The Pulse — Edition 01: Competitive Edge: Legal Insights

December 2025 | Başaran Law Firm

The Cover-Up Can Cost as Much as the Crime

On November 20, 2025, the Turkish Competition Board fined Coca-Cola Satış ve Dağıtım AŞ an enormous 282,416,376.34 TL. The most surprising fact is that this penalty was not for an underlying competition violation, but for preventing and/or obstructing an on-site inspection (colloquially known as a "dawn raid").

The violation occurred during an inspection where experts detected that a manager of the undertaking had deleted data after the inspection had already begun. The Board's response was severe, imposing a penalty of 0.5% of the company's 2024 gross revenues.

This case is a stark warning that, in an era of advanced forensic technology, which the Authority explicitly states it uses, obstructing an investigation is not a matter of risk, but of inevitable detection. The Board's decision to impose the maximum fine demonstrates that it considers procedural integrity as foundational as the competition rules themselves.

Regulators Can Be Pragmatic

In contrast to these heavy fines, a recent decision involving Ferrero shows a different side of the regulator—one that values flexibility over rigid enforcement. The Turkish Competition Board agreed to revise a previously imposed commitment on Ferrero regarding its activities in the Turkish nut market.

Specifically, for 2025 only, Ferrero lowered its minimum purchase requirement for in-shell nuts during the September-December period from 45,000 tons to 30,000 tons. This adjustment was made in response to a decrease in market yields and emerging quality issues.

However, this flexibility operates within a clear framework, as other key commitments for the 2024-2026 period remain entirely in effect, including obligations to:

• Not purchase nuts below the intervention reference price.
• Not exceed the purchase of 100,000 tons of in-shell nuts during the season.

This illustrates that the Board's pragmatic approach is deliberate and grounded in a clear framework of established rules.

Market Dominance Comes with Strict Rules

In a decision dated October 23, 2025, the Turkish Competition Board imposed a fine of 284,509,319.04 TL on the Novonesis economic unity for abusing its dominant position. The Board identified Novonesis as a dominant player in the markets for (i) asparaginase enzyme, (ii) fungal alpha amylase enzyme, and (iii) glucoamylase enzyme.

The company's violation stemmed from a series of exclusionary behaviours designed to hinder competitors. These included:

• Best price guarantee clauses and loyalty-inducing discount systems (asparaginase enzyme market).
• Loyalty-inducing discount systems (fungal alpha amylase market).
• Exclusive agreements and loyalty-inducing discount systems (glucoamylase enzyme market).

This decision underscores a critical principle: standard business practices like discounts and exclusivity clauses can become illegal when wielded by a dominant player to unfairly block rivals from the market.

Beyond the Threshold: The EU Investigates Amazon and Microsoft's Cloud Dominance

Cloud computing is vital for digital services and AI development, and it is currently under investigation by the European Commission, focusing on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure. The aim is to assess their market power under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The Commission has decided to investigate these companies even though they do not automatically qualify as gatekeepers under the DMA. Years of analysis indicate that AWS and Azure hold strong positions that require regulatory attention.

This investigation proves that the Commission is not waiting to flex its new muscles and is actively monitoring compliance. The potential consequences are severe, with possible fines of up to 10% of a company's total worldwide turnover, rising to 20% for repeated infringements.

Old-School Collusion Concerns Hit Modern Finance

The European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation into financial infrastructure giants Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq. This case brings the focus back to the fundamentals of competition law, with concerns that the two companies may have engaged in classic anticompetitive behaviour—an agreement not to compete, combined with coordinated pricing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information—in the market for financial derivatives.

This investigation is a powerful reminder that the Commission is pursuing a two-pronged enforcement strategy. While it pioneers novel enforcement actions under the FSR and DMA and in areas like category management, it is simultaneously maintaining aggressive, foundational policing of traditional anticompetitive conduct.

Big Tech's New Rulebook Is Already Biting

Demonstrating its readiness to enforce new digital regulations, the Commission launched an investigation into Google's parent company, Alphabet, for a potential breach of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The inquiry centres on Google's 'site reputation abuse policy' and whether its application unfairly demotes news media and other publishers' content in its search results.

The importance of this move lies in its timing. The DMA is a brand-new regulation, with compliance only required since March 2024.

The War on "Drip Pricing" Is Officially On

Drip pricing is the practice of advertising an initial low price, only to "drip" mandatory fees onto the total later in the buying process. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has now declared all-out war on this tactic, launching a major enforcement drive under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).

While certain aspects of drip pricing have long been prohibited under the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, the law lacked effective enforcement. What's new—and shocking—is that the CMA now has the power to enforce these rules directly and with devastating financial penalties.

The CMA has opened formal investigations into 8 businesses suspected of infringing consumer law:

• StubHub and viagogo: For how they present mandatory additional charges on tickets.
• AA Driving School and BSM Driving School: For the presentation of mandatory fees.
• Gold's Gym: For its presentation of a one-off joining fee introduced partway through the sign-up process.
• Wayfair and Appliances Direct: For potentially misleading time-limited sales.
• Marks Electrical and Appliances Direct: For automatically opting consumers into additional charges for services.

EU's New Foreign Subsidy Regime Is Shaping Cross-Border M&A

The European Commission gave its conditional approval for the acquisition of Germany's Covestro by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), a state-owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates. This is a landmark case under the new Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), a tool designed to target subsidies from non-EU governments that could distort the European single market.

The Commission's primary concern was an "unlimited State guarantee" that ADNOC received, which could have unfairly improved its ability to finance activities in the EU. To address the Commission's concerns, ADNOC had to commit to sharing Covestro's valuable sustainability patents with certain market participants at transparent terms and conditions set in advance for a period of 10 years.

Antitrust Gets Creative with "Category Management"

The European Commission also opened a formal investigation into Red Bull, the global energy drink manufacturer. The core concern is that the company may be abusing its dominant market position to restrict competition, specifically by targeting rival energy drinks sold in cans larger than 250ml.

What makes this case particularly novel is its focus on a subtle, modern business practice. This is the Commission's first-ever formal investigation into the potential misuse of a "category management" position.

This term refers to an arrangement in which a retailer entrusts a key supplier—in this case, Red Bull—to manage the marketing, placement, and assortment for an entire product category, including competitors' products.

This investigation is significant because it shows that the Commission is looking beyond obvious anticompetitive behaviour, such as price-fixing. It is now scrutinising how influential suppliers can leverage their trusted relationships with retailers to unfairly disadvantage rivals on the store shelf.

*This newsletter is prepared solely for informational purposes and does not constitute any legal advice for a specific case or client.