Webinar Recording: The EU Omnibus Proposals on Sustainability and Simplification – What It Means for Your Reporting and Compliance Strategy [Video]
In April, we hosted a webinar featuring Thomas Delille, Marion Seranne, Begonia Filgueira, and Dr. Nora Thies to discuss the European Commission’s EU Omnibus Proposals, released in February 2025. These proposals could significantly reshape the EU regulatory landscape on sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence, with direct implications for frameworks like Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), EU Taxonomy and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Our expert panel covered the latest developments, member state positions, emerging legal risks, and the commercial impact of ESG reforms. With many businesses now facing an uncertain legislative timeline, the discussion focused on how to adapt compliance strategies and reporting plans to this evolving environment.
Watch the full recording below for key insights into how these proposals could affect your ESG obligations and what you can do to stay ahead.
China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases “Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts (2024)” – Criminal IP Enforcement Up 24% in 2024
On April 21, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court released the “Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Chinese Courts (2024)” (中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(2024年)) providing a wealth of data regarding Chinese IP litigation in 2024. Criminal IP enforcement continues to grow in China with Chinese courts receiving 9,120 first-instance criminal cases involving infringement on IP and concluding 9,003 such cases, marking increases of 24.34% and 29.22% compared to 2023, respectively. Overall, Chinese courts received 529,370 IP cases and concluded 543,911 cases, representing a decrease of 2.67% and an increase of 0.001% respectively over 2023.
First Instance Civil IP Cases Received – 2024 vs. 2023
First Instance Criminal IP Cases Received – 2024 vs. 2023
Other statistics released include:
Punitive damages were applied in 460 cases involving seriously malicious infringement, marking a year-on-year(YoY) increase of 44.2%.
Newly received patent cases totaled 44,255, down 1.02% compared to the previous year;
trademark cases numbered 124,918, down 4.95% from the previous year;
copyright cases amounted to 247,149, down 1.8% compared to 2023;
technology contract cases reached 8,320, up 28.16% YoY;
competition-related cases totaled 10,567, up 3.29% YoY; and
other types of civil IP disputes amounted to 14,714, down 16.53% YoY.
Chinese courts accepted 20,849 administrative IP cases of the first instance and 27,745 were concluded, showing increases of 1.29% and 24.19% from 2023, respectively.
newly received patent cases totaled 1,679, down 15.63% YoY;
trademark cases numbered 19,130, up 3.08% YoY;
copyright cases stood at 9, decreasing by 2 cases compared to 2023; and
other types of cases totaled 31, up 29.17% YoY.
Chinese courts received 9,120 first-instance criminal cases involving infringement on IP and concluded 9,003 such cases, marking increases of 24.34% and 29.22% compared to 2023, respectively.
1 criminal case related to patent counterfeiting was newly received, and 2 such cases were concluded;
8,079 were criminal cases involving registered trademark infringement, and 8,017 such cases were concluded, representing YoY increases of 21.78% and 26.11%;
938 were criminal cases involving copyright infringement, with 913 such cases concluded, reflecting YoY increases of 49.6% and 68.14% respectively;
102 other criminal cases were newly filed, while 77 such cases were concluded in the same year, up 39.73% and 7.58% YoY, respectively.
The full text in Chinese and English is available here: 中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2024).
Mexico Overhauls Federal Data Protection Law
Isabel Davara F. de Marcos of Davara Abogados S.C. reports that on March 20, 2025, the Mexican Congress approved a new Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (“LFPDPPP”), replacing the previous 2010 federal data protection law. The LFPDPPP, which became effective March 21, 2025, represents a substantial change in Mexico’s data protection framework, impacting the scope of application, legal bases for data processing, and individual rights. Relevant updates and considerations for companies operating in Mexico include:
expanded definition of personal data;
broader legal bases for processing;
stricter privacy notice requirements;
enhanced individual rights over automated processing; and
increased fines and a new judicial structure (i.e., the creation of specialized data protection courts to handle legal proceedings, including constitutional rights lawsuits).
The LFPDPPP dissolves the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection, transferring its authority to a newly created Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance. This body will oversee compliance, conduct investigations, and impose sanctions.
Promulgating regulations are expected to be issued within 90 days from the law’s effective date, which are expected to clarify the scope and operational details of the law.
Navigating New Compliance Challenges for Financial Institutions and Payment Processors: The U.S. Treasury’s Enhanced Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
In a significant move to combat illicit financial activities focused on cartels, the U.S. government has intensified its scrutiny of cross-border payments, particularly those linked to Mexico. This development follows the designation of several Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTOs”) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”). These actions, coupled with the expanded use of the U.S. Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (“TFTP”), signal a new era of regulatory oversight for financial institutions and payment processors.
Key Developments
Cartel Designations and Legal Implications: On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of State designated eight cartels, including six based in Mexico, as FTOs and SDGTs. These designations expand criminal liability for knowingly providing material support to these organizations and authorize the U.S. Treasury to block financial transactions involving designated entities and their affiliates.
Southwest Border Geographic Targeting Order (“GTO”): The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued a Southwest Border GTO, requiring money services businesses (“MSBs”) in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas to report cash transactions exceeding $200 but not more than $10,000 within 15 days effective from April 14 through September 9, 2025. This measure increases recordkeeping or reporting requirements and aims to enhance monitoring of financial flows near the United States-Mexico border. FinCEN also encourages the filing of SARs to report transactions conducted to evade the $200 threshold despite the SAR regulation dollar threshold (i.e., transactions that involve or aggregate to at least $2,000).
Enhanced Role of TFTP: The TFTP will play a pivotal role in monitoring and enforcing these new sanctions. By leveraging financial intelligence tools, U.S. regulators aim to identify potential sanctions violations, even in routine business transactions.
