The Pulse — Edition 03: Competitive Edge: Legal Insights
January 2026 | Başaran Law Firm
Dyson's Clean Sweep Under Scrutiny: Turkish Regulator Probes Anti-Competitive Practices
The Turkish Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu) has opened a formal investigation into the Turkish subsidiary of Dyson, a major supplier of high-end consumer electronics. The investigation, brought under Article 4 of Law No. 4054, was triggered by preliminary findings from on-site inspections. These findings suggest that Dyson may have engaged in practices aimed at preventing parallel imports of its products into Turkey and interfering with the resale conditions of its authorised distributors. The authority's investigation will also include a detailed review of Dyson's selective distribution system to determine if it complies with competition law.
Suppliers operating selective distribution systems must ensure their policies do not cross the line into illegal conduct. Practices that restrict parallel trade or amount to resale price maintenance are consistent and high-priority targets for competition authorities worldwide, and a sophisticated distribution model is no defence against allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.
Turkish TV Titans Fined for Wage-fixing, Forced to Dismantle Distribution Cartel
The Turkish Competition Authority (Rekabet Kurumu) has concluded a major investigation into production companies AY YAPIM and MED YAPIM, imposing significant fines and requiring structural changes to their business operations. The authority's decision addressed two distinct violations of Turkish competition law:
- Labour Market Collusion: AY YAPIM and MED YAPIM were fined approximately 75.8 million TL and 47.8 million TL, respectively, for a per se illegal practice: the mutual exchange of sensitive, current information regarding employee wages.
- Distribution Cartel: The companies' joint distribution venture, MADD, was deemed to be a competition-restricting agreement. As a remedy, the companies have committed to the complete dissolution of MADD and are prohibited from engaging in future joint distribution activities or using certain exclusivity clauses in contracts with talent and broadcasters.
This case highlights a dual risk for businesses. First, competition law applies just as aggressively to labour markets as it does to product markets; wage-fixing and other "no-poach" style agreements are prime enforcement targets. Second, joint ventures between major competitors will be dismantled if regulators find they are being used as a vehicle for collusion rather than for genuine efficiencies.
Google's AI Appetite Under Fire: EU Probes Content "Harvesting"
The European Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation into Google, probing whether the tech giant has breached EU competition rules by using content from web publishers and YouTube to train its artificial intelligence models. The investigation centres on a potential abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 of the TFEU, with the Commission raising two primary concerns:
The Commission is examining whether Google uses publisher content to power its AI-driven search services (like AI Overviews and AI Mode) without providing appropriate compensation or a meaningful way for publishers to refuse. Publishers may be forced to allow this use of their content or risk losing critical user traffic from Google Search.
A parallel concern involves YouTube, where creators must grant Google permission to use their data for AI training without remuneration. At the same time, rival AI developers are explicitly barred by YouTube's policies from using the platform's content to train their own models.
This investigation signals a major new front in antitrust enforcement. Dominant platforms that leverage their vast repositories of user and third-party data to gain a competitive edge in the emerging AI market are now under intense regulatory scrutiny. The "permissionless" use of content for AI training is no longer being ignored.
Vandermoortele/Délifrance Merger Cleared in EU After Key Divestments
The European Commission has approved the Vandemoortele Group's acquisition of Délifrance, but only after the companies committed to significant divestments. The Commission's initial investigation raised serious competition concerns in the markets for frozen laminated dough products in France and Italy.
The Commission found that the transaction would have created either the largest or second-largest player in highly concentrated markets, facing very limited competitive pressure from the few remaining credible suppliers. To resolve these concerns, the companies offered a structural remedy: the divestment of two of Délifrance's key production sites in France (in Avignon and Béthune). The divestment package includes all necessary assets, personnel, and customer contracts to ensure the buyer can operate as a strong, independent competitor from day one.
This outcome underscores the critical need for a multi-jurisdictional strategy in major European mergers. The remedies required by the European Commission to resolve issues in France and Italy were essential for the deal to proceed, directly impacting the strategic calculus for the parties as they simultaneously navigated the parallel investigation by the UK's CMA.
The €120 Million Blue Check: EU Hits X with First-Ever DSA Fine
In a landmark move, the European Commission has fined X (formerly Twitter) €120 million for breaching its transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This represents the first non-compliance decision and financial penalty issued under the EU's new digital rulebook. The Commission identified three specific infringements:
- Deceptive Design: The platform's use of the 'blue checkmark' was found to be a deceptive practice. It falsely implies a user has been verified when the checkmark is merely a paid subscription, a design choice that exposes users to scams and impersonation fraud.
