Building & Corporate Services Technician

EU moves to give dominant companies more flexibility under antitrust rules. By CPI | September 3, 2026 The European Union is preparing to give dominant companies greater scope to defend business practices that might otherwise breach competition rules when those practices strengthen economic resilience or advance other public-policy objectives, according to Bloomberg. The European Commission outlined the approach as part of a revision of its guidance governing how the bloc applies antitrust rules to companies with substantial market power, Bloomberg reported on Sept. 3. Under the proposed framework, companies accused of abusing a dominant position - including through practices such as excessive pricing - could seek to justify their conduct by demonstrating that it supports broader objectives. According to Bloomberg, those considerations may include public health, product safety and improved capacity to withstand disruptions to supply chains. Please add Competition Policy International to your preferred sources list so its news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks! The changes come as European policymakers increasingly focus on the bloc's ability to cope with external economic pressures and supply shortages. The updated guidance would also allow companies to argue that conduct that would ordinarily raise competition concerns produces efficiencies that contribute to EU policy priorities, including sustainability, Bloomberg reported. EU competition chief Teresa Ribera said the revised guidelines are intended to make the boundaries of European competition law clearer for businesses. The guidelines "provide clarity and predictability on the limits of the law for companies operating in Europe," Ribera said in a statement cited by Bloomberg. The initiative represents another adjustment to the EU's competition framework as policymakers seek to balance traditional antitrust enforcement with concerns over Europe's industrial strength and economic security. According to Bloomberg, EU regulators had already revised their approach to mergers earlier this year, reducing some obstacles to combinations that could create larger European companies capable of competing more effectively with major US and Chinese rivals. Taken together, the changes signal a broader effort by Brussels to consider resilience, scale and strategic policy objectives alongside competition concerns when determining how its rules should apply to European businesses. US shale producers must face oil price-fixing claims, judge rules. By CPI | September 3, 2026 Major U.S. shale producers including Pioneer Natural Resources, Diamondback Energy, Occidental Petroleum and Continental Resources must face allegations that they coordinated production restraints to push up oil and fuel prices, after a federal judge rejected most of the industry's bid to dismiss sprawling antitrust litigation. U.S. District Judge Matthew L. Garcia in New Mexico ruled Aug. 31 that consumers, businesses and local governments had alleged enough facts at this stage to support an inference that shale producers agreed to restrict domestic output. Law360 reported Sept. 2 that Garcia preserved the core of the consolidated proposed class action while dismissing only a limited number of state-law claims. The ruling doesn't determine that the companies participated in an unlawful conspiracy, but allows most of the case to proceed. The plaintiffs accuse eight domestic shale producers and two executives of participating in an agreement to restrain U.S. production and artificially increase prices for crude oil and refined products including gasoline, diesel and home-heating oil, according to Garcia's opinion. The producer defendants include Permian Resources Corp., Expand Energy Corp., Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy Inc., EOG Resources Inc., Hess Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co. Former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield and Hess CEO John Hess were also named. The consolidated complaint asserts 54 claims and seeks certification of a nationwide class of end purchasers for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act, along with damages under various state laws. Please add Competition Policy International to your preferred sources list so its news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks! According to allegations summarized by the court, hydraulic fracturing helped fuel a surge in U.S. oil production during the shale revolution. The plaintiffs contend producers later moved away from aggressive production growth and coordinated restraints on output. Garcia concluded that the complaint, viewed as a whole, plausibly alleges a domestic agreement aimed at limiting U.S. production and raising prices. He cited allegations involving market conditions, production decisions, communications and public statements in finding that the conspiracy claims could proceed. The defendants had challenged the case on several grounds, including whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged an antitrust conspiracy and whether disputes touching on OPEC and global petroleum markets could properly be decided by a federal court. Garcia rejected arguments for dismissal under the political-question and act-of-state doctrines, emphasizing that the central allegation concerns an agreement among domestic defendants rather than an agreement involving OPEC members or foreign governments. The producers did prevail on some issues. Several state-law claims were dismissed or restricted, and Expand Energy secured dismissal of the Sherman Act claim against it. Garcia otherwise denied individual dismissal motions from Continental, Diamondback, EOG, Permian Resources and Occidental, while Hess's effort to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim was also rejected. Personal-jurisdiction questions involving Hess, John Hess and Pioneer remain unresolved. Garcia ordered limited discovery on those issues.