Penalties for Failing to Report: If a business or its representatives willfully violate a GTO as of March 14, 2025, they may face: (1) Civil Penalties: The higher of $71,545 or the transaction amount, up to $286,184, with separate penalties for each violation; or (2) Criminal Penalties: Fines up to $250,000 and/or up to five years of imprisonment.
FinCEN released FAQ’s on the GTO on April 16, 2025.
Implications for Financial Services and Payment Processors
Increased Recordkeeping or Reporting Requirements: Financial institutions are now required to block funds in which a designated cartel or its agents have an interest. This will test already existing compliance frameworks, including enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring systems. The Southwest Border GTO further intensifies these requirements by mandating Currency Transaction Reports for cash transactions exceeding $200 in designated regions. Institutions also face strict liability for sanctions breaches under the SDGT designations.
Regulatory Risks: Companies engaged in cross-border transactions, particularly with Mexico, may face greater regulatory scrutiny. This includes industries or entities directly or indirectly linked to designated organizations. The TFTP enables regulators to flag routine transactions for additional review, increasing the risk of enforcement actions.
Technology: Payment processors and MSBs must adapt to new reporting requirements and should consider implementing advanced analytics to detect potential sanctions violations. This includes leveraging financial intelligence tools to identify suspicious patterns and mitigate risks.
Data Privacy and Security: The TFTP’s reliance on financial transaction data raises questions about data privacy and security. Institutions should balance compliance with privacy regulations while ensuring the integrity of their systems.
To navigate the evolving regulatory landscape shaped by the U.S. Treasury’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) and related measures, financial services and payment processing companies should take proactive steps to monitor and react to these changes.
Court Affirms $1.6B Judgment in Baha Mar Investor Dispute
A New York appeals court has affirmed a $1.6 billion award for the developer of a Bahamas mega project against various subsidiaries of China State Construction Engineering Corporation, the world’s largest construction company by revenue (see BML Properties, Ltd. v. China Construction America, Inc. et al., No. 6567550/17, 2025 WL 1033736 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 8, 2025)). The dispute involves construction of the Baha Mar beach resort complex in Nassau. After a series of delays that prevented the resort from opening as planned in March 2015, the developer BML Properties, Ltd., filed for bankruptcy and sued various state-owned entities, including the minority investor, prime contractor, construction manager, and others for breach of contract, fraud, and alter ego theories. After an 11-day bench trial, the lower court pierced the defendants’ corporate veils and awarded the developer $845 million for the loss of its entire investment plus prejudgment interest of $830 million.
The appellate court affirmed. As to veil piercing, the court held that the prime contractor entity exercised complete domination over the other defendants in order to breach the investor agreement, defraud the plaintiff, and cause the collapse of the project. The court also found that the minority investor entity failed to act in the best interests of the project. This included stripping manpower and resources from the project, diverting funds from the project that were meant for subcontractors, and causing or authorizing delays. These breaches of the investor agreement prevented the resort from opening and resulted in the loss of the developer’s entire investment. The appellate court also affirmed the lower court’s fraud finding based on internal communications showing that the construction manager entity knew that a March 2015 opening date – as represented to the developer – was impossible. The appellate court held that these misrepresentations regarding the defendants’ ability to perform were sufficient to support a finding a fraud.
A copy of the court’s decision is available here. The 2,200 room Baha Mar beach resort did eventually open in 2017 at a total estimated cost of $4 billion.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Artificial Intelligence Models Can Be Protected with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Not the Copyright Law
In what is believed to be a case of first impression in China, on March 31, 2025, the Beijing IP Court, on appeal, ruled that Douyin (TikTok) was entitled to protection of its artificial intelligence (AI) transformation model under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law but not under Copyright Law. Specifically, the Beijing IP Court upheld the original judgement against the defendant/appellant Yiruike Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (亿睿科信息技术（北京）有限公司) for violating Douyin’s competitive interest in its transformation model with the B612 app.
Example transformations. Column 1: Selfie, Column 2: Baidu; Column 3: Douyin; Column 4: Yiruike .
The transformation special effects model (including architecture and parameters) was trained by Douyin Company using animated character data hand-drawn by artists and corresponding real-life data, and the model architecture and parameters were continuously adjusted. The model is used for the transformation special effects function in the Douyin application, which can convert photos and videos taken by users in real time into animated character styles. The B612 application operated by Yiruike later launched the animated girl character special effects function, which can also achieve real-time conversion of animated character styles. Douyin believes that Yiruike’s animated girl character special effects model and its transformation animated character special effects model are highly similar in architecture, parameters, etc., constituting infringement, and requested damages and an injunction. After comparison, Beijing IP Court ruled that the models of both parties are highly identical in architecture, convolutional layer data, etc. and Yiruike failed to submit evidence of substantial differences.
The Beijing IP Court pointed out that the competitive interest claimed by Douyin Company in this case is protected by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and includes the transformation animated character special effects model (the architecture and parameters claimed by the plaintiff in this case). According to the evidence in the case, it can be determined that Douyin Company has invested a lot of resources in the research and development of the transformation special effects model, and the model of the transformation special effects (architecture and parameters) has obtained innovative advantages, operating income and market benefits for Douyin Company, which should constitute a competitive interest protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Based on the facts ascertained in this case, it can be determined that Yiruike Company directly used the architecture and parameters of the transformation special effects model of Douyin Company without permission. The alleged behavior violated the recognized business ethics in the field of artificial intelligence models, infringed the legitimate rights and interests of Douyin Company, disrupted the market competition order and damaged the long-term interests of consumers, and constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Accordingly, the Beijing IP Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
The case numbers are (2023）京73民终3802号 and (2023）京73民终3803号. A redacted copy of the decision can be found here (Chinese only) courtesy of 知产宝.
