{"id":11331,"date":"2026-01-26T18:07:42","date_gmt":"2026-01-26T17:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/?p=11331"},"modified":"2026-01-26T19:20:33","modified_gmt":"2026-01-26T18:20:33","slug":"conference-debriefing-48-eu-competition-conference-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/blog\/2026\/01\/26\/conference-debriefing-48-eu-competition-conference-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Conference Debriefing (48): EU Competition Conference 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Those travelling to Brussels on 20 January 2026 did not dream of Belgian confectionery, but competition. It was time once again for the EU Competition Conference, jointly organised by the Institute for Competition Law at Heinrich Heine University and the law firm CMS. High-ranking representatives from practice, authorities and academia all turned out for the conference. Right in the thick of it: our doctoral students from D\u00fcsseldorf \u2013 Klara Dresselhaus<\/strong>, Sofia Schulz<\/strong> and Sebastian Steinert<\/strong> report for D’Kart.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Day Dedicated to Competition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ma\u0142gorzata Urba\u0144ska <\/em>(CMS) and Christian Kersting <\/em>(HHU) welcomed the high-ranking representatives from authorities, law firms and companies, as well as the rest (“There are also students present!”). Kai Neuhaus <\/em>(CMS) navigated through the packed programme, which included insights into enforcement priorities in digital markets, compliance tactics for minority shareholdings, and the latest learnings from the CJEU. And, of course, informative networking was also on the agenda \u2013 but not too informative, given the presence of competitors!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Full house in Brussels: no wonder, as everyone wants the latest insights and trends in antitrust law. Photo: Moritz Pottek.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Merger Control: Efficiencies, Investment Commitments and Killer Acquisitions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The panel on merger control<\/strong> kicked things off. The discussion got straight to the point: Damien G\u00e9rard <\/em>(Belgian Competition Authority), Raphael De Coninck <\/em>(Charles River Associates) and Grania Holzwarth <\/em>(Deutsche Telekom) engaged in a lively debate on the revision of the Merger Guidelines, moderated by Dieter Zandler <\/em>(CMS Vienna) and Hendrik Nordling <\/em>(CMS Oslo).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recurring theme: efficiencies<\/strong>. Raphael De Coninck and Grania Holzwarth, in particular, repeatedly emphasised that the approval of a merger on the basis of efficiency considerations is purely theoretical. “I don’t see any merger that has been cleared on the basis of efficiency,” said Grania Holzwarth<\/em>. The asymmetry of the evidence requirements was also criticised: while proving efficiencies is excessively strict and practically impossible in practice, competitive damage is often assumed on a prognostic basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Damien G\u00e9rard<\/em>, Prosecutor General of the Belgian Competition Authority, countered that efficiencies were part of the everyday remit of competition authorities. Anyone claiming groundbreaking efficiency gains must also make the effort to substantiate them with comprehensive evidence. He also emphasised the limitations of the consumer welfare approach<\/strong>: “Efficiencies will never trump the entire elimination of competition.” The protection of the competition process in the EU is “constitutional”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regard to the guidelines, one buzzword dominated the discussion: innovation. The guidelines should not merely preserve past market structures, but should take greater account of future developments<\/strong>. On the subject of remedies<\/strong>, the importance of investment commitments was particularly emphasised. Damien G\u00e9rard, in particular, was critical in this regard. He argued that it was difficult to ensure their effectiveness and that companies lacked <\/strong>the incentive to comply with the law. Furthermore, damage to competition caused by the merger would be difficult to rectify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The topic of killer acquisitions <\/strong>primarily addressed the problem of legal uncertainty. Although the problem was recognised as such, there was general criticism of decisions such as in the Towercast<\/em> case: thresholds existed for a reason. From the point of view of authorities, intervention was seen as less problematic, and the Merger Guidelines should be approached with caution: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Information exchange without delivery fee<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Information exchange on Article 101 TFEU with Daniela Esposito (AkzoNobel), Christoph Leibenath (Nestl\u00e9) and Carla Wachendorfer (Delivery Hero). The discussion was moderated by Ma\u0142gorzata Urba\u0144ska (CMS Warsaw) and Michael Bauer (CMS Brussels). Photo: Moritz Pottek.