- within Strategy, Tax and International Law topic(s)
Coca-Cola: 2021 Cooler Commitments Widened, Not Newly Imposed
The TCB closed its recent investigation into Coca-Cola by accepting commitments that expand, rather than introduce, controls on its cooler practices. Coca-Cola’s 2021 commitment decision already required it to share cooler space with rival products. The new commitments raise that reserved share from 25% to 35%, require a separate labelled block, and remove Coca-Cola’s ability to choose which rival products appear or to reduce their visibility. Related practices are also curbed: minimum annual purchase requirements tied to cooler provision are dropped, outlet financial support must follow objective criteria and cannot be conditioned on removing rivals, and discounts must be set per category without cross-category conditions.
The TCB revisits standing commitments in dominance cases and tightens them where earlier remedies proved insufficient, a pattern now recurring across FMCG exclusivity matters.
Interim Measure Opens Haribo Stands to Rival Brands
While its investigation into Haribo’s soft-candy practices continues, the TCB imposed an interim measure to protect rivals’ access to traditional retail before final decision. Haribo must reserve 30% of the visible area of each branded stand in traditional outlets of 200 square metres or less for competing soft-candy products, as a single vertical labelled block made available to brands without their own stand at that outlet.
Read alongside the Coca-Cola commitments and the comparable 30% access obligation placed on Magnum in April, the measure marks a clear line of enforcement around branded equipment at the point of sale. Suppliers with strong market positions should expect coolers, stands and similar fixtures to be treated as potential instruments of de facto exclusivity, and should review whether their placement and sharing terms restrict rival visibility.
Bid-Rigging Probe Opened in Nuclear Medicine Tenders
The TCB opened an investigation into 11 companies in the nuclear medicine sector over suspected coordination in tenders, primarily those run by public hospitals. The focus is PET/CT services and the supply of FDG, a radiopharmaceutical used in cancer imaging, with the Board examining whether bidders aligned prices, allocated tenders or refrained from competing against one another.
The matter is a reminder that thin, technically demanding markets carry heightened cartel risk in public procurement. Where qualified suppliers are few, technical and supply constraints limit entry, and tender specifications are narrow, the conditions that facilitate coordination are structurally present. Suppliers in such markets should approach joint bidding, capacity-sharing and consortium arrangements with particular care, since even legitimate cooperation attracts scrutiny once the pool of credible bidders is small.
Cargill/PNS Cleared with Supervised Pricing Remedies
The TCB conditionally cleared Cargill’s acquisition of PNS, having found that the deal could significantly restrict competition in glucose syrup and mixtures. The behavioural commitments target three concerns. On price, domestic prices for quota-regulated products must track defined cost items, with Cargill’s pricing and cost data monitored for five years by an independent accountant and extraordinary adjustments notified to, and reversible by, the TCB. On supply, contracts may be terminated only for objective reasons and spot sales must follow objective criteria. On cross-subsidy, revenues from domestic glucose syrup sales cannot fund other product categories.
The remedy set is notable for how far the TCB reaches into ongoing pricing conduct in a quota-regulated input market. In place of a structural divestiture it accepts a supervised pricing formula backed by daily fines for breach, signaling continued comfort with intrusive behavioural remedies in concentrated agricultural-input transactions.
Reasoned CEVA/Borusan Decision Sets Out Access Remedies
The TCB published the reasoned decision behind its October 2025 conditional clearance of CEVA’s acquisition of Borusan Tedarik. It sets out concerns that combining CEVA’s global network with Borusan’s local warehousing and distribution would reduce customer choice, raise switching costs and tighten access to nationwide distribution. CEVA committed to hold existing contract terms and price caps for one year, offer flexible exit and transition rights, and grant competitors access to its distribution network on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for two years, with contract-logistics services kept available on an unbundled basis under an independent monitor.
The decision is useful for its detail on FRAND-style access remedies in logistics. It shows the TCB using non-discriminatory network access, in place of divestiture, to address foreclosure where switching barriers are high, offering a template for future clearances in network-dependent services.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
