Predictions For 2026 From Our Competition, Regulation And Trade Team

Lawyers in our Competition, Regulation and Trade practice have come together to predict what's on the horizon in the competition and regulatory space in the UK and beyond in 2026 – identifying the key themes and trends that businesses will need to navigate in the coming year.

1. Competition litigation
2. Merger control
3. Foreign direct investment regulation
4. Foreign subsidies regulation
5. Digital markets
6. Consumer protection

Competition litigation

Collective redress and digital markets litigation continue to be in the spotlight

Thorsten Matthies and Naomi Reid

Competition law damages claims have grown in prominence across Europe in recent years and we anticipate this trend will continue in 2026 and beyond. The UK and Germany remain particularly attractive forums, both having legal frameworks which facilitate claims and mature litigation funding markets.

In the UK, 2026 is set to be a pivotal year for the collective proceedings order (CPO) regime, with the possibility of governmental intervention which could impact the regime.
The government is considering the Civil Justice Council's final report on litigation funding, which was published in July 2025 (see here for an update) and contained several recommendations of note , including a reversal of the Supreme Court's judgment in PACCAR (albeit the government has already indicated any reversal will not be retrospective) and a form of light-touch regulation. It included recommendations specific to the CPO regime, in light of the need to protect class members who do not participate in the litigation (for example the amount of return the litigation funder will receive should be made publicly available and included in the notice publicising the CPO).

In addition, the government has launched a consultation on the CPO regime which closed on 14 October 2025. The industry will be hotly anticipating the outcome of that consultation and the potential ramifications for the regime.

2025 has seen a number of CPOs reach substantive judgment on the merits, with further judgments awaited in 2026. Whilst the first two judgments (Le Patourel v BT and Gutmann Trains) resulted in a finding of no abuse of dominance, the CAT has found an abuse of a dominant position in Kent v Apple. The success in Kent v Apple demonstrates that in the right case, a substantial damages award can be made by the Tribunal in a CPO.

In addition to the substantive judgments, the CAT will continue to closely scrutinise the relationship between the class representative, their legal team and the litigation funding, something which has been under the spotlight throughout 2025 (both at the certification stage and at the end of proceedings, in particular in Merricks v Mastercard where the Funder is judicially reviewing the CAT's approval of the settlement agreed between Mr Merricks and Mastercard). This spotlight is unlikely to abate in circumstances where a number of cases may become available for distribution, thus leaving a potential pot of unclaimed damages. The distribution of further cases will provide a test of how well the regime is working and whether it does provide redress for those harmed by breaches of competition law (the one case which has been distributed so far, Gutmann Trains, was, in the words of the Tribunal, "not a success").

Outside of the collective actions regime, 2026 is likely to start to see litigation stemming from the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 being issued once the first sets of conduct requirements are introduced. Private enforcement of the EU Digital Markets Act is already highly active across Europe and we anticipate this is a trend that will be replicated in the UK Digital Markets regime.

Practical availability of collective redress also remains a hot topic in Germany and 2026 is set to shed more light on the admissibility of pooling cartel damages claims. As the German representative action (Abhilfeklage) introduced in 2023 has not yet been used for cartel damages claims given its limitations to consumers (incl. SMEs) and on funding, claimants continue to bundle claims in special purpose vehicles through assignments on a "no-win no-fee" basis for the assignors. National courts have taken different views on the admissibility of this practice for cartel damages claims. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that national provisions generally prohibiting assignment models are in breach of European law if no other "effective legal remedy" exists. The German Federal Court of Justice will likely deliver rulings in early 2026 and provide (more) legal certainty on this crucial issue.

2025 has also seen first rulings in Germany on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act and we anticipate further actions in that space. It will be interesting to see how courts deal with the interplay between stand-alone actions claiming abuse of dominance and/or DMA violations and (partially) overlapping investigations by the European Commission (EC).