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Next, the conference turned its attention to a classic antitrust issue: the exchange of information between competitors. The elephant in the room here was, of course, last year’s decision against Delivery Hero<\/a>: the EU Commission imposed a fine of over \u20ac220 million on the delivery service, which gained access to sensitive business information through its minority stake in its competitor Glovo. Does Article 101 TFEU now structurally preclude minority shareholdings <\/strong>in competitors? And do private equity funds, which hold massive stakes in various competitors, now have to rethink their investments, asked CMS partner Michael Bauer<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“You’re being dramatic,” reassured Daniela Esposito <\/em>(AkzoNobel), and Nestl\u00e9 in-house counsel Christoph Leibenath <\/em>explained that the case did not bring any material innovations except for the reminder that the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements also applies in the context of minority shareholdings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And what does Delivery Hero <\/strong>have to say about this? At some point, Michael Bauer <\/em>released Delivery Hero’s in-house counsel Carla Wachendorfer <\/em>from her duty of confidentiality. The innocent phrase “Carla, let us know if you have something to say” naturally rubbed salt in the wound. In any case, Wachendorfer<\/em> promised the utmost caution for future minority investments, including internal “firewalls” and “clean teams.” And for particularly confidential data, even smaller recipient groups could be set up, so-called “super super clean teams,” advised Esposito <\/em>from AkzoNobel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competition between Cloud and Crisis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Linsey McCallum (acting Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition) and Andreas Mundt (President of the Federal Cartel Office) were supposed to be grilled in the Enforcer Panel by Dirk Van Liedekerke (CMS) and Rupprecht Podszun (HHU). Christian Kersting (HHU) stepped in at short notice for the latter. Photo: Moritz Pottek.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

“In today’s world, continuity and stability are an advantage,” said Linsey McCallum<\/em>, summarising the first year of DG Comp under Teresa Ribera <\/em>as the new EU Commissioner, which is why the course set by the previous Commission is being continued in many respects. The DG is not shying away from the big digital issues (e.g. with the Google Ad Tech decision<\/a>), is setting its own priorities in the area of sustainability (e.g. with guidelines for recycling cooperations) and is taking competition law into the future with new reforms (e.g. Regulation 1\/2003, Merger Guidelines, Art. 102 Guidelines).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competition Capabilities for Competitiveness<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Van Liedekerke <\/em>and Kersting <\/em>wanted to know from Andreas Mundt <\/em>what this future of competition law looks like, given that everything nowadays is focused on competitiveness<\/em>. The “competitiveness crisis” <\/strong>is his fourth crisis (after the financial crisis, COVID and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), explained the head of the Bundeskartellamt. We have failed to meet the goal of the Lisbon Strategy from 2000, according to which the EU wanted to become the most competitive economic area in the world. However, less competition and more industrial policy are not the answer; rather, more competition is precisely what is needed for a flourishing economy. The demand to create European champions <\/strong>through laxer competition control is “simple and naive” and basically just a distraction. A distraction from the fact that decision-makers are not doing their homework in other areas. Tax reforms, infrastructure investments, deregulation and the creation of a banking union are the relevant levers for greater competitiveness, not sham debates about overly strict competition law. Calls for weaker merger control for European champions always fall silent, Mundt complained, when it is not about Siemens\/Alstrom, but rather a politically unpopular project such as UniCredit\/Commerzbank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The acting Director-General \u2013 a successor to Olivier Guersent <\/em>has not yet been announced \u2013 agreed with him. McCallum <\/em>expressed concern that trade volumes between member states are currently declining. What is needed now, she said, is more enthusiasm for the further development of the internal market, not protectionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of protectionism<\/strong>, the geopolitical influences on competition law were also discussed. Mundt<\/em> said that we should be neither naive nor dramatic about this. Yes, the world is falling back into blocs, each acting in its own interests, and in some cases, there is stronger political influence from above (e.g. Trump, who announced<\/a> that he would personally intervene in the decision on the Netflix\/Warner Bros. deal). But this is not noticeable in the continued good cooperation between competition authorities, including the FTC, and at least in Germany, he does not feel any political influence on the case handling of the Bundeskartellamt (despite fierce lobbying against Sec. 19a GWB in Berlin). When Mundt <\/em>stated that there was also no political influence at the EU level, a murmur of doubt could be heard among the audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Save the Date: SCiDA Conference 2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The research project \u201eShaping Competition in the Digital Age\u201c (SCiDA), a joint project of the Universities of D\u00fcsseldorf and Exeter, invites you to a conference in D\u00fcsseldorf! The two-day conference will explore the lessons, challenges, and opportunities arising from competition regulation and enforcement in digital markets across the EU, the UK, and Germany. Bringing together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, it aims to promote a challenge- and solution-oriented dialogue on the present and future of digital competition law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date: 26-27 May 2026<\/strong>, University House (Haus der Universit\u00e4t<\/em>), Shadowplatz 14, 40212 D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Registration for the conference opens in February.