- Lack of Transparency: X's advertisement repository fails to meet DSA requirements, lacking critical information and incorporating design barriers that hinder the ability of researchers and the public to scrutinise online advertising campaigns.
- Failure to Provide Data Access: The platform failed to provide vetted researchers with access to its public data, a key DSA obligation designed to enable independent research into systemic online risks.
The DSA is not a paper tiger. This inaugural fine sends an unmistakable message to all designated online platforms operating in the EU: the Commission is prepared to issue significant financial penalties for platform design choices and transparency failures. Accountability for the online environment has arrived, and it carries a hefty price tag.
Is Meta's New WhatsApp Policy an Illegal Blockade? EC Investigates
The European Commission has launched a formal antitrust investigation into a new Meta policy governing access to WhatsApp. The policy, announced in October 2025, prohibits artificial intelligence providers from using the 'WhatsApp Business Solution' if AI is their primary service offering.
The Commission's central concern is that this policy may constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. By blocking competing AI providers from reaching their customers through the ubiquitous WhatsApp platform, Meta could potentially foreclose innovative rivals. This is particularly concerning given that Meta's own 'Meta AI' service would remain fully accessible on the platform, giving it a potentially unassailable advantage.
Platform access policies have become a critical antitrust battleground. This case reinforces the principle that dominant messaging applications cannot arbitrarily restrict access for third-party services, especially when they are simultaneously promoting a competing first-party service. The line between legitimate platform management and illegal foreclosure is now under the microscope.
Alliances at Sea: EU Probes Barcelona Port Deal for Potential Shipping Freeze-Out
The European Commission has opened an in-depth (Phase II) investigation into the proposed acquisition of joint control over Terminal Catalunya ('TERCAT') by Terminal Investment Limited ('TIL') and Hutchison Ports. TERCAT operates the Barcelona Europe South Terminal ('BEST'), a main deep-sea gateway for cargo in the strategically vital port of Barcelona.
The Commission's preliminary investigation raised concerns about a potential significant reduction in competition for container terminal services, driven by a theory of vertical foreclosure. TIL is part of the MSC group, a global leader in container shipping. The risk is that the jointly controlled terminal could provide preferential treatment to MSC's ships, disadvantaging competing shipping lines by subjecting them to higher prices, delayed access to berths, or limited availability of cranes and storage space.
Regulators are highly sceptical of vertical integration deals involving critical infrastructure like ports. Any transaction that gives a dominant downstream player control over an essential upstream facility will likely trigger an in-depth probe to prevent the foreclosure of competitors who rely on that same facility.
UK Bakery Merger Faces Meltdown Over Competition Fears
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has found that the anticipated acquisition of Délifrance S.A. by Vandemoortele Group gives rise to a "realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition" (SLC). In its Phase 1 decision, the regulator identified the specific market as the supply of frozen Laminated Dough (LD) products such as croissants and pains au chocolat to retail and foodservice customers in the UK.
The CMA's initial finding of an SLC is based on the theory of horizontal unilateral effects. The merger would combine two of the four largest suppliers, creating the single largest player in the UK by a considerable margin. The CMA found that the two firms are currently close competitors who exert a strong constraint on one another. This competitive harm is amplified by significant barriers to entry, with third parties informing the CMA that establishing a new production line can cost upwards of €25 million and take up to two years.
This decision is a stark reminder that even in seemingly mature, traditional markets, regulators will intervene aggressively when a deal removes a key competitive constraint. The presence of high barriers to entry, which protect incumbent market power, will almost certainly trigger heightened scrutiny and a demand for remedies.
Student Housing Megamerger Gets Green Light from UK Regulator
In a contrasting decision, the CMA has cleared the anticipated acquisition of Empiric Student Property Plc (which operates as Hello Student) by Unite Group Plc. The authority concluded that the merger would not give rise to an SLC in the provision of corporate purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA).
The clearance came despite the merged entity holding high combined market shares in several key UK university cities, including Bath, Birmingham, Cardiff, and Edinburgh. The core of the CMA's rationale was the significant differentiation between the two companies' offerings. Unite primarily focuses on ensuite rooms let under nomination agreements with higher education institutions (HEIs), typically for first-year undergraduates. In contrast, Empiric focuses on direct-let studio apartments aimed at a different demographic, such as returning undergraduates and postgraduates.
This case powerfully illustrates that a high market share is not a per se violation in UK merger control. A granular analysis demonstrating significant product differentiation and customer segmentation can successfully rebut presumptions of competitive harm, even when headline concentration figures appear problematic.
*This newsletter is prepared solely for informational purposes and does not constitute any legal advice for a specific case or client.