Schjødt Nordic Competition Outlook

On 9 June 2026, the European Commission ordered Meta to immediately restore free access to WhatsApp for competing AI assistants, and to maintain that access for the duration of the Commission's ongoing investigation. The background to the case is that in October 2025, Meta changed its policy to block third-party AI services from connecting to WhatsApp, meaning that only Meta's own AI assistant remained available on the platform. In March 2026, Meta revised the policy to allow access but charged a fee for it. The Commission found that this fee was, in practice, no different from the previous ban. The Commission concluded that there was an urgent need to act before competition in the AI assistant market was permanently damaged, which is why an interim order was issued to prevent serious and irreparable harm on the market before the investigation is completed.

Takeaway: The decision is a sign of the Commission's willingness to adopt interim measures to protect competition in digital markets where the competition conditions change rapidly. It is only the second time the Commission has imposed interim measures under Regulation 1/2003, which underscores how exceptional the Commission views the competitive risk in this case. According to the Commission, competition in the AI assistant market is developing so rapidly that waiting for the outcome of a full investigation risked causing harm that would be almost impossible to repair. The interim order against Meta is therefore intended to preserve the competitive conditions in the market while the investigation proceeds. The case also illustrates the risk of using a fee as a functional substitute for an outright access ban: the Commission found that the fee was, in practice, equivalent to the previous exclusion.

Read more here.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) was notably active in June 2026. In the area of digital markets, the CMA imposed three binding requirements on Google following its designation as a company with so-called 'strategic market status' (companies holding an entrenched position in key digital markets) in search services in October 2025. On 3 June, a publisher conduct requirement was imposed, requiring Google to treat news publishers and other content providers more fairly. On 17 June, the CMA added a fair ranking requirement, aimed at ensuring that Google does not use its search results to favour its own products and services over those of rivals, and a data portability requirement, which obliges Google to give users and third parties better access to data.

Regarding Apple, the CMA launched two new consultations on 30 June: one on a proposed requirement to address how Apple directs users within its platform, and one examining how Apple handles near-field communication (NFC) technology, which is used for contactless payments. The CMA has stated that its broader programme of work on mobile platforms is intended to address the barriers that Apple's closed ecosystem creates for competing app developers and service providers.

Takeaway: The cases illustrate how the SMS regime under the DMCC Act operates in practice: designation is not an endpoint but a starting point for ongoing, wide-ranging intervention across multiple areas of a company's business. Unlike traditional competition enforcement, the regime does not require proof of a legal breach. Designation alone is sufficient to impose binding obligations. The requirements show that the CMA is prepared to regulate SMS holders across the full value chain of their digital activities.

Read more here (Google) and here (Apple).

The Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMCA) has set aside the Swedish Competition Authority's (SCA) decision imposing a SEK 16.9 million fine on bathroom and kitchen fittings supplier Tapwell AB. The SCA had found in December 2023 that, over nearly two and a half years, Tapwell had limited its retailers' freedom to set their own prices when selling Tapwell's products to consumers online, and the Patent and Market Court (PMC) upheld that decision in March 2025. The PMCA, whose decision is final, held that the SCA had not gathered sufficient evidence to prove that Tapwell had actually agreed with its retailers to control resale prices.

Separately, the Patent and Market Court (PMC) overturned the SCA's fines on digital healthcare provider Min Doktor. In April 2025, the SCA imposed fines on the digital healthcare providers Doktor.se, Min Doktor and Doktor 24 for having agreed not to bid on each other's brand names in Google Ads. According to the SCA, the effect was that consumers searching for one provider were not shown alternatives. The Court acknowledged that the agreement was intended to prevent bidding on each other's brand names, but found that this did not, by its nature constitute a restriction of competition. After making an overall assessment of the content of the agreement, the economic and legal context and the agreement's objective aims, the court considered that the agreement was not the kind of coordination that could be considered sufficiently harmful to be prohibited without a fuller assessment of its actual effects.

Read more here (Tapwell) and here (Min Doktor).

Takeaway: Both Swedish cases concern conduct in the digital economy and add to a still limited body of Swedish case law on the application of competition rules to online sales and digital marketing.

The Tapwell judgment adds valuable guidance on the standard of proof in RPM cases. It shows that unilateral pricing pressure is not sufficient. The competition authority must establish an actual agreement or concurrence of wills between supplier and retailer.

Non-brand bidding arrangements (NBBAs) have been investigated by several national competition authorities in several markets over the past years. The Min Doktor judgment offers valuable guidance on the legal standard that must be met before such arrangements may be classified as by-object restrictions. It is the first time a court in the EU has addressed this question directly, and the outcome is that a fuller assessment of economic and legal context is required. Pending investigations into similar NBBAs by the other competition authorities give the judgment broader relevance beyond the Swedish market.

On 4 June 2026, the NCA published an op-ed on the Norwegian Good Trading Practices Act (lov om god handelsskikk), enforcement of which it has recently taken over from Dagligvaretilsynet. The NCA emphasises that the Act complements the Competition Act by promoting fairness and predictability in supplier–retailer dealings without interfering with commercial negotiations, and signals a more active enforcement posture going forward.

On 8 June 2026, the Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA) cleared Telenor's acquisition of GlobalConnect's private customer business subject to remedies. The NCA considers that the parties are close competitors in broadband to private customers and housing cooperatives, particularly in Northern Norway. To address the NCA's concerns, Telenor committed to divest overlapping fibre infrastructure and associated customers, open GlobalConnect's network to competing fibre providers, and divest GlobalConnect customers served via Telenor's network. Closing is conditional on the NCA approving the purchasers of the divested assets.