On the European level, the CJEU has ruled on a Dutch reference regarding international and territorial jurisdiction for a competition (opt-out) class action against a foreign tech company. The CJEU decided in this case that the qualified entity can bring a single group action before its home court on behalf of all nationwide customers. This decision could facilitate representative actions going forward and might influence the EC in its ongoing review assessing whether the European jurisdictional rules create unnecessary burdens for claimants to seek collective redress.

Merger Control

Modernising merger control

Camille Puech and Christon Shenolikar

We are now one year into the mandate of new Executive Vice President (EVP) for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera. One of her biggest challenges involves addressing calls to modernise EU merger control policy to encourage investment and increase EU competitiveness on the global stage, by supporting EU businesses in scaling up, while ensuring that competition concerns associated with particular transactions can be identified and addressed effectively.

As part of her mandate, EVP Ribera has been expressly tasked with reviewing the 2004 Merger Control Guidelines (Guidelines). According to President von der Leyen's mission letter and drawing on the recommendation of the Draghi Report for a greater emphasis on innovation and future competition, this review should give 'adequate weight to the European economy's more acute needs in respect of resilience, efficiency and innovation'.

The consultation that took place over the spring and summer 2025 gave a preview of what the revised Guidelines may involve. The consultation focused inter alia on seven core themes including, beyond challenges related to market power, competitiveness, digitalisation and sustainability, (i) innovation: how to assess potential competition and dynamic effects; (ii) efficiencies: how to apply the "benefit to consumers" test, including long-term benefits (e.g. in terms of innovation, privacy, and sustainability); and (iii) public policy: whether objectives such as jobs, security, or defence should be considered as part of the merger control review process. Efficiencies and resilience might therefore carry a greater weight in the EU merger review process.

Overall, it seems that EU merger control is moving toward a more dynamic and forward-looking approach, where broader considerations than just market effects may be taken into account. The debate around expanding the remit of EU merger control will continue throughout 2026 and beyond, as the final version of the revised Guidelines is not expected before the end of 2027.

In the UK, 2025 began with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) chair Marcus Bokkerink being ousted for reportedly failing to convince the Government that the CMA was sufficiently focused on growth. Soon after Doug Gurr, a former Amazon UK executive, took over as chair, the CMA announced its new "4P" approach – pace, predictability, proportionality, and process – aimed at boosting growth, investment, and business confidence. This led to a wave of consultations and revisions to the CMA's guidance, including revising its mergers guidance on jurisdiction and procedure (CMA2) to introduce more business-friendly processes, such as a 40 working-day pre-notification KPI and 25 working-day clearance for unproblematic mergers. A revised merger remedies guidance (CMA87) is expected in early 2026, and the UK government also announced possible further merger control reforms, which may include changes to the currently expansive jurisdictional tests.

These changes and recent trends signal a shift toward more business-friendly merger reviews, which we expect will continue into 2026. We also expect the CMA to continue to take a more pragmatic approach to remedies, particularly behavioural remedies, in suitable cases, as the recent Vodafone/Three merger exemplifies. Crucially, however, merging parties should not interpret these trends as a complete relaxation of scrutiny – and we expect the CMA to continue to closely review mergers it considers to be problematic as can be readily seen from the recent referral of Getty Images / Shutterstock for an in-depth Phase 2 investigation.

Foreign direct investment regulation

More regimes in the pipeline and investors from a range of countries subject to scrutiny

Veronica Roberts and Ali MacGregor

In 2026, assuming that the increasingly nationalistic geo-political environment remains, we can expect FDI screening regimes to continue to be very active. In terms of trends, we expect to see the following:

The development of new, and the expansion of existing, FDI screening regimes will continue

In 2026 a new Cypriot FDI screening regime will come into force, which will leave Croatia as the only EU Member State without an FDI screening regime (although Croatia has published a proposal for a regime). Greenland (outside the EU) is also considering implementing an FDI screening law.