State Department Revokes Existing Visas and Bans the Issuance of New Visas for South Sudanese Passport Holders
On April 5, 2025, the U.S. Department of State announced it was taking immediate action to revoke all existing visas and ban the issuance of any new visas for all South Sudanese passport holders.
Quick Hits
The United States will revoke all existing visas held by South Sudanese passport holders.
U.S. consulates and embassies abroad will be prevented from issuing any new visas for South Sudanese passport holders.
South Sudanese passport holders who are not currently in the United States are banned from entering the United States until further notice.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a press release announcing that the State Department would take immediate action to revoke any existing visas and prevent the issuance of any new visas for any individual holding a South Sudanese passport. Secretary Rubio stated that the State Department was implementing this ban in response to the South Sudan transitional government’s refusal to accept South Sudanese citizens who had been ordered removed from the United States.
How Long Will the Restrictions Last?
It is unclear how long this ban will be in effect. The State Department noted that it would review the visa revocation and ban if the South Sudanese government began accepting its returning citizens in cooperation with U.S. removal efforts.
South Sudan was one of the forty-three countries under consideration for a travel ban earlier this month. There are no indicators as to whether the State Department will issue bans for other countries on the list at this time.
Federal Judge Order Suspends Termination of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) Parole Program
On April 14, 2025, a Massachusetts federal district court judge issued a temporary nationwide order suspending the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program. The termination was set to take effect on April 24, 2025, and would have ended parole authorization and any associated benefits, including work authorization for individuals in the United States under the CHNV parole program. The judge’s decision stays or suspends the categorical cancellation of this program.
Quick Hits
A federal district court judge has issued a temporary nationwide order halting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s termination of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program, which was set to end on April 24, 2025.
This decision allows individuals under the CHNV parole program to stay in the United States and maintain their work authorizations until their current parole periods expire.
The court’s order provides temporary relief while further litigation is pending, but individuals will need to seek alternative immigration options to remain in the United States beyond their parole periods.
Background
Section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the secretary of homeland security, at the secretary’s discretion, to “parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he [or she] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States.” Parole allows noncitizens who may otherwise be inadmissible to enter the United States for a temporary period and for a specific purpose.
The Biden administration implemented a temporary parole program for Venezuelans in October 2022, and later expanded the parole program to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguan nationals in January 2023. Individuals within this program apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) in the (c)(11) category. The Biden administration announced in October 2024 that it would not extend legal status for individuals who were permitted to enter the United States under the CHNV parole program, but encouraged CHNV beneficiaries to seek alternative immigration options.
On March 25, 2025, DHS published a Federal Register notice announcing the immediate termination of the CHNV parole program. The termination was set to take effect within thirty days of the date of publication of the notice, or April 24, 2025. On April 14, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a nationwide order staying or temporarily suspending the implementation of the categorical termination of the CHNV parole program.
Key Takeaways
Pending further litigation, the federal district judge’s order results in the following:
Individuals paroled into the United States pursuant to the CHNV parole programs may remain in the United States through their originally stated parole end date.
Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued to individuals admitted under the CHNV parole programs will remain valid through the expiration date listed on the EAD.
Individuals seeking to remain in the United States past the expiration of their parole periods must seek an alternative immigration status to remain in the United States.
Competition Currents | April 2025
In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | The Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. FTC staff reaffirms opposition to proposed Indiana hospital merger.
On March 17, 2025, the FTC advised the Indiana Department of Health to deny the merger application of Union Hospital, Inc. (Union Health) and Terre Haute Regional Hospital, L.P. (THRH). According to the FTC’s comment letter, this second attempt to merge under a proposed certificate of public advantage (COPA) has the same anticompetitive harms as their original application. The FTC warned that the merger poses substantial anticompetitive risks, such as higher healthcare costs for patients and lower wages for hospital workers. In September 2024, the FTC issued a similar letter opposing the same parties’ proposed COPA, which the parties later withdrew in November 2024.
2. FTC launches joint labor task force to protect American workers.
A newly established Joint Labor Task Force as of Feb. 26, 2025, consisting of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning, will focus on identifying and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that negatively impact American workers. The task force will also work on developing information-sharing protocols between the FTC’s bureaus and offices to exchange best practices for investigating and uncovering such practices, as well as promoting research on harmful labor-market issues to guide both the FTC and the public. The FTC chairman created the Joint Labor Task Force to streamline the agency’s law-enforcement efforts and ensure labor issues are prioritized in both consumer protection and competition-related matters.
3. FTC approves final order requiring building service contractor to stop enforcing a no-hire agreement.
The FTC, on Feb. 26, 2025, has finalized a consent order that mandates Planning Building Services and its affiliated companies to cease enforcing no-hire agreements. In January 2025, the FTC filed a complaint against Planned Building Services, Inc., Planned Security Services, Inc., Planned Lifestyle Services, Inc., and Planned Technologies Services, Inc., collectively known as Planned Companies (Planned). The complaint claimed that the companies used no-hire agreements to prevent workers from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions. Under the final consent order, Planned must stop enforcing no-hire agreements, both directly and indirectly, and must not inform any current or potential customer that a Planned employee is bound by such an agreement. The order also requires Planned to eliminate no-hire clauses from their customer contracts and notify both customers and employees that the existing no-hire agreements are no longer enforceable.
B. U.S. Litigation
1. D’Augusta v. American Petroleum Institute, Case No. 24-800 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2025).
On March 31, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up a putative class action alleging that the governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States entered into an anticompetitive agreement in 2020 to cut oil production. According to the lawsuit, the multinational agreement arose during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when oil prices declined substantially due to decreased demand. In dismissing the case, the Ninth Circuit held that any alleged agreement between foreign nations and the U.S. government were matters of foreign policy and therefore outside of the judicial branch’s jurisdiction. As is tradition, the U.S. Supreme Court did not issue a separate opinion explaining its reasons for refusing to consider the appeal.
