DashboardActivate Briefly
Legal Intelligence · Antitrust & Competition

Antitrust & Competition legal & regulatory updates

Briefly tracks antitrust & competition developments — court rulings, legislation, gazette notices, and regulatory updates — from courts and regulators. 54 updates tracked in the past 30 days, last updated 31 Oct.

Get Antitrust & Competition updates in your inbox
Regulatory News
Regulatory

Ondo ODCCPA: Mandatory Business Registration Deadline Set

Punch Nigeria · 8 Oct

Legal News
Malawi
Legal News

CFTC Malawi: Sets Conditions for TNM OCL Acquisition Approval

The Competition and Fair Trading Commission (CFTC) in Malawi has conditionally approved TNM’s acquisition of national fibre network operator Open Connect Limited (OCL), mandating that TNM avoids discriminatory pricing or anti-competitive conduct towards competitors. This decision, reported by The Nation Malawi, follows months after TNM’s offer to acquire OCL’s assets, which include its fibre network, data centre, network equipment, vehicles, and enterprise contracts. The CFTC's approval with conditions demonstrates its commitment to fostering a competitive market environment, particularly in critical infrastructure sectors like telecommunications. The specific conditions imposed aim to mitigate potential anti-competitive effects arising from the merger. This ruling carries significant legal implications for practitioners, particularly those involved in corporate mergers and acquisitions, competition law, and telecommunications regulation in Malawi. It signals the CFTC's proactive stance in scrutinizing transactions that could lead to market concentration and its willingness to impose stringent conditions to protect consumer interests and ensure fair competition. For businesses, especially those in the telecommunications sector, this decision highlights the regulatory hurdles and compliance requirements associated with significant market consolidations. It also provides a clear example of how regulatory bodies can shape market structures through conditional approvals. The legal context for this decision is the Competition and Fair Trading Act of Malawi, which empowers the CFTC to review mergers and acquisitions to prevent the creation or strengthening of dominant market positions that could harm competition. The CFTC's mandate includes assessing potential anti-competitive effects, such as discriminatory pricing, and imposing remedies or conditions to address these concerns. This case serves as a precedent for how the CFTC applies its powers in regulating mergers involving essential infrastructure. The key parties involved are the Competition and Fair Trading Commission (CFTC) as the regulator, TNM as the acquiring company, and Open Connect Limited (OCL) as the target company. Practitioners advising clients on mergers and acquisitions in Malawi should take note of the CFTC’s robust approach to competition enforcement. It is crucial for businesses contemplating such transactions, particularly in concentrated or regulated sectors, to conduct thorough competition assessments and proactively engage with the CFTC. Attorneys should advise clients to anticipate potential conditions and develop strategies to address them, such as commitments regarding pricing, access, or non-discrimination, to facilitate regulatory approval. This case underscores the importance of demonstrating that a proposed merger will not substantially lessen competition or harm consumers, even if it offers efficiency gains.

31 Oct
United States
Case Law

Ninth Circuit: NFL Sunday Ticket Reversal Overturns Expert Exclusion

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Friday, reversed a trial court's judgment in favor of the National Football League (NFL) in an antitrust lawsuit brought by Sunday Ticket subscribers, sending the case back to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for a new trial solely on damages. This unanimous decision by the appellate panel overturned the district judge's post-verdict ruling, which had set aside a jury's $4.7 billion award against the NFL. The Ninth Circuit found that U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez had abused his discretion by improperly excluding the plaintiffs' expert witness testimony, which subsequently led to an erroneous grant of judgment as a matter of law for the NFL. This ruling carries significant legal implications for antitrust litigation, particularly concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the *Daubert* standard. The Ninth Circuit's emphasis on the district court's gatekeeping role, while cautioning against conflating reliability with credibility, reinforces the high bar for excluding expert evidence. For practitioners, this decision highlights the critical importance of robust expert witness preparation and the potential for appellate review to scrutinize trial judges' discretion in evidentiary matters, especially in complex cases involving substantial damages. It signals that courts of appeal will closely examine whether expert testimony was excluded based on its perceived merits rather than its foundational reliability. The legal context for this case involves federal antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Act, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements and monopolization. The procedural posture is an appeal from a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, following a jury verdict. The Ninth Circuit's decision hinges on the proper application of the *Daubert* standard for expert testimony admissibility, which requires trial judges to ensure that expert testimony is based on reliable methods applied to sufficient facts. The appellate court's finding of an abuse of discretion in excluding expert testimony directly impacted the viability of the subscribers' antitrust claims, necessitating a remand for further proceedings. The key parties involved are the National Football League (NFL) as the defendant, and the subscribers to its Sunday Ticket package as the plaintiffs. The case originated in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, presided over by the now-retired U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez. The appellate review was conducted by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony Johnstone authoring the unanimous decision. The original jury had awarded $4.7 billion in damages, which the district judge subsequently set aside. Attorneys and businesses involved in complex litigation, particularly antitrust cases, should closely monitor the proceedings on remand and the eventual outcome of the new damages trial. This decision underscores the need for meticulous preparation and defense of expert testimony, as its exclusion can be a dispositive issue. Practitioners should review their strategies for qualifying and challenging expert witnesses, understanding that appellate courts will scrutinize the basis for exclusion. Furthermore, businesses facing antitrust claims should be aware that initial trial victories based on evidentiary exclusions may not withstand appellate review, necessitating a long-term litigation strategy that accounts for potential reversals and remands.

