor collaborations); and legal, economic, or technological developments that should be considered in any updated guidance.

Why it matters: The antitrust agencies recognize that “[m]any collaborations and joint ventures among competitors are procompetitive and benefit the economy and consumers by allowing expansion into new markets, enabling investment into innovation, and lowering production and other costs.” They also recognize, on the other hand, that competition and ultimately consumers can be harmed by certain types of collaborations. The agencies withdrew prior joint guidelines in December 2024, and this public inquiry is designed to facilitate the development of guidance on where the agencies will draw the lines between procompetitive and anticompetitive joint activity. Interested parties can submit comments to the agencies by April 24, 2026, at Regulations.gov.

FTC signals a significant shift toward aligning FTC and DOJ merger challenge procedures: At a recent symposium, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced that the FTC will challenge proposed mergers exclusively by seeking permanent injunctions in federal court as the DOJ Antitrust Division does. Unlike the DOJ, the FTC has historically sought only preliminary injunctions under a more lenient standard in federal court and then moved to a subsequent internal adjudication by FTC administrative law judges. These administrative proceedings occurred entirely within the agency, with the FTC issuing a complaint that was adjudicated before an administrative law judge, then reviewed by the FTC.

Why it matters: Some stakeholders believe this may provide greater predictability to merger enforcement, noting that federal court litigation could reduce procedural hurdles and align standards between the two federal antitrust agencies. Chairman Ferguson also argued that taking matters directly to a federal court avoids recurring constitutional challenges and heightens the credibility of FTC enforcement when the final determiner of whether the law has been violated now will be a federal judge rather than the “person making the accusation.”

EU-UK Competition Cooperation Agreement: On February 25, the European Commission (EC) and the United Kingdom signed an agreement establishing a formal framework for cooperation on competition matters among the European Commission, EU member state national competition authorities (NCAs), and the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The agreement, which needs to be ratified by both parties before entering into force, provides for (1) mutual interagency communication of significant antitrust and merger investigations affecting the other party’s important interests, (2) coordination of enforcement activities, and (3) structured information sharing, subject to confidentiality safeguards. Additionally, the agreement is the first competition cooperation agreement between the CMA and NCAs. Finally, the new framework is underpinned by a “negative comity” provision, requiring each side to consider the other’s important interests when taking enforcement action.

Why it matters: The agreement signals a clear shift from post-Brexit informal engagement to a structured cooperation regime, increasing the likelihood of coordinated parallel investigations in cross-border mergers and antitrust cases affecting the EU and UK. While the agreement facilitates closer procedural coordination and controlled information exchange, it does not harmonize substantive law or compel convergent outcomes. The CMA and EU authorities remain fully autonomous and may ultimately reach different conclusions based on their respective legal frameworks.

CMA doubles down on trend toward sectoral inquiries with a review of the private dentistry sector: Following calls from the UK government (see here), on March 5, the CMA launched a market study into private dentistry. The CMA noted that in recent years, demand for private dentistry has risen sharply and average prices in the UK have increased significantly. The proposed scope of the study includes, among other things, the availability and ease of switching between providers, how prices for private dental services have changed compared with inflation, and whether dentists engage in business practices that may harm consumers or limit their choice. Concurrently with the launch of the market study, the CMA published a short guide for consumers to help them understand their options and what they should expect to pay for private dentistry.

Why it matters: While the scope of this review is limited to private dentistry, it serves as an example of a broader power the CMA wields when it suspects that markets are not operating well in the interests of consumers. This particular study shows the CMA’s continued focus on the cost of living and areas of essential household spend, as also seen in the CMA’s market investigation into veterinary services for household pets (another sector characterized by both independent practices and practices owned by corporate groups). Outside of dentistry, the UK government and the CMA have raised concerns on price rises in other markets in light of the conflict in the Middle East. In response to these concerns, the CMA has increased its monitoring of petrol and diesel prices and, on March 20, launched a market study into the retail supply of heating oil for domestic use in the UK in addition to using its consumer powers to examine other concerns about heating oil related to selling practices.

Italian Competition Authority launches QC market investigation: On March 17, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) launched a market investigation into the quantum computing (QC) sector alongside a public consultation inviting stakeholder input. The investigation focuses on potential competition concerns, and the AGCM is seeking views on potential risks in the sector including the following:

• economic, technological, and knowledge-related barriers to entry
• lock-in risks
• potential technological preemption across the entire sector, particularly in light of the rapid pace of patent filings

Stakeholders are invited to submit comments (in English or Italian) by April 30, 2026.

Why it matters: The investigation relates to a rapidly expanding and strategically important sector, with emerging applications in areas such as cybersecurity, biotechnology, materials design, production process optimization, and fintech. Given the breadth of the impact of QC technologies, this may be of interest to clients active in quantum computing, semiconductors, and cloud-based services as well as smaller players developing specialized technologies and services, particularly against the backdrop of the EU’s emerging quantum industrial policy framework under the Quantum Europe Strategy and the proposed EU Quantum Act.

Shaping the future of EU merger control: As part of the ongoing review of the EU merger guidelines (see here), the EC has continued to signal its intentions regarding the future of EU merger review. EC officials have been deployed to socialize the future directions in multiple forums, and a clearer picture is emerging of the sense of direction. For example, on March 5, EC officials, academics, practitioners, and industry representatives debated how merger control should respond to Europe’s competitiveness challenge. The question of whether policy should be shifted to better allow the emergence of “EU champions” continues to be central to the debate, though many argued that merger control has not been the major obstacle and cautioned against any wholesale loosening of enforcement standards. Nonetheless, the debate still recognizes that the current EU merger review framework may still deter deals and may need to be adapted to better reflect investment incentives, complementarities, scale effects, and the realities of startup exits in innovative sectors. There was also emphasis on the need for clearer, more predictable rules governing how innovation, efficiencies, sustainability, and broader nonprice effects should be assessed.

Why it matters: This ongoing discussion signals that there is little appetite for a sweeping policy shift from the EC but strong interest in refinements to the EU merger guidelines’ treatment of innovation and efficiencies, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, digital markets, and other capital-intensive industries. It is expected that the next step will be publication for consultation of a proposed draft revised merger guidelines.