2. Dai v. SAS Institute Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025).
On March 24, 2025, the Honorable Judge Jeffrey S. White dismissed allegations brought against SAS Institute, Inc., the creator of an artificial intelligence algorithm that others allegedly used to fix hotel prices. According to the complaint, subsidiary IDeaS Inc. licensed SAS’s software to various hotel chains, whom plaintiffs claim used the algorithm to set increased room rates nationwide. While Judge White did not issue an opinion regarding the remaining defendants’ pending motions to dismiss, he stated that at least with respect to SAS, there is no allegation or proof of a direct contract between SAS as a parent company and these hotel chains, and the mere fact that SAS’s software allegedly “powered” the anticompetitive activity was not enough to make it a defendant.
3. State of Tennessee v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:24-cv-00033 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2025).
Also on March 24, a federal district judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee approved the settlement of a class action that four states and the District of Columbia brought against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The states brought the suit on behalf of their respective colleges and universities to challenge the NCAA’s rule that prohibited those schools from marketing potential name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation to prospective athletes as part of the school’s recruitment. According to the settlement, the NCAA will cease enforcing its existing rules that prevent athletes from learning about or negotiating potential NIL contracts as part of college recruitment.
4. Davitashvili v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No. 23-521 and 23-522 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025).
On March 13, 2025, a divided Second Circuit held that while food delivery service Uber Technologies Inc. could force customers to arbitrate “the arbitrability” of their antitrust claims, a court would decide if fellow defendant and competitor Grubhub Inc.’s antitrust claims were subject to the arbitration. The appeals arise out of allegations that both Uber and Grubhub require restaurants to agree not to sell food at lower prices than those offered on their platforms, which plaintiffs claim resulted in increased prices to consumers. According to the court, the differing results arise in part because Uber’s terms of service more clearly state that the question of whether antitrust suits are subject to the arbitration clause is itself a question that is left to the arbitrator, whereas Grubhub’s terms of service fail to sufficiently require an arbitrator to determine questions of arbitrability. In a dissenting opinion, the Honorable Judge Richard J. Sullivan disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that claims against Grubhub were “unrelated” to consumers’ use of the app, noting that “what gave Grubhub the market power to commit the alleged antitrust violations” was the very fact that consumers used the app.
Mexico
SCJN endorses COFECE’s fine against Aeromexico; emails were key in the decision.
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has ratified the investigative powers of the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE), concluding more than five years of litigation Aeromexico initiated.
The airline had challenged a fine of MEX 88 million ($4.21 million) that COFECE imposed in 2019 for colluding to manipulate airline ticket prices on several routes, affecting more than 3 million passengers. The Second Chamber ultimately confirmed the sanction.
In this and other cases, much of the evidence against Aeromexico was obtained through surprise verification visits, a key tool of COFECE. These visits allow access to the offending companies’ offices to collect crucial physical and electronic evidence that may otherwise be destroyed. During one of these visits, COFECE found emails between airline executives, where, using nicknames, codes, and false email addresses, they allegedly conspired to manipulate prices.
Aeromexico argued before the SCJN that these emails were “private communications” and, therefore, could not be used as evidence. However, the Second Chamber determined that these communications are not protected by the right to privacy and can be used to investigate and sanction monopolistic practices that affect consumers, especially when it comes to commercial communications between companies or their personnel.
The Netherlands
A. Dutch ACM Statements
1. ACM provides guidance for car dealership concentrations.
The Dutch competition authority (ACM) has issued a detailed guideline outlining its approach to assessing mergers and acquisitions within the car dealership sector. This guideline aims to provide clarity to the industry by offering a step-by-step overview of the information car dealerships must submit and the analyses they must conduct when filing merger notifications. The objective is to ensure an efficient and precise evaluation process for both the ACM and the companies involved.
To minimize administrative burdens on businesses, the guideline introduces threshold values. Companies operating below these thresholds need only provide a straightforward market share analysis. For companies exceeding these thresholds, further procedural steps are outlined. This approach is designed to support companies in complying with notification requirements efficiently.
2. ACM may investigate possible violations under the Digital Markets Act.
The ACM now has the authority to investigate compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This European legislation, in effect since May 2023, aims to foster competition in digital markets and provide better protection for consumers. The DMA imposes obligations on major digital platforms, known as “gatekeepers.” Key obligations for gatekeepers include offering fair terms in app stores, providing businesses free access to their own data, and ensuring interoperability between apps and hardware. The ACM will work closely with the European Commission (“EC”) through joint investigative teams to address these matters.
The ACM is authorized to investigate complaints from businesses facing access issues with these platforms and collaborates with the EC, which holds exclusive enforcement powers under the DMA. Since the Dutch implementation law took effect March 10, 2025, the ACM has gained investigative authority. The ACM encourages businesses to report any difficulties encountered with gatekeepers.
3. ACM investigates the acquisition of Ziemann Nederland by Brink’s and is advocating for a ‘call-in power.’
The ACM has initiated an investigation into the recent acquisition of Ziemann Nederland by Brink’s, a leading player in the Dutch cash-in-transit sector. As a result of the takeover, Ziemann will exit the Dutch market, heightening the ACM’s concerns regarding reduced competition.
Brink’s has stated that the acquisition did not require prior notification to the ACM as the turnover thresholds were not met. However, the ACM is now examining whether the transaction may breach competition laws, including the prohibition on abusing a dominant market position. Furthermore, the ACM is advocating for a ‘call-in power,’ which would enable it to investigate smaller acquisitions that may have adverse effects, even if they fall below the turnover thresholds. Such a measure would enhance the ability to address market power and its associated risks, both at the national and European levels.
B. Dutch Court Decision
Dutch Supreme Court to rule on follow-on claims from a single, continuous breach of European competition law.