30 Oct
Namibia
Legal News

CIF Asks Nekundi Retract Construction Statements Namibia

The Construction Industries Federation of Namibia (CIF) publicly challenged the Minister of Works and Transport, Veikko Nekundi, in Namibia, recently regarding his assertions that only a limited number of local companies possess the capacity to undertake large-scale construction projects. The federation specifically requested that Minister Nekundi substantiate his claims or retract his statements and issue an apology to the construction sector, arguing that his assessment failed to adequately differentiate between technical expertise, financial capability, and the fulfillment of all necessary project requirements. This public demand highlights a significant point of contention between a key industry body and a government minister over the perceived competence and operational capacity of the domestic construction industry. This public challenge carries substantial legal significance for practitioners, businesses, and the broader public in Namibia. It brings into sharp focus issues of fair competition within the public procurement landscape, the transparency of government contracting processes, and the economic viability of the domestic construction sector. Should the Minister's statements be perceived as undermining local capacity without sufficient justification, it could lead to formal complaints, administrative reviews, or even legal challenges concerning procurement decisions. For businesses, it raises concerns about potential biases in tender evaluations and the impact on their ability to secure government contracts, which are often crucial for growth and sustainability in the sector. The legal context for this dispute primarily revolves around Namibia's Public Procurement Act and its associated regulations, which govern how government tenders are advertised, evaluated, and awarded. Principles of administrative law, particularly those related to ministerial accountability and the impact of public statements on industry, are also relevant. The CIF, as an established industry body, plays a crucial role in advocating for its members and ensuring a level playing field. The federation's head, Barbel Kirchner, emphasized that while Namibian companies possess the necessary expertise and equipment, they often face hurdles related to stringent government project requirements, particularly concerning financial capacity, which may not always reflect their operational competence. The key parties involved in this matter are the Construction Industries Federation of Namibia (CIF), represented by its head Barbel Kirchner, and the Minister of Works and Transport, Veikko Nekundi. The broader Namibian construction sector, comprising numerous companies that may feel unfairly characterized by the Minister's remarks, also stands as an affected party. The government, through its various ministries and procurement bodies, is implicitly involved as the entity responsible for setting and enforcing tender requirements and awarding contracts. Practitioners in Namibia should closely monitor the developments stemming from this public challenge. Attorneys advising construction companies should review their clients' eligibility criteria for government tenders, particularly concerning financial capacity and technical requirements, and be prepared to advise on potential administrative remedies or legal challenges if procurement processes are perceived as unfair or discriminatory. Businesses should also consider engaging with industry bodies like the CIF to collectively address systemic issues. Furthermore, legal professionals should anticipate and prepare for any potential policy shifts or regulatory amendments that might arise from this dispute, especially those aimed at clarifying or revising tender requirements to better support local industry while maintaining high standards for public projects.