In the Netherlands, the thresholds for certain aspects of the energy FDI regime are set to be lowered from 1 January (thereby capturing more transactions) and the wider regime is expected to be expanded to capture a broader range of technologies including advanced materials, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, sensor and navigation technology, nuclear technology, and biotechnology.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Government has consulted on changes to the seventeen mandatory notification sector definitions that, if implemented in full, are expected to increase the number of notifications required under the National Security and Investment Act.

There are however no signs for now of a material increase in the number of new regimes in Africa and South America, where FDI screening (beyond sectoral regulation and prohibited sectors) remains rare.

The implementation of further outbound investment regimes seems unlikely for now

Earlier this year, the US implemented an outbound investment regime which affects US investors making investments in certain specified sectors in China (including semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and artificial intelligence). It had been expected that other western powers including the UK and the EU might follow suit. This has not happened so far. Earlier this year, the European Commission published a recommendation calling on EU Member States to review outbound investments of their companies into non-EU countries in three technology areas – semiconductors, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. Member States are due to report back by 30 June 2026 to help decide whether any further action is needed. In the UK, having published some guidance on how a limited category of outbound investments could be caught under the National Security and Investment Act in May 2024, no further public steps have been taken to consult on or establish such a regime.

Investors from "low risk" countries will continue to face scrutiny under FDI regimes – although remedies in these cases are likely to involve security measures rather than divestments

When the FDI screening regime boom took off in the late 2010s/early 2020s, there was a considerable focus in Europe, North America and elsewhere on Chinese investment. Whilst Chinese investors still face disproportionate scrutiny under several regimes, an interesting development has been the increase in the number of remedies decisions for investors from non-hostile countries. In the most recent reporting period in the UK (April 2024 - March 2025), of the seventeen remedies decisions issued, eleven related to investments from UK investors. Similarly, under the Dutch regime, most decisions have focussed on Dutch investors.

As FDI screening regimes mature, it is clear that authorities recognise that there are some businesses whose activities are inherently sensitive irrespective of who owns them.

Foreign Subsidies Regulation

Clarity on the horizon for Foreign Subsidies Regulation enforcement amid high-volume activity

Morris Schonberg and Paula González Alarcón

The EU's Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), now in force for over two years, has become an increasingly important factor in major M&A and public contract tenders. Activity under the FSR remains significant: the Commission has now received nearly 300 notifications in concentrations, averaging over ten per month, with even more notification in public procurement cases.

Thusfar, the European Commission's approach in overall terms has been pragmatic. Only a handful of cases have resulted in Phase II investigations, with the great majority being effectively "cleared" in Phase I. However, such Phase I "approvals" are issued only in the form of brief letters indicating that the Commission is not opening Phase II, with no reasoning and no published decisions, leaving businesses with limited insight into the Commission's approach (beyond the pre-notification discussions).

In the M&A space, this year, there has been one further Phase II investigation that was closed by commitments – the acquisition by the UAE State-owned oil company, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), of Covestro. While the decision itself has not yet been published, according to the Commission's press release, it had identified a number of alleged foreign subsidies of concern, notably, an unlimited State guarantee to ADNOC, a committed capital increase into Covestro post-acquisition, as well as certain advantageous tax measures. The Commission was concerned that these measures could have distorted competition, not only on the underlying markets, but also potentially in relation to the acquisition process itself as they could have deterred other investors from making an offer for Covestro. To address these concerns, the Commission accepted commitments from ADNOC to eliminate the alleged unlimited State guarantee and to share Covestro's patents in the area of sustainability with certain market participants on transparent terms and conditions set in advance.

The Commission's decision in this case is significant as it represents the first time that the Commission has approved a concentration notwithstanding a potential distortion in the acquisition process itself. That said, from a conceptual point of view, it is not apparent at first sight how exactly the commitments accepted would remedy this potential distortion. The full reasoning in the Commission's decision, which will be published during next year, will therefore be revealing in terms of clarifying the Commission's approach to assessing these kinds of concentrations.