The central issue in this case concerns the determination of the applicable law for claims seeking damages resulting from a single and continuous infringement of the European cartel prohibition under Article 101 TFEU, known as follow-on claims. The dispute involves cartel damages stemming from an international cartel of airlines that coordinated prices for fuel and security surcharges between 1999 and 2006. The EC has previously issued fines to the airlines involved, while claims-vehicles Equilib and SCC are seeking compensation on behalf of the affected parties.
Both the lower court and the court of appeals ruled that Dutch law applies to these cartel damage claims under the Unjust Act Conflicts Act (WCOD). The court of appeals held that a single and continuous infringement gives rise to one damages claim per injured party, regardless of the number of transactions that party undertakes. It also noted that the WCOD contains a gap in cases where multiple legal systems could govern a single-damages claim. The court suggested that this gap may be addressed by allowing a unilateral choice of law, in line with Article 6(3) of the Rome II Regulation.
The case is now before the Supreme Court, which is questioning whether the concept of a “single and continuous infringement” should be defined under European Union law or whether this determination is left to the member states’ national laws. The Supreme Court is considering referring a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The proposed question seeks to establish whether EU law, particularly the principle of effectiveness, mandates that a single and continuous infringement be treated as a single wrongful act resulting in one damage-claim per injured party, or whether member states are permitted to classify each transaction as separate damages claim.
Poland
A. UOKiK Continuous Enforcement Actions Against RPM Agreements
In the March edition of Competition Currents, we reported on the continued interest of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President) in resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements, and the actions taken in the last year. UOKiK’s scrutiny of RPM remains strong and in recent weeks, UOKiK has taken further enforcement actions.
1. Fines imposed on Jura Poland and retailers for coffee machine resale price maintenance.
The UOKiK President has imposed fines exceeding PLN 66 million (approx. EUR 16 million/USD 18 million) on Jura Poland and major electronics retailers for engaging in a decade-long price-fixing scheme regarding Jura coffee machines. Additionally, a top executive at Jura Poland faces a personal fine of nearly PLN 250 thousand (approx. EUR 60 thousand/USD 65 thousand).
According to the UOKiK President, Jura Poland, the exclusive importer of Jura coffee machines, colluded with its retail partners to maintain minimum resale prices, preventing consumers from purchasing them at lower prices. The agreement covered both online and in store sales and extended to promotional pricing and bundled accessories.
Evidence gathered through on-site inspections revealed that Jura Poland was actively monitoring compliance, pressuring retailers to adhere to fixed prices under the threat of supply restrictions or contract termination. The scheme’s communication channels included emails, phone calls, messaging apps, and SMS messages.
The anti-competitive arrangement reportedly lasted from July 2013 to November 2022. The UOKiK President imposed fines of PLN 30 million (approx. EUR 7.1 million/USD 7.7 million) on the owner of one retailer, and of PLN 12.2 million (approx. EUR 2.8 million/USD 3.1 million) on Jura Poland. The other retailers received fines ranging from PLN 6.5 million (approx. EUR 1.5 million/USD 1.6 million) to PLN 10.5 million (approx. EUR 2.5 million/USD 2.7 million).
The decision is not yet final and can be appealed to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.
2. UOKiK investigates alleged collusion in agricultural machinery sales.
The UOKiK President has launched two antitrust investigations into potential collusion in the sale of agricultural machinery. The first investigation is focusing on major brands in the industry. The second investigation concerns the Claas brand. Allegations of market sharing and price fixing, which may lead to higher costs for farmers, have been made against 15 companies and two executives.
The UOKiK President suspects that dealers were assigned exclusive sales territories, restricting farmers from purchasing machinery outside the designated areas. Customers who attempted to buy from other dealers may have been redirected or offered less favorable prices. Additionally, businesses allegedly exchanged pricing information to discourage cross-regional sales.
If the UOKiK proceedings confirm competition-restricting agreements, the companies could face fines of up to 10% of their annual turnover, while managers risk penalties of up to PLN 2 million (approx. EUR 479 thousand/USD 517 thousand). Under Polish law, anticompetitive provisions in agreements are invalid. Entities suffering harm as a result of an anticompetitive agreement may also seek damages in civil court.
B. UOKiK imposes fines for obstruction of investigation and dawn raids
Companies failing to cooperate with the UOKiK President may face severe penalties. Under Polish law, non-disclosure of the required information may result in penalties of up to 3% of the company’s annual turnover. Sanctions for procedural violations during proceedings, particularly for obstructing or preventing the conduct of an inspection or search, may be imposed on managers, with a financial penalty of up to 50 times the average salary (approx. PLN 430,000/EUR 103,000/USD 109,000).
Last month, the UOKiK President issued three decisions, imposing a total of PLN 1.1 million (approx. EUR 263,000/USD 284,000) in fines.
Another case concerned suspected bid-rigging in the supply of cooling and ventilation equipment. M.A.S. executives refused to grant UOKiK access to the work phones and email accounts of two employees involved in the case. One employee’s data was submitted with a two-month delay, while the other’s was never provided. As a result, the UOKiK President issued two decisions with fines: PLN 350,000 (approx. EUR 84,000/USD 90,000) on M.A.S. and PLN 50,000 (approx. EUR 12,000/USD 13,000) on its CEO. The fine imposed on M.A.S. was relatively high, amounting to approximately 2% of the company’s turnover, while the maximum possible fine was 3%.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. Update of turnover thresholds for concentration notifications.
On March 24, 2025, the ICA increased the first of two cumulative turnover thresholds that determine when preventive notification of concentrations becomes mandatory. This threshold, which concerns the total national turnover generated by all companies involved in a transaction, was raised from EUR 567 million to EUR 582 million. The second threshold, which requires at least two of the involved companies to individually generate a national turnover of EUR 35 million, remains unchanged.
