Antitrust Bites – Newsletter

Launch of a market investigation into competition issues in the Italian motor third-party liability insurance sector

By decision of 9 June 2026, the ICA launched a market investigation aimed at examining potential competition concerns in the compulsory motor third-party liability insurance sector. The market study will be conducted jointly by the ICA and the Italian Insurance Supervisory Authority (IVASS), reflecting the two authorities' shared interest in investigating the issues covered by the study.

The purpose of the market investigation is to assess whether, and to what extent, legislative and regulatory measures could be introduced in the motor third-party liability insurance sector to promote competition, in light of the concerns identified by the ICA and described in the decision launching the investigation.

In particular, the market investigation focuses on four main areas:

• Risk allocation mechanisms. The market study aims, in particular, to assess whether the progressive “saturation” of the bonus-malus scheme and the increasing use of insurers' internal merit classes may hinder consumer switching and affect the proper determination of insurance premiums.
• Direct compensation scheme. Under the current system, injured parties may seek compensation directly from their own insurer, while insurers subsequently settle claims through an inter-company compensation mechanism based on standardised average cost parameters. The ICA intends to assess whether this mechanism may distort pricing policies, reduce insurers' incentives to control claims costs and, more generally, affect competitive dynamics.
• The role of telematics devices for monitoring driving behaviour and vehicle activity (black boxes). The initiative seeks to determine whether, notwithstanding recent legislative measures aimed at facilitating consumer switching, barriers to data portability and customer mobility continue to exist.
• Effectiveness of price comparison tools. According to the ICA, premium comparison tools may be less effective due to the widespread application of discounts and the increasing complexity of insurance offers, both of which may reduce the effective comparability of policies. The ICA therefore intends to assess whether the use of such tools raises concerns regarding the information available to consumers when selecting motor third-party liability insurance policies.

As part of the market investigation, the ICA has invited interested stakeholders to submit their views by 31 July 2026.

 

EU General Court rules on the lawfulness of the Commission's requests for information extending to employees’ personal devices

In its judgments of 3 June 2026 in Vivendi (T-1097/23) and Lagardère (T-1119/23), the General Court of the European Union dismissed the actions brought against two European Commission decisions adopted pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EU Merger Regulation – EUMR), confirming the lawfulness of requests for information covering documents stored on personal accounts and devices used for professional purposes.

The contested decisions were adopted in the context of an investigation aimed at determining whether the standstill obligation had been infringed in connection with Vivendi's acquisition of sole control of Lagardère. More specifically, by means of those decisions, the Commission required the companies to collect and produce documents identified through specific search criteria, including emails, instant messages and other communications stored on personal devices, provided that such devices had been used at least once for professional purposes.

With regard to the Commission's investigative powers, the General Court clarified that Article 11(3) EUMR confers on the Commission an autonomous power to request all information necessary for the performance of the tasks entrusted to it under the Regulation. That power may also be exercised after a merger clearance decision has been adopted where this is necessary to verify compliance with the obligations laid down in the EUMR. The court also rejected Vivendi's plea that the Commission had relied on a request for information instead of carrying out an inspection to circumvent the more stringent procedural safeguards applicable to the latter. The General Court held that this choice does not constitute a misuse of powers, observing that requests for information and inspections are distinct investigative tools and that the Commission retains a margin of discretion in choosing which investigative measure to employ.

The General Court acknowledged that requests for information of such breadth constitute a serious interference with the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since they may extend to communications stored on personal devices and require the production of entire conversation threads.

However, the court found that such interference complies with Article 52 of the Charter. In this regard, it held that the requests are based on a sufficiently clear legal basis, pursue the objective of general interest consisting in the effective enforcement of the competition rules, and are limited in terms of their personal, temporal and substantive scope. In particular, the requests concerned a limited number of individuals, covered a specific period of time, and sought documents identified through predetermined search criteria. The General Court also attached importance to the procedural safeguards put in place by the Commission to protect sensitive personal data, professional legal privilege and journalistic sources.

The judgments further state that the Commission’s investigative powers would be deprived of their practical effect if companies could evade requests for information merely because the relevant documents are stored on personal devices or are labelled as “personal” or “private.” In the Lagardère judgment, the General Court also clarified that difficulties in retrieving work-related communications stored on personal devices cannot be relied upon against the Commission where such difficulties result from the company's decision to allow the use of those devices for work purposes (Bring Your Own Device – BYOD policies) without implementing appropriate mechanisms for managing work-related communications.

 

Unfair commercial practices: the Council of State overturns an ICA decision accepting commitments

With judgement of 17 June 2026, the Council of State upheld the appeal filed by IASA, a company operating in the canned fish sector, and annulled the decision by which the ICA had accepted the commitments proposed by Bolton Food. The proceedings concerned an alleged unfair commercial practice of using the term “grilled” on the packaging of “Rio Mare” brand salmon and mackerel fillets.

According to the appellant, this claim was potentially misleading because it attributed a non-existent cooking method to the product. The canned fish products in question are not grilled but merely resemble grilled fish in appearance. Therefore, the claim misled consumers as to a key characteristic of the product, namely the method of production. To remedy this, Bolton Food undertook to amend its marketing communications to make consumers aware that the grilling in question was merely a stage in the cooking process. More specifically, Bolton committed to including the statement “grilling is one of the stages of the cooking process” on product packaging and in commercial communications.