30 Oct
Botswana
Courtroom Update

Fusion Spark Challenges Botswana CCA Engen Divestiture Order

Fusion Spark, a consortium involving Choppies CEO Ramachandran Ottapathu, is challenging an order from Botswana's Competition and Consumer Authority (CCA) that mandates the sale of a majority stake in Reddy Group, a company with significant fuel retail interests, in connection with Fusion Spark's proposed acquisition of Engen Botswana. The excerpt details that Fusion Spark, in which Ottapathu holds a 30% stake, is seeking to acquire a 70% controlling interest in Engen Botswana. The CCA's order specifically requires a company owned by Ottapathu to divest its majority stake in Reddy Group, which has interests in 67 fuel retail station sites across Botswana, as a condition for the Engen acquisition. The specific grounds for Fusion Spark's challenge to this order are not elaborated in the provided information, nor is the current status or outcome of the legal proceedings. This indicates an ongoing dispute regarding the regulatory conditions imposed on a significant merger in the energy sector. This development carries substantial legal significance for practitioners, businesses engaged in mergers and acquisitions, and the broader energy sector in Botswana. It highlights the robust enforcement capabilities of the Competition and Consumer Authority (CCA) in scrutinizing large-scale transactions to prevent anti-competitive outcomes and maintain market integrity. The decision by Fusion Spark to challenge the CCA's order underscores the potential for complex legal battles when regulatory conditions are perceived as overly burdensome or commercially unviable by merging parties. For the public, the resolution of this challenge could influence market concentration in the vital fuel retail sector, potentially impacting pricing, service quality, and consumer choice across Botswana. The legal context for this challenge is primarily rooted in Botswana's Competition and Consumer Act, which grants the CCA extensive powers to review and approve mergers and acquisitions, imposing conditions where necessary to safeguard competition. The CCA's mandate is to prevent the creation or strengthening of dominant market positions that could substantially lessen competition within any market in Botswana. Given Reddy Group's interests in 67 fuel retail sites, any further consolidation through the acquisition of Engen Botswana would naturally trigger significant competition concerns regarding horizontal integration and market power. Challenges to CCA decisions typically involve judicial review processes, commencing in the High Court of Botswana and potentially escalating to the Court of Appeal, where the legality and reasonableness of the Authority's orders are assessed against statutory provisions and administrative law principles. The key parties involved in this high-stakes legal dispute are Fusion Spark, the consortium initiating the challenge; Ramachandran Ottapathu, a prominent business figure in Botswana who holds a significant stake in Fusion Spark and owns the company required to divest from Reddy Group; Reddy Group itself, a major player in the fuel retail market; Engen Botswana, the target of the proposed acquisition; and the Competition and Consumer Authority (CCA), the regulatory body whose order is being contested. Practitioners should closely monitor the progression and eventual outcome of this challenge, as it will offer crucial insights into the CCA's interpretation of market dominance, its approach to imposing divestiture conditions, and the judiciary's stance on reviewing such regulatory decisions. Businesses contemplating significant mergers or acquisitions in Botswana, particularly in concentrated sectors, should anticipate rigorous scrutiny from the CCA and be prepared for the possibility of conditional approvals, including divestiture requirements, and the legal avenues available to contest such conditions.

30 Oct
India
Legal News

NLUO: Announces Double Credit Economics Competition Law Course

National Law University Odisha (NLUO) announced a Double Credit Course on Economics of Competition Law, scheduled to be conducted online during November and December 2026, aiming to equip students with a comprehensive understanding of economic principles and regulatory issues governing competition law. This development signifies a growing recognition within India's legal education sector of the critical interdisciplinary nature of competition law, where economic analysis is increasingly indispensable for effective legal practice. For practitioners, it underscores the evolving demands of the field, highlighting the necessity for a deep understanding of economic principles to navigate complex issues such as abuse of dominance, cartels, and merger control, which are central to the Competition Act, 2002. The course's focus on quantitative and empirical analysis reflects the practical reliance on economic evidence in proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and appellate tribunals. The legal context for this course is rooted in India's competition law framework, primarily the Competition Act, 2002, which governs anti-competitive practices and market regulation. The course content directly addresses key areas of this legislation, emphasizing the economic underpinnings that inform its interpretation and application. The involvement of Dr. Nidhi Singh, an Advocate-on-Record with extensive experience in antitrust and financial regulation across multiple jurisdictions, further validates the practical relevance and academic rigor of the program. Key parties involved include the National Law University Odisha (NLUO), its Centre for Corporate Law, and Dr. Nidhi Singh as the resource person. While primarily an academic offering, its design reflects broader trends in legal practice. Practitioners in competition law, or those advising businesses on antitrust matters, should take note of this initiative as an indicator of the increasing importance of economic literacy in the field. Attorneys may consider enhancing their own understanding of economic principles relevant to competition law to better advise clients, prepare robust submissions, and critically evaluate expert economic evidence presented in cases. This trend suggests that a purely legalistic approach may be insufficient in the face of complex economic arguments in competition matters.