2. New guidelines on applying antitrust fines.
On March 10, 2025, following a public consultation, ICA adopted new guidelines on fines, aimed at enhancing the deterrent effectiveness of its sanctioning activities. The innovations include:
the introduction of a minimum percentage, equal to 15% of the sales value, for price-fixing cartels, market allocation, and production limitation cartels;
the possibility of increasing the sanction by up to 50% if the responsible company has particularly high total worldwide turnover relative to the value of sales of the goods or service subject to the infringement, or belongs to a group of significant economic size;
the possibility of further increasing the fine based on the illicit profits the company responsible for the infringement made; and
the consideration of mitigating circumstances in a case of adopting and effectively implementing a specific compliance program, as well as introducing the so-called “amnesty plus,” i.e., the possibility of further reducing the fine if the company has provided information ICA deems decisive for detecting an additional infringement and falling within the scope of the leniency program.
3. New guidelines on antitrust compliance.
On March 10, 2025, ICA adopted new guidelines on antitrust compliance. In particular, the ICA has introduced:
a maximum reduction of penalties up to 10% – instead of the previous 15% – reserved for compliance programs that have proven to be effective (i.e. if the application is submitted before ICA launches an investigation);
a reduction of up to 5% -instead of 10%- in the case of compliance programs that are not manifestly inadequate, adopted before ICA launches an investigation, provided that the program is adequately integrated and implemented within six months;
a reduction of up to 5% for companies with manifestly inadequate programs or for programs adopted newly after the start of the investigation only in cases where substantial changes have been made after the proceeding’s initiation;
no reduction for companies that repeatedly infringed and that had already benefited from a reduction of the fine for a previous compliance program. Moreover, no reduction will be granted to a repeat offender, already having a compliance program, involved in a subsequent proceeding.
4. ICA investigates Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A.and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A. for potential abuse of dominant position.
On March 18, 2025, ICA launched an investigation against Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A. (RFI) and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A. (FS) for an alleged abuse of dominant position, in violation of Article 102 TFEU. According to ICA, access to the national railway infrastructure has been slowed down, and in some cases obstructed, impeding the new high-speed passenger transport operator, SNCF Voyages Italia S.r.l. (SVI)’s entry.
The contested behaviors were implemented in the national railway infrastructure market, in which RFI holds a dominant position due to the legal concession granting (D.M. Oct. 31, 2000, No. 138), the company a legal monopoly over the national railway network. In this case, access primarily concerns the high-speed (AV) network. However, the infrastructure involved in the allegedly abusive conduct also includes part of the railway infrastructure intended for regional and medium-long distance transport services. From a geographical perspective, considering the widespread nature of the access conditions across the entire Italian railway network, the actions in question seem to have a national scope.
The alleged abusive conduct carried out in the upstream market of railway infrastructure appears to have hindered SVI’s entry into the passenger railway transport market on the AV network, which is the downstream market where anti-competitive effects would have occurred. ICA carried out inspection activities at the offices of Rete Ferroviaria Italiana S.p.A., Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane S.p.A., and also at the offices of Trenitalia S.p.A. and Italo – Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori S.p.A., as they were considered to have information relevant to the investigation.
European Union
A. European Commission
European Commission drops interim measures proceedings against Lufthansa.
The European Commission has closed its interim measures antitrust proceedings against Lufthansa, concluding that the legal conditions for such measures under Article 8 of Regulation 1/2003 were not fully met. The proceedings aimed to require Lufthansa to restore Condor’s access to feed traffic at Frankfurt Airport, as previously agreed between the airlines.
These interim measures were part of a broader investigation into potential competition restrictions on transatlantic routes involving the A++ joint venture between Lufthansa and other airlines. The investigation, launched in August 2024, examines whether the joint venture complies with EU competition rules.
While the interim measures proceedings have been closed, the European Commission continues its main investigation into the competitive impact of the A++ joint venture on transatlantic routes, including the Frankfurt-New York route.
B. ECJ Decision
A parent company can be sued in its home country for its subsidiary’s antitrust violations in another EU member state.
On Feb. 13, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling confirming that a parent company may be sued in its home country for antitrust violations its subsidiary committed in another EU member state. The case concerned a Greek subsidiary, Athenian Brewery SA, which the Greek competition authority had sanctioned for abusing its dominant position. Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA subsequently filed a claim for damages before a Dutch court against both the subsidiary and its Dutch parent company, invoking Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. This provision allows for the joint adjudication of claims when they are closely connected.
The CJEU clarified that a parent company and its subsidiary may be regarded as forming a single “economic unit,” thereby justifying both joint liability and international jurisdiction. Furthermore, the CJEU reaffirmed the existence of a rebuttable presumption that a parent company exercises decisive influence over its subsidiary if it holds nearly all of the subsidiary’s shares. This presumption is significant for determining both liability and jurisdiction, provided the claims are substantively interconnected and the risk of contradictory judgments is mitigated.
This ruling carries implications for competition law enforcement within the EU. Aggrieved parties are now able to pursue damage claims in the parent company’s jurisdiction, even if the subsidiary committed the antitrust infringement in another member state. However, national courts must ensure that the conditions for establishing international jurisdiction have not been artificially created, while also allowing the parent company the opportunity to rebut the presumption of decisive influence.
1 Due to the terms of GT’s retention by certain of its clients, these summaries may not include developments relating to matters involving those clients.
Holly Smith Letourneau, Sarah-Michelle Stearns, Alexa S. Minesinger, Miguel Flores Bernés, Valery Dayne García Zavala, Hans Urlus, Dr. Robert Hardy, Chazz Sutherland, Robert Gago, Filip Drgas, Anna Celejewska-Rajchert, Ewa Głowacka, Edoardo Gambaro, Pietro Missanelli, Martino Basilisco, and Yongho “Andrew” Lee also contributed to this article.