Click here for information on the conference on the SCiDA project website!<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

AI on the Enforcer\u2019s Radar<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So, back to the original question: what does the future <\/strong>hold for competition law<\/strong>? For McCallum<\/em>, the focus is on reforming Regulation 1\/2003 in order to have the right tools for effective enforcement at hand in the future. There is no longer any interest in harmonising national reinforcements of competition law, such as relative market power <\/strong>in Sec. 20 GWB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there is still work to be done on the EU procedural rules for interim measures. This is demonstrated by the case of the integration of Meta AI into WhatsApp: while the Italian competition authority imposed “interim measures<\/strong><\/a>” against Meta within four weeks, the Commission did not due to procedural hurdles. It is important that the Commission nevertheless takes action against restrictions of competition in AI markets. McCallum <\/em>pointed to the investigations into the extension of the DMA to the cloud services<\/a> AWS and Azure, and recalled the two proceedings<\/a> concerning Google’s use of third-party content for AI overviews and AI training, as well as the aforementioned exclusive integration of Meta AI into WhatsApp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI<\/strong> is also a focus <\/strong>for the Bundeskartellamt. Andreas Mundt <\/em>sees competition problems primarily in the cloud market (“almost the entire world depends on just three providers”), access to high-quality data and the relevance of foundation models. These areas are being examined very closely under Section 19a GWB. Perhaps a vague announcement of new cases? In any case, the Bundeskartellamt is coordinating excellently with the Commission, and the parallel existence of the DMA and Section 19a GWB is an absolute advantage that has led to an unprecedented level of cooperation between the two authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Private Enforcement \u2013 A gift that keeps on giving<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
The Private Enforcement Panel with Gerhard Klumpe (LG Dortmund), Zsuzsa Cserhalmi (Private Enforcement Unit, European Commission), Christian Kersting (HHU), and moderator Tim Reher (CMS Hamburg). Photo: Moritz Pottek.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From D\u00fcsseldorf’s perspective, the panel on private enforcement was top-class: Gerhard Klumpe <\/em>and Christian Kersting<\/em>, two D\u00fcsseldorf antitrust legends, discussed the rapid developments in private antitrust enforcement in Europe with Zsuzsa Cserhalmi <\/em>from the Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was initial agreement that private enforcement is a booming <\/strong>business. The number of cases is rising significantly in many Member States. However, Klumpe <\/em>urged caution, saying that the development is highly fragmented and fragile in some areas. The tension between private and public enforcement, which could become even more significant in the future, was also highlighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cserhalmi <\/em>referred to more than 10,000 damages decisions across Europe \u2013 a clear success for the Damages Directive. At the same time, there were considerable differences between Member States: while countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are “giants” in this field, others have virtually no cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Klumpe, the biggest challenge is still the quantification <\/strong>of damages. Judges are massively overburdened, given the volume of proceedings. His urgent appeal to practitioners: “Have mercy!” \u2013 please no 500-page briefs shortly before the oral hearing. From the floor, moderator Tim Reher <\/em>(CMS Hamburg) spontaneously responded: “Wish is granted.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking ahead, Kersting identified three key developments<\/strong>: Firstly, the CJEU ruling in “Nissan Iberia” on the limitation period based on knowledge \u2013 a significant step for private enforcement. Secondly, the question of the recoverability of cartel fines, which, in his view, is required under European law. Thirdly, the as yet unresolved question of whether cartel damages give rise to a uniform claim for damages or whether there are several legally independent claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kersting argued \u2013 once again \u2013 for genuine collective enforcement <\/strong>and for his model of leniency privileges in internal relations. Klumpe described the possibility of a uniform claim for damages for cartel damages as a “game changer” for the courts. Cserhalmi <\/em>remained very pragmatic and, above all, called for more resources for the judiciary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the question of liability allocation among joint and several debtors <\/strong>was discussed \u2013 the perfect cue for Kersting<\/em> to casually refer to his article on liability allocation, which was nominated for the Antitrust Writing Awards (18 G.C.L.R., Issue 3, pp. 79-89<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How expensive is it to delete a WhatsApp message?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Throughout the day, there were practical insights that you should not miss out on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n