March Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues

Welcome to this edition of the Sidley Antitrust and Competition Bulletin — thoughts on topics that are top of mind for Sidley’s global Antitrust and Competition team and why they may matter to you.

• The European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that a dominant company refusing to ensure the interoperability of its platform with a third-party app can infringe European Union (EU) competition law.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC) leadership announced a Joint Labor Task Force and is soliciting public comment for an investigation considering how platform censorship affects competition. Meanwhile, President Trump fired Democratic FTC Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya.
• The European Commission (EC) published an ex-post evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of EU antitrust remedies and is soliciting feedback on guidelines for its enforcement of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR).

Read more on how this news can affect your business below …

CJEU lowers bar for abuse in Android Auto: In a recent preliminary ruling, the CJEU found that a dominant company may breach EU competition law for refusing to ensure that its digital platform can interoperate with a third-party app if it creates a platform that is even partially open for third-party use. This may be the case even where the platform is not “indispensable” to the app’s commercial operation. The judgment concerns Google’s refusal to enable Enel’s EV-charging app JuicePass to be compatible with Android Auto, which makes Android apps appear directly on a vehicle’s display screen.

Why it matters: Traditionally, in Europe, the infrastructure in question in a refusal-to-supply case needed to be “indispensable” to the disaffected business, among other conditions, in order to lead to a violation. The CJEU has departed from this rule in certain circumstances (see, e.g., our Sidley Update on the Google Shopping case here), including now in Android Auto. Now, where digital platforms are created with a view to enabling third-party access, for there to be a refusal-to-supply violation it is sufficient that the refused access would obstruct, delay, or block a competing third party in a way that could harm consumers, without needing to show that the platform is “indispensable.” The judgment bolsters the EU’s enforcement powers and could be expected to widen a gap between antitrust enforcement in the EU and U.S.

FTC interest in labor issues continues under new leadership: On February 26, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson issued a memorandum directing the FTC to form a Joint Labor Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force will consist of the Directors of the FTC Bureaus of Competition, Consumer Protection and Economics and its Office of Policy Planning. The FTC’s agenda has an emphasis on protecting consumers in their roles as both consumers and as workers. The memorandum scrutinized the Biden-Harris administration, claiming that “wages stagnated while job opportunities dwindled,” noted that the “FTC feels workers’ pain,” and pitched that the Trump administration will “make our economy great again for all American workers.” The Task Force will focus on no-poach, nonsolicitation, and no-hire agreements; wage fixing agreements; noncompete agreements; labor-contract termination penalties; labor market monopsonies; collusion or unlawful coordination on diversity, equity, and inclusion metrics; and deceptive job advertising.

Why it matters: While it remains unseen how the closely the FTC will be scrutinizing labor issues, the creation of this Task Force suggests that Ferguson intends to lead the FTC in pursuing investigations and enforcement actions against companies that use these practices. To get ahead of the Task Force’s potential investigations, companies may find it fruitful to discuss their employment practices and information exchanges with antitrust counsel and to ensure that their HR professionals understand antitrust risks inherent in HR practices, even under the new Republican leadership.

FTC looking into platform censorship as it relates to competition: The FTC issued a request for information (RFI) for public comment through May 21, 2025, with respect to its investigation into how technology platforms’ content censorship practices (1) may have affected competition and (2) may have resulted from a lack of competition. The RFI specifically calls for comments from users of tech platforms (including social media, video sharing, photo sharing, ride sharing, event planning, internal or external communications, or other internet services) who have been banned or otherwise censored. The RFI states that such censorship may be based on users’ speech and affiliations, including activities taking place outside of the platform, which the FTC alleges may be potentially unfair methods of competition that harm both creators and receivers of content.

Why it matters: Left-biased censorship on social media platform has been a focus of the American political right for some time now. The FTC under its new Chairman, Andrew N. Ferguson, is likely to intensify scrutiny on technology platforms’ censorship practices. When President Trump nominated Ferguson as Chair, he observed [comment] that Ferguson had a “proven record of standing up to Big Tech censorship,” and Ferguson pledged to “end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech.” The RFI has a wide scope, inquiring into the conduct of platforms, platform executives and employees, advertisers, governments, foreign entities, content creators, and content users.

President Donald Trump fires the two Democratic FTC Commissioners: On March 18, 2025, President Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic Commissioners at the FTC. When fully staffed, the FTC has five Commissioners, with no more than three from the same political party as the President. The termination of Slaughter and Bedoya leaves the FTC with just two active Commissioners, Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. Mark Meador, who would be the third Republican Commissioner, has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

By statute, FTC Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms. Slaughter initially accepted her appointment as Commissioner in 2018 during President Trump’s first term and was sworn in for a second term in 2023. Bedoya was sworn in as Commissioner in 2022. Both Slaughter and Bedoya contend that as leaders of an independent agency, they were illegally fired and have vowed to challenge their terminations in court. 

Why it matters: In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court held that that FTC Act limited the President’s ability to remove sitting Commissioners for political differences, holding that Commissioners could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” While the fired Commissioners have vowed to challenge their removal, as a practical matter until two new Democratic FTC Commissioners are nominated and confirmed, the Republican-led FTC likely will operate with a quorum of two Republican Commissioners (and three if Meador is confirmed) without Democratic opposition.

EC recommends reforms to antitrust remedies: On February 20, 2025, the EC published a study evaluating remedies and commitments that have been accepted or imposed in antitrust cases over the past 20 years. The study found that only one-third of the remedies were fully implemented, and less than half were fully effective. Despite the EC’s preference for behavioral remedies in antitrust cases, the study found that these were the least successful. The study also analyzed 12 high-profile cases in depth and identified key issues affecting the success of the remedies implemented, such as insufficient design, delays in implementation, and fast-changing market dynamics.

To improve the effectiveness of remedies, the study proposed several recommendations. These include

• allowing the EC to impose a monitoring trustee at the expense of an addressee of an infringement
• removing the requirement under EU law for structural remedies to only be imposed where there is no equally effective behavioral remedy
• increasing the use of interim remedies 
• publishing dedicated antitrust remedies guidance 

Why it matters: The study highlights the EC’s appetite for ensuring effective and robust enforcement. It could mark a shift from the prior focus on behavioral remedies and reflect the EC’s increasing recognition that in dynamic markets, structural measures are perceived to be the most effective enforcement tools.

EC solicits views on FSR guidelines: The EC has broad powers under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) to investigate and address distortions to the EU internal market created by financial contributions granted by non-EU countries to businesses involved in merger-and-acquisition deals, public tender bids, and other economic activities in the EU (see our Sidley Update here). The EC now seeks feedback on a proposal to launch guidelines in relation to some of the more technical aspects of the FSR. The EC invites all interested stakeholders to provide feedback by April 2, 2025, and plans to issue draft guidelines later this year, which will also be open for feedback. The final guidelines are due to be published by January 13, 2026.

Why it matters: As the EC only started to enforce the FSR less than two years ago, many of the key concepts are still in development, such as the notion of “distortion in the internal market.” In its call for feedback, the EC makes the case that the guidelines will contribute to legal certainty, transparency, and predictability. Stakeholders’ observations at this stage can be crucial in shaping the direction of the guidelines.