Is Insurtech a High-Risk Application of AI?
While there are many AI regulations that may apply to a company operating in the Insurtech space, these laws are not uniform in their obligations. Many of these regulations concentrate on different regulatory constructs, and the company’s focus will drive which obligations apply to it. For example, certain jurisdictions, such as Colorado and the European Union, have enacted AI laws that specifically address “high-risk AI systems” that place heightened burdens on companies deploying AI models that would fit into this categorization.
What is a “High-Risk AI System”?
Although many deployments that are considered a “high-risk AI system” in one jurisdiction may also meet that categorization in another jurisdiction, each regulation technically defines the term quite differently.
Europe’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) takes a gradual, risk-based approach to compliance obligations for in-scope companies. In other words, the higher the risk associated with AI deployment, the more stringent the requirements for the company’s AI use. Under Article 6 of the EU AI Act, an AI system is considered “high risk” if it meets both conditions of subsection (1) [1] of the provision or if it falls within the list of AI systems considered high risk and included as Annex III of the EU AI Act,[2] which includes, AI systems that are dealing with biometric data, used to evaluate the eligibility of natural persons for benefits and services, evaluate creditworthiness, or used for risk assessment and pricing in relation to life or health insurance.
The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (CAIA), which takes effect on February 1, 2026, adopts a risk-based approach to AI regulation. The CAIA focuses on the deployment of “high-risk” AI systems that could potentially create “algorithmic discrimination.” Under the CAIA, a “high-risk” AI system is defined as any system that, when deployed, makes—or is a substantial factor in making—a “consequential decision”; namely, a decision that has a material effect on the provision or cost of insurance.
Notably, even proposed AI bills that have not been enacted have considered insurance-related activity to come within the proposed regulatory scope. For instance, on March 24, 2025, Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed the state’s proposed High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act (also known as the Virginia AI Bill), which would have applied to developers and deployers of “high-risk” AI systems doing business in Virginia. Compared to the CAIA, the Virginia AI Bill defined “high-risk AI” more narrowly, focusing only on systems that operate without meaningful human oversight and serve as the principal basis for consequential decisions. However, even under that failed bill, an AI system would have been considered “high-risk” if it was intended to autonomously make, or be a substantial factor in making, a “consequential decision,” which is a “decision that has a material legal, or similarly significant, effect on the provision or denial to any consumer of—among other things—insurance.
Is Insurtech Considered High Risk?
Both the CAIA and the failed Virginia AI Bill explicitly identify that an AI system making a consequential decision regarding insurance is considered “high-risk,” which certainly creates the impression that there is a trend toward regulating AI use in the Insurtech space as high-risk. However, the inclusion of insurance on the “consequential decision” list of these laws does not definitively mean that all Insurtech leveraging AI will necessarily be considered high-risk under these or future laws. For instance, under the CAIA, an AI system is only high-risk if, when deployed, it “makes or is a substantial factor in making” a consequential decision. Under the failed Virginia AI Bill, the AI system had to be “specifically intended to autonomously make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision.”
Thus, the scope of regulated AI use, which varies from one applicable law to another, must be considered together with the business’s proposed application to get a better sense of the appropriate AI governance in a given case. While there are various use cases that leverage AI in insurance, which could result in consequential decisions that impact an insured, such as those that improve underwriting, fraud detection, and pricing, there are also other internal uses of AI that may not be considered high risk under a given threshold. For example, leveraging AI to assess a strategic approach to marketing insurance or to make the new client onboarding or claims processes more efficient likely doesn’t trigger the consequential decision threshold required to be considered high-risk under CAIA or the failed Virginia AI Bill. Further, even if the AI system is involved in a consequential decision, this alone may not deem it to be high risk, as, for instance, the CAIA requires that the AI system make the consequential decision or be a substantial factor in that consequential decision.
Although the EU AI Act does not expressly label Insurtech as being high-risk, a similar analysis is possible because Annex III of the EU AI Act lists certain AI uses that may be implicated by an AI system deployed in the Insurtech space. For example, an AI system leveraging a model to assess creditworthiness in developing a pricing model in the EU likely triggers the law’s high-risk threshold. Similarly, AI modeling used to assess whether an applicant is eligible for coverage may also trigger a higher risk threshold. Under Article 6(2) of the EU AI Act, even if an AI system fits the categorization promulgated under Annex III, the deployer of the AI system should perform the necessary analysis to assess whether the AI system poses a significant risk of harm to individuals’ health, safety, or fundamental rights, including by materially influencing decision-making. Notably, even if an AI system falls into one of the categories in Annex III, if the deployer determines through documented analysis that the deployment of the AI system does not pose a significant risk of harm, the AI system will not be considered high-risk.
What To Do If You Are Developing or Deploying a “High-Risk AI System”?
Under the CAIA, when dealing with a high-risk AI system, various obligations come into play. These obligations vary for developers[3] and deployers[4] of the AI system. Developers are required to display a disclosure on their website identifying any high-risk AI systems they have deployed and explain how they manage known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. Developers must also notify the Colorado AG and all known deployers of the AI system within 90 days of discovering that the AI system has caused or is reasonably likely to cause algorithmic discrimination. Developers must also make significant additional documentation about the high-risk AI system available to deployers.
