Global cartel fines see dramatic drop

While the lower fine totals may therefore at least in part be indicative of the nature of the cases that reached decision in 2024, as opposed to reflecting a broader reduction in cartel enforcement activity, there remains a view that the proliferation of private enforcement across the U.S., U.K. and EU is having a chilling effect on immunity/leniency applications, and consequently on cartel enforcement. However, regulators have typically been keen to signal that this is not the case. Significantly, a senior official at the The European Commission (EC) confirmed in January 2025 that the EC expects to issue more cartel decisions this year, with a particular focus on unlawful information exchanges and collusion facilitated by new technologies and tools.  

Industrial and manufacturing: Hotspot for cartels  

Industrial and manufacturing industries were a particular area of cartel enforcement activity in 2024, accounting for 34% of decisions (an increase from 27% of decisions in 2023).  

Fines for price-fixing were issued in relation to the manufacture of newspaper paper in South Korea, waterproofing products in Mexico, ready-mix concrete in Turkey, and welding technology in Austria. Further discussion of the key bid-rigging enforcement decisions in the construction sector is set out below.

Financial services: Further enforcement on the horizon  

The financial services sector has been a consistent area of focus for cartel enforcement over recent years. However, in 2024 there were just 11 enforcement decisions in the 31 jurisdictions surveyed. 

In Japan, the JFTC issued cease and desist orders and surcharge payment orders totaling USD13.7m against four non-life insurance companies and a non-life insurance agent for collusive price-fixing and bid-rigging practices in relation to insurance contracts with nine policyholders.  

In South Africa, there were a number of developments in the Competition Commission’s case against 28 banks accused of manipulating the USD/ZAR foreign exchange rate between 2007 and 2013. In January 2024, the Competition Appeal Court dismissed the charges against most of the banks, leaving just five banks to face trial. The Commission announced in February 2024 that it had approached the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal the decision.   

Despite the lull in enforcement decisions, financial markets look set to remain on antitrust authorities’ radars, and a key enforcement priority in certain jurisdictions in 2025—including the EC, where unannounced antitrust inspections were carried out in September 2024 at the premises of financial services companies in two member states in relation to financial derivatives. Indeed, in February 2025, the U.K. CMA fined four banks a total of over GBP100m following settlements in its U.K. government bonds investigation. A fifth bank benefited from full immunity from fines. The CMA found that individual traders at the banks took part in private one-to-one chatrooms in which they shared sensitive information relating to buying and selling U.K. government bonds on specific dates.   

Forms of cartel conduct

Price-fixing: Fuel pricing acts as catalyst for antitrust intervention   

For the first time in several years, price-fixing was the most commonly enforced type of cartel conduct in 2024 (47% of decisions, increasing from 38% of decisions in 2023), narrowly ahead of bid-rigging conduct (which has typically been the most prevalent in recent years).   

The fuel sector has been a specific area of focus for antitrust authorities in recent years—particularly in Europe—where road fuel market studies have been conducted in Germany, Italy, Poland, and the U.K. In terms of enforcement, significant fines were issued in the Americas in 2024 in relation to cartels concerning the retail sale of fuel at gas stations: Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) issued fines totaling USD46.2m in decisions against two separate cartels, while Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) issued a fine of USD23.9m (including on executives/individuals) in a single decision.

Several agencies have also raised concerns over algorithmic collusion. In March 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a statement of interest in a case in the hotel sector, warning that rival companies’ use of the same algorithm-based pricing software to determine room prices risked breaching antitrust laws. The U.S. agencies have filed similar statements in real estate algorithmic price-fixing cases. In November 2024, Brazil’s CADE launched an investigation into the use of an algorithmic pricing tool at petrol stations in a number of Brazilian cities, and Canada’s Competition Bureau confirmed that it had launched a preliminary probe into real estate pricing algorithms. More generally, the competitive impact of AI remains a focus for antitrust authorities—see our article on digital enforcement for more details.   

Bid-rigging: Construction industry remains the focus  

Bid-rigging remained a key area of cartel enforcement in 2024 (41% of decisions), with investigations progressed and concluded in a number of jurisdictions.   

The construction industry continued to be the sector of focus in Europe. In France, the antitrust authority sanctioned four cartels in the pre-cast concrete products sector, fining 11 companies a total of EUR76.6m. In Austria, further fines were imposed in relation to an ongoing cartel probe, targeting more than 40 construction companies; over EUR192.7m in fines have now been levied to date. In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) fined a construction company EUR2.8m for collusive tendering in relation to the renovation of Cologne’s Zoobrücke bridge; the investigation was triggered by an anonymous tip-off made via the FCO’s whistleblowing hotline.

The EC also had coordination of sales processes in its crosshairs. České dráhy (ČD) and Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB), the Czech and Austrian rail incumbents, were fined a total of EUR48.7m for colluding to prevent a new entrant, RegioJet, from accessing used wagons, thus restricting competition on the rail passenger transport market. In particular, the EC found that ČD and ÖBB had collusively timed wagon sales so that RegioJet could not buy ÖBB’s used wagons; rigged ÖBB’s used wagon sales procedures so that ČD could buy the wagons instead of RegioJet; agreed on a suitable buyer other than RegioJet for ÖBB’s used wagons that ČD was not interested in; and exchanged confidential information about the bids and degree of interest of other bidders participating in the sales. ÖBB received a 45% fine reduction for cooperating with the EC under the leniency program.

Significant fines were also issued elsewhere. In South Korea, the KFTC fined 31 furniture manufacturers USD65.1m for bid-rigging tenders floated by construction companies to procure built-in furniture, six companies USD35.7m for bid-rigging a tender for the sale of a ski resort in Pyeongchang, and 13 semiconductor-related equipment manufacturers USD9.0m for bid-rigging tenders for a semiconductor monitoring and control system. Penalties were imposed in Brazil in relation to cardiac pacemakers, in Singapore in relation to non-residential interior fit-outs, and in the U.S. in relation to asphalt-paving services.

Perhaps most notably in the construction sector, individuals have also been sanctioned alongside their firms. In Canada , for example, executives have been sentenced to months-long house arrest in relation to bid-rigging contracts for paving- and engineering-consulting services. In Australia, the Federal Court penalized a company and its sole director for an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to rig a tender at the National Gallery of Australia.

Fines and director disqualification are not the only risks. Infringing businesses can also be banned from bidding on public contracts in the future—including in the U.K., which introduced a new debarment regime in February 2025.