Quick Updates — October 2025

1. Microsoft- OpenAI (U.S.) Large Antitrust Class Action

A historic class-action lawsuit was initiated in the U.S., claiming that Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI LP created a partnership that suppresses competition in the up-and-coming generative-AI industry. The plaintiffs claim that such huge investment and integration of OpenAIs GPT-based systems in Microsoft Windows, Office and Azure ecosystems places a dominant bundle that excludes smaller players to access compute, data and reach market. In the case of Microsoft/OpenAI, the alliance enhances innovation, creates efficiencies and contracts consumer benefit the traditional defence of competition on the merits as Richard Whish has discussed in Competition Law (10th ed.). The legal issue surrounding this is whether the behavior constitutes an abuse of dominance or an anticompetitive agreement: is the pairing just an investment-plus-integration, the offering of products, or is it a use of one market dominance to manipulate the adjacent markets? The case involves the implication of U.S. Sherman Act principles but also the dynamic and innovation-oriented innovation market concept that is not as established as traditional product markets. The move would be a breakthrough: regulators and the courts are struggling with the question of how competition law applies to platform-AI ecosystems as opposed to commodities that are sold in physical stores. The result can influence the evaluation of the algorithmic-platform coalitions in the world.

2. IN THE AGE OF MACHINE MINDS, FAIR PLAY MIGHT REQUIRE SELF-AUDITS

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has released its Market Study on Artificial Intelligence and Competition which suggested that competition risk self-audits be conducted on algorithms deployed by the companies. The CCI identified issues such as gatekeeper effect, algorithmic collusion and data-driven lock-in, which indicated the changing nature of the competition law beyond market share thresholds into behavioural/algorithmic space. The text by Whish reminds us that the abuse of dominance can be in the form of exclusionary design and not just a high market share; in this case India is telling us that it is willing to enter that frontier. Business perspective Digital ecosystems are amenable to the prospective approach, although they warn that self-auditing models should be transparent to prevent the chilling effect of innovation. According to lawyers, there are compliance implications: AI logic, data inputs, outcome monitoring and transparency are now defence assets. To the regulator, the study provides a normative level, but the question is how binding or enforceable the audit proposal is. The paper thus introduces a new aspect of antitrust enforcement, namely, algorithmic governance, internal compliance inspections, and pre-emptive risk-reduction instead of merely ex-post intervention.

3. CHEMISTRY COLLIDING WITH COMPETITION, HOW THE SPANISH CHAIN REACTION ENSUES

In an unusual prohibitive decision in October, the Comision Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) in Spain prevented the acquisition of IRAB by Curium Pharma, believing that the acquisition would considerably reduce competition in the niche market of supplying nuclear-medicine. Curium stated that the synergies and efficiencies in the R&D would add value and benefit the end-users. Nevertheless, the regulator found that the barriers to entry, lack of substitutability and concentration risk were interconnected to cause market structure instability. Whish has a test of the EU law, Significant Impediment to Effective Competition, here the Spanish authority used a national version of the test. The case raises the issue of the conflict between structural review and efficiency defence in legal terms: in what cases and how the promise of innovation can be used to justify consolidation. To companies, the ruling highlights how even non-tech giant specialist markets are under intense scrutiny. The blockage is an indicator of confidence by the national authorities to operate without following the larger EU clearance trends. To advisors, it implies that it is still important to map competitive impacts in niche supply spaces, and not only the headline big merger markets.

4. The Competition Surgeon is now armed with a finer scalpel

A significant October 2025 decision by the Supreme Court of India affirmed that Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 grants the CCI the power to award both structural and behavioural remedies in abuse-of-dominance cases. One of the leading companies had claimed that injunctions beyond cease and desist orders were ultra vires. The Court did not agree, and it considered that the language of the statute of such direction as it may deem fit provides a wide discretion in remedy, and this is consistent with the principle of Whish that competition law should not only punish but should also restore effective competition. On the side of the company, the move brings in the issue of uncertainty and risk of investment, structural solutions (divestiture, access requirements) can be very cumbersome. Supporters of the decision say it entrenches contemporary enforcement power. The legal importance is great: remedial power is the key to deterrence and substantial behavioural change, but it must be proportionate, clear and fair process, which Whish addresses when speaking about the design of remedies. Sanction risk has been transformed into long-term obligations other than fines to compliance teams and counsel.

5. Nexstar-Tegna U.S. Media-Merger Controversy.

The planned merger between Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and Tegna Inc. was a proposed merger of two companies that was going to cost 6.2 billion dollars in October 2025. The merger would form one of the biggest local-TV stations in America, which would reach almost 45 percent of households, therefore, violating the ownership limit of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Critics claim that the merger will endanger the diversity of local journalism and reduce the advertising competition; supporters argue it will increase the size to compete with streaming giants. Whish reminds us that in regulated industries antitrust often cuts across both competition law and industry-specific regulation. The legal uphill is the interaction between antitrust review (market definition, concentration, dominant position) and media-ownership policy (plurality, public interest). The result can set the reaction of the competition law in the industries where the regulation already provides structural constraints. To deal-makers working in regulated industries, the case provides a lesson: regulatory/compliance risk is overlaid - antitrust clearance can require compliance with sectoral regulations as well.

6. Even Construction can create cartels unless the plan remains unattached.

The CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) has resolved its inquiry into major UK housebuilders such as Barratt Developments plc, Persimmon plc, Taylor Wimpey plc that made binding commitments totalling PS100 million and data-sharing and pricing practise reforms. The CMA had claimed that the firms shared competitively-sensitive information, which stabilised the prices of new-build sales. The housebuilders defended themselves by saying that shared data was aggregated and meant to be transparent in the industry, which is allowed by Whish when he discusses the legitimate sharing of information. The case is in the grey zone, which is legally between coordinated behaviour and collusion. The flexibility and pragmatism is shown by the approach commitment that the CMA has instead of identifying an infringement. To compliance professionals, the moral is obvious: even non-technological, so-called old economy industries are under the review of data-exchange and rival interaction. Sharing of information protocols, meeting minutes and communication with competitors should now be strictly controlled.

7. Style may be eternal but Resale-Price Maintenance have not been spared by Antitrust

The European Commission imposed a total of EUR157 million on luxury brands Gucci, Chloe and Loeve due to maintaining resale-price maintenance (RPM) on online and offline retailers. The Commission considered the practises a by-object infringement under Article 101 TFEU as it limited the competition within the brand and the freedom of the retailers. The brands justified their selective distribution systems by the arguments of product-quality and brand-image concerns that are similar to the Metro doctrine that Whish examines. The legal conflict is between vertical restraints and fair brand control: is RPM a priori suspicious or can it be explained by efficiencies and quality assurance? Is RPM priori suspicious or can it be explained by efficiencies and quality assurance? This legal battle is between vertical restraints and fair brand control. In this case the Commission has made the distinction against minimum resale prices as being unreasonable to a fair purpose. The ruling is an indication of a new awakening in the EU regarding vertical restraints in e-commerce enabled markets. To brand owners and distributors, the message is simple, pricing discretion of retailers is sacrosanct, questioning of discounting or channel strategy is back.