29 Oct
South Africa
Courtroom Update

Western Cape High Court: Urgent Application Over Premier Fruit Contracts

Five Western Cape fruit producers have launched an urgent application to compel Premier to honor 2026/27 fruit supply contracts. Premier announced it would no longer buy fruit for canning, a decision the producers claim could lead to their financial ruin.

29 Oct
Malawi
Legal News

CFTC Malawi: Fines 7 Firms K51.5 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices

The Competition and Fair Trading Commission (CFTC) in Malawi collectively fined seven companies K51.5 million on September 30, 2026, following determinations made at its 76th meeting, for engaging in anti-competitive business practices and unfair trading conduct. This significant enforcement action by the CFTC demonstrates its active role in regulating Malawi's market, signaling a strong commitment to fostering fair competition and protecting consumers. The substantial aggregate fine serves as a clear deterrent to businesses contemplating or engaging in practices that contravene competition and fair trading laws, highlighting the financial and reputational risks associated with non-compliance in the Malawian economic landscape. The legal context for these fines is the Competition and Fair Trading Act of Malawi, which empowers the CFTC to investigate, adjudicate, and penalize entities found to be in breach of its provisions. The CFTC acts as the primary regulatory body responsible for enforcing this Act, ensuring a level playing field for businesses and safeguarding consumer interests. The mention of the 76th meeting on a future date, September 30, 2026, suggests either a forward-looking report on planned enforcement or a typographical error in the source material, but the principle of enforcement remains clear. The key parties involved are the Competition and Fair Trading Commission (CFTC), acting as the regulator and enforcement body, and the seven unnamed companies that were collectively fined for their anti-competitive and unfair trading practices. While the specific nature of the breaches is not detailed, they fall under the broad categories of anti-competitive behavior and unfair trading. Attorneys advising businesses operating in Malawi must emphasize the critical importance of strict adherence to competition and fair trading legislation. This includes conducting regular compliance audits, reviewing pricing strategies, market conduct, and consumer interaction policies to identify and mitigate potential risks. Businesses should be proactive in seeking legal counsel to ensure their operations align with the CFTC's guidelines and avoid substantial penalties and adverse publicity.

29 Oct
South Africa
Case Law

Harith Aviation: FlySafair Acquisition Approved by Competition Tribunal

Sandton-headquartered Harith Aviation secured final approval from the South African Competition Tribunal on Thursday for its 100% acquisition of FlySafair, South Africa’s largest domestic airline. Harith Aviation, a South African investment firm, has successfully obtained the final green light from the Competition Tribunal for its complete acquisition of FlySafair. This significant transaction, which is anticipated to conclude by the end of the current year, involves the full ownership transfer of South Africa's leading domestic airline. Harith Aviation has publicly stated that this acquisition represents a strategic long-term investment aimed at retaining local ownership within the country's aviation sector and contributing to South Africa's economic development. The acquiring entity has also confirmed that FlySafair will maintain its operational independence, retaining its current management team and continuing its established low-cost business model and customer offering, as articulated by Sipho Makhubela, CEO of Harith General Partners. This approval is highly significant for the South African aviation sector and the broader economy, as it signals the Competition Tribunal's assessment that the acquisition does not substantially prevent or lessen competition within the domestic airline market. For practitioners, it highlights the rigorous regulatory process involved in large-scale mergers and acquisitions, particularly in concentrated industries. The Tribunal's decision provides certainty for the parties involved and sets a precedent for future consolidation activities in the sector. Furthermore, the emphasis on local ownership and economic development aligns with broader governmental policy objectives, suggesting that transactions demonstrating such benefits may receive favourable consideration, provided competition concerns are adequately addressed. The transaction falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the South African Competition Act (Act 89 of 1998), which governs mergers and acquisitions to prevent anti-competitive practices. The process typically involves an initial notification to the Competition Commission, which investigates the proposed merger's potential impact on competition, public interest, and economic efficiency. Following the Commission's recommendation, the matter proceeds to the Competition Tribunal for a final decision. The Tribunal, an adjudicative body, has the power to approve, approve with conditions, or prohibit mergers. Key parties involved are Harith Aviation Consortium, FlySafair, Harith General Partners, the South African Competition Commission, and the Competition Tribunal. Attorneys advising on mergers and acquisitions in South Africa, particularly in sectors with high market concentration like aviation, should note the importance of thorough competition law analysis and engagement with the Competition Commission and Tribunal. This case underscores that even significant acquisitions of market leaders can be approved if competition concerns are adequately mitigated and public interest factors, such as local investment and economic development, are positively presented. Practitioners should advise clients to prepare comprehensive submissions addressing potential anti-competitive effects and highlighting any pro-competitive or public interest benefits. Furthermore, the continued independent operation of the acquired entity, as stipulated in this deal, is a common strategy to address competition concerns and maintain market dynamics, which legal advisors should consider when structuring similar transactions.