The ICA deemed these measures sufficient to address the potential unfairness of the practice, accepting them and closing the proceedings without issuing a finding of infringement. However, IASA challenged this decision before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court. After its initial appeal was dismissed, IASA appealed to the Council of State, which delivered the judgment in question.

First, the Council of State recognised IASA's standing and interest in bringing the action, reaffirming that even a party who isn’t the direct recipient of an administrative measure may bring a lawsuit to protect its subjective legal position – provided that such position is legally recognised and distinct – by demonstrating the harm it has suffered or is at risk of suffering. In the present case, this condition was deemed to be met, since IASA, as a direct competitor, has a legitimate interest in seeking the restoration of fair information and competitive conditions in the market, which were altered by using the deceptive claim.

Secondly, the court noted that the decision to accept the commitments is based on a manifest misrepresentation of the facts and clarified that such a defect rendered the decision subject to review by the Court even on the merits.

In particular, the ICA erroneously assumed the existence of a searing phase, whereas the record shows that the cooking process did not include grilling the product. The process aims to create a "grilled appearance", which is a visual effect rather than a cooking method. The only stage involving actual cooking is the final sterilisation, which is true for all tinned fish products and has nothing to do with grilling.

It follows that the specification introduced by the commitments describes a production stage that doesn’t exist; it doesn’t clarify the claim but introduces further misleading information.

Finally, the Council of State found that there were deficiencies in the investigation and in the reasoning, noting that the ICA had essentially limited itself to adopting the report provided by Bolton Food, without conducting its own investigation and without providing adequate reasoning regarding the adequacy of the commitments.

For these reasons, the Council of State overturned the contested judgment and the ICA will have to rule again on the matter.

 

Lazio Regional Administrative Court rules on the ICA’s liability for infringement of legitimate interests

With judgement published on 16 June 2026, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court ruled on the issue of the ICA’s liability for damages resulting from the infringement of legitimate interests.

The ruling stems from an action for damages filed by a company against the ICA, following the administrative courts’ annulment of the decision by which the ICA imposed a fine on the company for an alleged abuse of a dominant position.

Preliminarily, the court recalled the case-law of the Joint Section of the Italian Supreme Court, which qualifies the liability of the public administration for infringement of a legitimate interest as liability for breach of duty, emphasizing the private party’s reliance on the propriety of administrative action. However, this approach – based on the existence of a “qualified relationship” between the administration and the private party affected by the administrative action – was not endorsed by the court.

The ruling in question adheres to the distinct, well-established case-law of the administrative courts, according to which the liability of the public administration for infringement of legitimate interests (whether arising from mere conduct or from an unlawful decision) must be framed within the framework of tort liability under Article 2043 of the Civil Code and not as liability for breach of contract. Based on this case-law, the existence of a binding obligation analogous to a contractual one is ruled out in a context characterized by the asymmetry inherent in the relationship between the private individual and the administration, which acts in the exercise of authoritative powers aimed at pursuing a public interest.

It follows that, to determine the Authority’s liability for damages, the plaintiff must provide evidence of all the elements constituting a civil tort, both from an objective standpoint (unlawful damage and a causal link) and from a subjective standpoint (intent or negligence of the administration causing the damage).

In the case at hand, the court ruled that the conditions for holding the ICA liable were not met, finding the lack of the subjective element. The court clarified that this element cannot be deemed automatically satisfied merely because the sanctioning decision was annulled by a court, to prevent a mechanistic interpretation of administrative liability.

To this regard, the ruling emphasized the complexity of the procedure before the ICA, both from a procedural and an evaluative standpoint, highlighting how an automatic award of damages based solely on the unlawfulness of the decision would risk acting as a disincentive to the Authority’s exercise of its institutional functions.

In light of these considerations, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating the need for a rigorous and detailed assessment of the subjective element of liability, also to safeguard the Authority’s (institutionally necessary) operational “peace of mind.”

 

The Commission updates the Q&A on Directive (EU) 2024/825

On 18 May 2026, the European Commission updated the Q&A document regarding the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2024/825, transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No 20/2026. The Directive amends Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices and Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, with a view to strengthening consumer protection against greenwashing, non-transparent sustainability labels, the early obsolescence of goods, and misleading information on the social characteristics of products or businesses.

The new version of the Q&A reiterates that: (i) the Directive is strictly limited to business-to-consumer practices; (ii) environmental claims, which are messages or representations which state or imply that a product has a positive or zero impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment than other products, may also be implicit and consist, depending on the circumstances, of images (eg trees, water, animals) and colours (eg blue or green backgrounds and text) associated with environmental sustainability; (iii) an environmental claim isn’t generic where the relevant specification is provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium, for example in the same advertisement or on the product packaging itself; (iv) claims are misleading if they present as benefits to consumers characteristics that are irrelevant and not directly linked to the product or the undertaking.

Furthermore, the new version of the Q&A introduces a significant clarification in the answer to the question concerning the impact of the Directive on brand or product names protected by intellectual property rights. While the first edition of the Q&A merely provided for the need for a case-by-case assessment to determine whether a brand or product name falls within the scope of the Directive as an environmental claim, the 2026 Q&A clarify that the fact that brand, company or product names contain generic environmental terms or colours associated with sustainability doesn’t automatically qualify them as environmental claims. The term “blue” is also expressly included among the examples of terms which, when used in a brand or product name, could qualify it as an environmental claim.

The Q&A provide guidance on the interpretation of the Directive pending an update of the Commission’s guidance documents on directives 2005/29/CE e 2011/83/UE.