Under the CAIA, deployers have different obligations when leveraging a high-risk AI system. First, they must notify consumers when the high-risk AI system will be making, or will play a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision about the consumer. This includes (i) a description of the high-risk AI system and its purpose, (ii) the nature of the consequential decision, (iii) contact information for the deployer, (iv) instructions on how to access the required website disclosures, and (v) information regarding the consumer’s right to opt out of the processing of the consumer’s personal data for profiling. Additionally, when use of the high-risk AI system results in a decision adverse to the consumer, the deployer must disclose to the consumer (i) the reason for the consequential decision, (ii) the degree to which the AI system was involved in the adverse decision, and (iii) the type of data that was used to determine that decision and where that data was obtained from, giving the consumer the opportunity to correct data that was used about that as well as appeal the adverse decision via human review. Developers must also make additional disclosures regarding information and risks associated with the AI system. Given that the failed Virginia AI Bill had proposed similar obligations, it would be reasonable to consider the CAIA as a roadmap for high-risk AI governance considerations in the United States.
Under Article 8 of the EU AI Act, high-risk AI systems must meet several requirements that tend to be more systemic. These include the implementation, documentation, and maintenance of a risk management system that identifies and analyzes reasonably foreseeable risks the system may pose to health, safety, or fundamental rights, as well as the adoption of appropriate and targeted risk management measures designed to address these identified risks. High-risk AI governance under this law must also include:
Validating and testing data sets involved in the development of AI models used in a high-risk AI system to ensure they are sufficiently representative, free of errors, and complete in view of the intended purpose of the AI system;
Technical documentation that demonstrates the high-risk AI system complies with the requirements set out in the EU AI Act, to be drawn up before the system goes to market and is regularly maintained;
The AI system must allow for the automatic recording of events (logs) over the lifetime of the system;
The AI system must be designed and developed in a manner that allows for sufficient transparency. Deployers must be positioned to properly interpret an AI system’s output. The AI system must also include instructions describing the intended purpose of the AI system and the level of accuracy against which the AI system has been tested;
High risk AI systems must be developed in a manner that allows for them to be effectively overseen by natural persons when they are in use; and
High risk AI systems must deploy appropriate levels of accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity, which are performed consistently throughout the lifecycle of the AI system.
When deploying high risk AI systems, in-scope companies must carve out the necessary resources to not only assess whether they fall within this categorization, but also to ensure the variety of requirements are adequately considered and implemented prior to deployment of the AI system.
The Insurtech space is growing in parallel with the expanding patchwork of U.S. AI regulations. Prudent growth in the industry requires awareness of the associated legal dynamics, including emerging regulatory concepts nationwide.
[1] Subsection (1) states that an AI system is high-risk if it is “intended to be used as a safety component of a product (or is a product) covered by specific EU harmonization legislation listed in Annex I of the AI Act and the same harmonization legislation mandates that he product hat incorporates the AI system as a safety component, or the AI system itself as a stand-alone product, under a third-party conformity assessment before being placed in the EU market.”
[2] Annex 3 of the EU AI Act can be found at https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/annex/3/
[3] Under the CAIA, a “Developer” is a person doing business in Colorado that develops or intentionally and substantially modifies an AI system.
[4] Under the CAIA, a “Deployer” is a persona doing business in Colorado that deploys a High-Risk AI System.
Shenzhen Releases Patent Subsidy Data – Huawei Received Over 35 Million RMB for Foreign Patent Grants
On April 14, 2025, the Shenzhen Municipal Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released the List of recipients of the second batch of special funds for intellectual property rights in Shenzhen in 2023 for foreign invention patent authorization (深圳市2023年第二批知识产权领域专项资金国外发明专利授权资助领款名单). Combined with the List of recipients of Shenzhen’s 2023 special fund for intellectual property rights for foreign invention patent authorization (深圳市2023年知识产权领域专项资金国外发明专利授权资助领款名单) published on March 28, 2024 Shenzhen’s SAMR has subsidized Huawei a total of 35,168,904 RMB for foreign patents granted in 2023. Huawei also received 2,619,103 RMB for Chinese invention patents that granted in 2023. ZTE and Tencent also received significant subsidies for foreign patent grants. Note that these statistics do not include subsidies for subsidiaries located in other cities. Note that direct subsidies for grants will end this year.
The top 5 total 2023 subsidies for foreign patent grants are:
No.
Name of the recipient
Amount
1
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
CNY 35,168,904.98
2
ZTE Corporation
CNY 19,605,473.78
3
Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
CNY 13,358,477.67
4
Shenzhen Goodix Technology Co., Ltd.
CNY 7,249,009.85
5
Shenzhen DJI Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
CNY 6,430,024.87
The original data for the first tranche is here (Chinese only) and second tranche here (Chinese only). Translated datasets are available here: DomesticPatent1; ForeignPatent1; ForeignPatent2; and DomesticPatent2.
Europe: Central Bank of Ireland updates its UCITS Q&A on Portfolio Transparency for ETFs
In a move that will be welcomed by asset managers conducting ETF business in Ireland, or those who are hoping to move into the Irish ETF space, the Central Bank of Ireland has moved to allow for the establishment of semi-transparent ETFs by amending its requirements for portfolio transparency.
Previously, the Central Bank’s UCITS Q&A 1012 provided that the Central Bank would not authorise an ETF unless arrangements were put in place to ensure that information is provided on a daily basis regarding the identities and quantities of portfolio holdings.
The revised Q&A however, while retaining the ability for ETFs to publish holdings on a daily basis, now provides flexibility in that “periodic disclosures” are now permissible, once the following conditions are adhered to:
appropriate information is disclosed on a daily basis to facilitate an effective arbitrage mechanism;
the prospectus discloses the type of information that is provided in point (1);
this information is made available on a non-discriminatory basis to authorised participants (APs) and market makers (MMs);
there are documented procedures to address circumstances where the arbitrage mechanism of the ETF is impaired;
there is a documented procedure for investors to request portfolio information; and
the portfolio holdings as at the end of each calendar quarter are disclosed publicly within 30 business days of the end of the quarter.
These new semi-transparent ETFs will be most attractive for active asset managers who have previously been dissuaded from establishing an ETF in Ireland due to their reluctance to share their proprietary information.