29 Oct
Burundi
Legal News

Burundi PARCEM: New Fertilizer Import Conditions Risk Monopoly

In October 2026, in Burundi, the organization Speech and Action further Revival of Consciousness and the Evolution of Mindsets (PARCEM) accused the government of implementing new fertilizer import conditions that would replace an existing monopoly with a system benefiting a privileged few, to the detriment of competition and investment. PARCEM's national director, Faustin Ndikumana, expressed concerns that the measures, announced by the Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Livestock on October 21, would restrict market access to a small group of operators. The new conditions require interested importers to submit a letter to the Ministry detailing the type, quantity, and country of origin for products like DAP, urea, and FOMI-comparable fertilizers, while explicitly prohibiting the importation of liquid fertilizers. The Ministry also extended the deadline for balance payments for fertilizers until October 24, with distribution of paid amounts set to begin on October 26. This development carries significant legal implications for competition law, administrative transparency, and economic policy within Burundi's agricultural sector. PARCEM's denunciation highlights potential anti-competitive practices and raises questions about the fairness and legality of government-imposed trade restrictions. If the new system indeed favors a select few, it could stifle market competition, disadvantage smaller or new entrants, and potentially lead to higher prices for farmers, impacting food security and agricultural productivity. The legal framework governing public procurement, agricultural subsidies, and anti-monopoly regulations would be central to any legal challenge or review of these measures. The key parties involved are PARCEM, represented by Faustin Ndikumana, the Burundian Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Livestock, and the various economic operators in the agricultural input sector, including FOMI (Organo-Mineral Industries Fertilisers). While the excerpt does not report any specific legal action or outcome, PARCEM's public statement serves as a form of advocacy and potential precursor to further scrutiny or legal challenges. The relevant legal context would involve Burundi's administrative law principles concerning fair process and non-discrimination in government regulation, as well as any specific statutes governing agricultural imports and competition. For practising attorneys and legal professionals, this situation underscores the importance of closely monitoring regulatory changes in critical economic sectors, particularly those with a history of market concentration. Attorneys advising businesses in the agricultural input sector should meticulously review the new import conditions to ensure compliance and assess their clients' competitive standing. They should also be prepared to advise on potential administrative appeals or legal challenges if the regulations are perceived to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or anti-competitive. Businesses, in turn, must understand the selection criteria and be ready to demonstrate their qualifications, while also considering the broader implications for market access and operational viability under the new regime.

25 Oct

Antitrust & Competition coverage by jurisdiction

MalawiUnited StatesNamibiaBotswanaIndiaSouth AfricaBurundiEuropean UnionEswatiniSenegalSudanEgyptUnited KingdomNigeria

Other topics

AI GovernanceBanking & FinanceBankruptcy & RestructuringCompliance & RegulatoryContracts & CommercialCorporate GovernanceEmployment & LaborEnvironmental LawGeneral PracticeHealthcare & Life SciencesImmigrationIntellectual PropertyInternational TradeLegal EducationLitigation & Dispute ResolutionMergers & AcquisitionsPrivacy & Data ProtectionReal EstateSecuritiesTax LawTechnology & LicensingFinancial ServicesTechnology & DigitalEnergy & UtilitiesHealthcare & PharmaReal Estate & ConstructionAgriculture & FoodMining & ExtractivesTrade & LogisticsEmployment & WorkforceMedia & TelecomsPublic SectorEnvironment & ClimateEducation