On 29 June 2026, the NCA issued a 70-working-day notice indicating that it is considering prohibiting Elkjøp Nordic's acquisition of Hovedhuset (Eplehuset). Both are retailers of Apple products, and the NCA is concerned that the transaction would remove competitive pressure between two close competitors and further strengthen Elkjøp's already strong position in the sale of Mac and iPad devices to consumers, in a market with high entry barriers. The parties have until 20 July 2026 to respond, after which the NCA has 15 working days to decide.

Takeaway: Together, the three developments show the NCA active across a broad range of sectors: applying structural remedies to address local overlaps in telecoms mergers, examining retail transactions between close competitors, and taking on enforcement of the Good Trading Practices Act alongside its competition mandate. The Elkjøp/Eplehuset case is noteworthy in that the NCA's concerns focus specifically on the Mac and iPad segment, suggesting the authority is prepared to define narrow product markets when competitive dynamics warrant it.

Read more here (lov om god handelsskikk), here (Telenor/GlobalConnect) and here (Elkjøp/Eplehuset).

In late June 2026, the Danish Competition Council adopted two enforcement decisions, against Scandlines and Meta, while the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (DCCA) separately issued a formal warning (indskærpelse) to Color Line. Taken together, the three matters reflect a clear enforcement focus on how operators in structurally concentrated markets exercise their market power vis-à-vis counterparties that have limited alternatives.

Scandlines – excessive pricing on the Rødby-Puttgarden route. On 24 June 2026, the Competition Council found that Scandlines, the sole provider of car ferry services between Rødby and Puttgarden since 1963, had charged excessive prices to car passengers in 2017 – 2019, in breach of section 11 of the Danish Competition Act and Article 102 TFEU. The Competition Council relied on a profitability analysis, concluding that Scandlines' returns on passenger car transport materially exceeded what could be expected under effective competition. Scandlines has been ordered to cease the infringement and to submit annual documentation demonstrating that its prices are not excessive.

Color Line – discriminatory fee structure and horizontal coordination on the Hirtshals-Larvik Route. Also on 24 June 2026, the DCCA formally warned (indskærpede) Color Line, the sole provider of freight ferry services between Hirtshals and Larvik. Unlike a Council decision, a warning is an administrative measure issued by the DCCA and does not entail a formal finding of infringement. The DCCA's investigation, which followed a dawn raid at Color Line in autumn 2025, raised two distinct concerns: (i) that Color Line's ECS customs scanning fee, charged only to shippers using third-party freight forwarders and waived for customers of Color Line's own forwarding arm, could potentially amount to a pricing and fee structure that favours the operator's own customers and risks foreclosing competitors, potentially constituting an abuse of dominant position, and (ii) that an informal arrangement or practice between Color Line and other undertakings regarding the internal settlement of minor, operationally related services could potentially infringe the prohibition against anti-competitive agreements.

Meta – platform obligations towards business users. In a separate decision of 24 June 2026, brought on a complaint from Danish clothing retailer Clothing By Ros ApS, the Competition Council found that Meta had breached the P2B Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1150) by failing to provide a statement of reasons and an effective internal complaints procedure after the retailer lost access to its Facebook page and sales channel following a hacking incident in September 2023. Access was only restored in July 2025, after the DCCA's intervention. The Competition Council held that Meta's failure to respond was itself a decision attributable to Meta and ordered Meta to comply with the P2B regulation going forward.

Takeaway: The three matters send a consistent signal to operators with strong positions in concentrated markets and to large digital platforms doing business in Denmark:

• Excessive pricing is back on the agenda as a stand-alone theory of harm. Scandlines is one of very few recent Nordic excessive pricing cases and confirms that the Danish competition authorities are willing to rely on profitability analyses to establish an infringement, and to impose forward-looking price monitoring as a remedy, a significant compliance burden for dominant undertakings operating in markets without effective competitive constraints.
• Fee structures that differentiate between own and third-party customers may attract scrutiny under the abuse of dominance rules. The Color Line matter confirms that such structures can trigger investigation even where the underlying service (here, mandatory customs scanning) is linked to a regulatory requirement. Vertically integrated operators should review pricing differentials between own and third-party customers, even absent any finding of dominance.
• Early and voluntary remediation matters. Color Line's decision to discontinue the fee practice and revise its customs procedures at an early stage, following a dawn raid in autumn 2025, appears to have been decisive in the DCCA's choice to close the case with a warning rather than pursuing it as a formal infringement case. Proactive engagement with the DCCA remains an important risk-mitigation lever in dealings with the DCCA, particularly following dawn raids.
• The P2B regulation is being actively enforced against major platforms in Denmark and provides a practical enforcement route for business users. Silence in the face of a business user's request may itself amount to an actionable "decision" attributable to the platform. Providers should ensure that their statement of reasons and internal complaints processes are robust and responsive in practice, not only on paper. Equally, businesses that depend on large online platforms for access to customers, and that find themselves suspended, delisted or otherwise cut off with no meaningful response, should be aware that a complaint to the DCCA can be an effective route to obtaining reinstatement. This may be a faster and less resource-intensive alternative to pursuing the platform's own internal channels or civil litigation.

Read more here (Scandlines), here (Color Line) and here (Meta).