Further guidance in relation to the Commission's approach and enforcement priorities will also become apparent in the ex officio space next year. Although the Commission has not prioritised this tool to date, December saw notable developments: the Commission conducted a dawn raid on Temu and advanced the ongoing Nuctech Phase I investigation into Phase II. Over the coming year, we will also see whether the investigation into Chinese wind turbines progresses to Phase II or is closed during the course of the year.

More formal guidance will also become available in the new year, with the Commission due to adopt formal guidelines in relation to key assessment principles under the FSR, namely, the assessment of distortions and the balancing test, as well as in relation to the exercise of the Commission's call-in powers of concentrations and public procurements that are below the relevant turnover thresholds.

Finally, and from a broader systemic perspective, the first evaluation of the FSR is now also underway, with the Commission scheduled to publish its report by July 2026. In that report the Commission may propose certain changes to the FSR and its procedures: potential areas that have been raised include simplified notifications for certain low-risk categories of cases and enabling parties to submit commitments already at the Phase I stage (at present this is only possible at Phase II). The latter proposal would bring the FSR in line with the EUMR and could allow targeted remedies at an early stage, reducing the need for lengthy Phase II investigations.

Digital markets

Fast paced developments in UK and EU expected as new digital markets regimes evolve alongside 'traditional' antitrust enforcement

Natalia Rodriguez and Peter Rowland

The CMA's Digital Markets Unit (DMU) has had a predictably busy 2025. The CMA's first strategic market status (SMS) investigation, into Google's general search activities, opened in mid-January, followed closely by further SMS investigations into Apple's and Google's mobile platforms. The CMA ultimately decided that Google and Apple have SMS in these activities, opening the door to possible interventions.

The CMA's journey has not been straightforward, with steer from the UK Government to promote – rather than discourage - growth and investment. Notably, the CMA dropped plans to commence a third area of SMS investigation in 2025, issued further guidance on implementing its "4Ps" framework (pace, predictability, proportionality and process) in the digital markets regime, and published intervention "roadmaps" later than originally intended.

2026 is therefore likely to be the year the CMA imposes its first conduct requirements (CRs), although the precise timeline for this is not clear and the extent of those CRs remains to be seen. While the CMA is expected to consult on potential Google search CRs from late 2025, it has not yet provided any further update on mobile platform interventions.

The CMA Board is expected to consider further SMS investigation candidates in early 2026. We could therefore see additional investigations during the course of 2026, for example into cloud services providers as recommended by the CMA's cloud services market investigation (and as the EC has recently done – see below). Overall, 2025 has been a fast-paced year for the UK's new digital markets regime, which has evolved rapidly over that time, and 2026 promises to be no different.

The picture in the EU is similar for the digital sector, with 2025 a busy year for the European Commission (EC) enforcing the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and 'traditional' competition law. Key enforcement trends are expected to continue in 2026, with cloud and AI becoming an increasing focus of activity within the sector. Here are some of our predictions:

Following reports at a national level the EC has opened investigations into whether to designate Microsoft's Azure and Amazon's AWS clouds under the DMA, and a third investigation into whether the DMA is fit for purpose to address concerns such as interoperability barriers, tying and data access. These are likely to prompt discussion and focus on cloud in 2026.

AI is also an increasing focus of the EC's antitrust investigations. It has launched investigations into Google's use of publishers' and YouTube content to power AI Overviews and AI model training, and into Meta's WhatsApp policy restricting third‑party AI assistants. The topics at issue appear to include alleged unfair access to critical inputs and ecosystem self‑preferencing, as well as default placement and distribution foreclosure. These are very recently opened investigations and the EC has not yet found the alleged behaviour of the platforms to infringe competition law.