US shale producers lose bid to toss oil price antitrust case. By CPI | September 1, 2026 Diamondback Energy, Occidental Petroleum and other US oil producers will have to defend against lawsuits accusing them of coordinating shale-production decisions in a way that pushed up crude and fuel prices, after a federal judge rejected key efforts to throw out the litigation. US District Judge Matthew Garcia in New Mexico ruled that plaintiffs had alleged enough facts for their central federal antitrust claims to proceed, according to Reuters. The lawsuits contend that producers conspired to restrain shale-oil output and thereby increased prices for crude and petroleum products including gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuel. The ruling represents a setback for some of the biggest companies in the US shale industry, including Diamondback Energy Inc. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., which have denied wrongdoing. Garcia did dismiss some claims brought under state law, giving the defendants a partial victory, Reuters reported. At this stage of the litigation, the judge isn't deciding whether an illegal agreement actually existed. Instead, his decision allows the plaintiffs to continue trying to prove their allegations as the cases move forward. Garcia found that the plaintiffs had plausibly described conduct from which coordination could potentially be inferred, including market circumstances, production choices, communications among industry participants and public statements. The judge also said some of the alleged interactions went beyond ordinary exchanges of industry information and could support an inference of an agreement. Please add Competition Policy International to your preferred sources list so its news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks! The litigation combines cases filed beginning in 2024 by commercial plaintiffs and government-related consumer plaintiffs. Those cases were consolidated before Garcia in federal court in New Mexico, according to Reuters. The allegations focus on shale oil, a major component of US crude production that is commonly extracted using hydraulic fracturing. Plaintiffs contend that restraints on shale output ultimately translated into higher prices for fuels purchased by consumers and businesses. The producers had urged the court to dismiss the cases, arguing that the complaints failed to establish direct or circumstantial evidence of an unlawful conspiracy. They also disputed the idea that their production behavior showed coordinated action, noting that some companies expanded output during the period in which the alleged scheme was said to have operated, according to Reuters. The defendants additionally argued that adjudicating the claims risked drawing the judiciary into political and foreign-policy matters more appropriately handled elsewhere in government. Garcia rejected that argument, finding that the essential issue was whether US companies and individuals had illegally coordinated production and that established antitrust law supplied standards for addressing the dispute, Reuters reported. The decision doesn't establish liability or determine whether consumers actually paid more because of coordinated production cuts. It instead keeps the core allegations alive, setting the stage for further litigation over one of the more consequential antitrust challenges confronting the US shale sector. States, Writers Guild urge judge to reject Paramount's $1.9 billion bond demand. By CPI | September 1, 2026 California and 11 other states, joined by the Writers Guild of America, urged a federal judge to reject Paramount Skydance's request for a roughly $1.9 billion bond, escalating the legal fight Tuesday over the company's planned $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The opposition puts the focus back on the mounting cost of delaying one of Hollywood's largest proposed combinations. In a court filing, the states and the WGA argued that Paramount voluntarily accepted the financial obligations it now wants its legal challengers to cover, according to the source report provided from IMDb and reporting published Tuesday. Paramount has asked US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin to require the plaintiffs to post a $1.88 billion bond that could compensate the company for losses if it ultimately defeats their antitrust challenges. The states countered that Paramount shouldn't be allowed to transfer the financial consequences of agreements it entered into willingly. "Paramount now wishes to offload its responsibility," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in the court filing, according to Reuters. At issue are escalating "ticking fees" built into Paramount's agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. Beginning Oct. 1, Paramount is due to pay 25 cents a share for each quarter the transaction remains unfinished, equivalent to about $650 million a quarter or $7 million a day, according to the IMDb source report. Those costs could climb above $1 billion by the time the antitrust case reaches trial in March. Paramount has estimated that the fees could result in about $1.3 billion of unrecoverable losses by the time the trial concludes and final briefs are filed in April, according to The Wrap. The states argued that those expenses are effectively self-imposed. Paramount agreed to the ticking-fee provision and later consented to refrain from completing the merger until the antitrust litigation is resolved or June 1, 2027, whichever comes first, according to the filing. Please add Competition Policy International to your preferred sources list so its news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks! The plaintiffs also contend that no bond is necessary because Martinez-Olguin previously found that the states brought their case to enforce significant public interests when she issued a temporary restraining order. They argue Paramount hasn't demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to justify altering that position, according to the IMDb report. Paramount, meanwhile, says the plaintiffs shouldn't be insulated from the financial consequences of delaying the transaction if their antitrust challenge ultimately fails. The company said the states "should not get a free pass" from posting security against potential losses and argued that the plaintiffs can't simultaneously seek to prevent the merger from closing while accepting no responsibility for the resulting costs if they lose the case, according to Reuters. The legal challenge remains a significant obstacle for Paramount Chief Executive Officer David Ellison's effort to combine the two entertainment companies. Paramount says regulators representing at least 68 countries have approved or declined to challenge the transaction, leaving the lawsuits as the remaining hurdle to completion. The financial stakes rise considerably if the dispute drags on. Paramount could owe Warner Bros. Discovery a $7 billion termination fee if regulatory issues ultimately prevent the deal from closing, while the merger agreement has an outside completion date in June 2027, according to the source report. The latest filing leaves Martinez-Olguin to decide whether the states and writers must provide financial security while pursuing their effort to stop the transaction - a ruling that could affect not only the economics of the litigation but also the pressure on both sides as the March trial approaches.