In merger control, both the EC and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) are expected to investigate non‑traditional deal structures (such as minority stakes, strategic partnerships and acqui‑hires). Some determining factors in such cases will be (among others) the exercise of material influence and the existence (or lack thereof) of structural independence. Below threshold deals are still expected to be reviewed, with an increasing number of NCAs having, and using call-in powers to assert jurisdiction over such transactions, leading to increased uncertainty for companies' ability to complete transactions.

An overriding theme is also the geopolitical landscape. The EC has an increasing focus on security and data sovereignty concerns, with topics such as resilience likely to be included in its draft revised merger guidelines to be published in Spring 2026. There is likely to be heightened scrutiny of acquisitions of strategic digital assets by non-EU investors, including under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation and FDI screening as well as under 'traditional' merger control. The EC has so far been resisting wider geopolitical pressures to reign in its enforcement in the digital sector, but this is an additional factor leading to uncertainty in its investigations and enforcement.

Overall, the digital sector will remain a focus of activity for competition authorities in 2026, and companies will need to keep a close eye on potential competition risk as authorities utilise the tools legislators have recently given them, and push enforcement into new areas.

Consumer protection UK

Focus shifts from reform to action

Susan Black and Kristien Geeurickx

While 2025 was the year of change for UK consumer protection law, with a new direct enforcement regime for the CMA and a number of new consumer rights to ensure the regime keeps pace with the growing trend of online retail and advertising (see our detailed briefing here), we are now starting to see the CMA's first investigations under the new strengthened regime and this is a trend that will continue during 2026.

First formal investigations under the new regime

On 18 November 2025 the CMA announced the first formal investigations under the new regime (see our blogpost here). The investigations, into eight businesses, are focused on online pricing practices, including drip pricing and pressure selling.

Price transparency and online choice architecture, which looks at harmful online sales practices, including pressure selling tactics such as urgent time limited claims, are among the CMA's early enforcement priorities.

The CMA has also sent advisory letters to 100 businesses flagging its concerns around drip pricing and other unfair online sales tactics. The letters were sent to businesses in a wide range of sectors, demonstrating the CMA's intent to target all sectors across the economy. They put businesses on notice to review their practices to ensure they comply with the law. Failure to do so will result in future enforcement action. Ignoring an advisory letter can also lead to more severe penalties if the CMA later launches a formal investigation into the same practices.

Fake reviews

The rules around fake reviews are complex and onerous for businesses and during the first three months of the new regime the CMA's focus was very much on supporting businesses to comply with the new rules. At the same time the CMA has also been preparing for enforcement of the regime, by issuing information notices and conducting a web sweep of over 100 businesses to identify problematic conduct in relation to fake reviews. Although many of those businesses did have the necessary policies and procedures in place, more than half of them did not comply with the requirements set out in the CMA's guidance on fake reviews. The CMA wrote to those businesses highlighting the need to take action and they were asked to respond to the letter and explain what changes they have made in order to comply.

Subscription contracts

The DMCC Act introduces a new set of requirements that are specific to subscription contracts and will be subject to the CMA's direct enforcement regime. The Act imposes new duties on businesses making it easier for consumers to provide informed consent and to opt-out of contracts.

Pre-contract information must be prominently and clearly presented to consumers before they enter into the contract, reminder notices to alert consumers that a free/discounted trial is coming to an end, or a contract is due to renew, must be issued within a reasonable period to allow the consumer to act on the notice, and consumer termination arrangements must be in place to enable consumers to end the contract in a straightforward way. A cooling-off period of 14 days must also be available to consumers both at the start of the subscription and after they become liable for a renewal payment.

These rules will be implemented through secondary legislation and are not expected to come into force before the autumn 2026, to allow businesses sufficient time to put in place the necessary measures.

Consumer protection has been flagged as a key priority for the CMA under its Strategy for 2026 – 2029, published on 20 November 2025, and the CMA's recent enforcement action shows its commitment to use its newly introduced consumer protection enforcement powers across a wide range of sectors.

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.