Europe steps up antitrust enforcement against algorithmic pricing

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled on 21 January 2016 (Case C-74/14, Eturas UAB and Others v. Lithuanian Competition Council) that a group of Lithuanian travel agencies violated competition law by using a shared online booking platform to cap customer discounts. The CJEU held that travel agencies could be liable for a concerted practice (collusive behavior) if they were aware of and accepted an automatic restriction of discounts, even without a formal agreement among them. In other words, the mere dissemination of a platform administrator’s message capping online discounts (and the technical implementation of that cap) sufficed to presume that the agencies engaged in a price-fixing concerted practice unless they publicly distanced themselves or reported the matter to authorities. This precedent (often called the “Eturas” case) confirms that “hub-and-spoke” collusion via a shared IT system can violate Article 101 TFEU without an explicit agreement.

On 24 July 2018, the Commission announced it had fined four consumer electronics manufacturers – Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips, and Pioneer – a total of EUR 111 million for illegal resale price maintenance (RPM) in online sales. According to the Commission’s decision, the companies restricted their online retailers’ freedom to set prices and used software tools to monitor retail pricing. Notably, many large online retailers were using pricing algorithms to automatically adjust prices to match competitors, so the manufacturers’ fixed or minimum resale price policies had a broader impact across online marketplaces. The Commission found that the firms also employed “sophisticated monitoring tools” to detect price cuts and swiftly enforce the uniform pricing by threatening or sanctioning non-compliant retailers. This case underlines that using algorithms or price-monitoring software to sustain minimum resale prices is a breach of EU antitrust rules.

In July 2025, the Deputy Director-General at DG Competition publicly acknowledged at a conference that several antitrust cartel investigations involving algorithmic pricing were underway at the EU level. It was also confirmed that the Commission was actively examining multiple cases of “algorithm-driven” price coordination across different sectors.

In March 2026, at the American Bar Association Spring Meeting, the Commission’s Acting Director for Competition, McCallum, stated that the Commission is actively pursuing cases related to algorithmic pricing. While acknowledging that algorithmic pricing represents a relatively new area of enforcement, she emphasised that it is not exempt from antitrust scrutiny and noted that algorithmic pricing may constitute a potential antitrust infringement. In addition, she referred to the recent appointment of a Chief Technology Officer, a newly created role within the Directorate‑General for Competition, and confirmed that the Commission is conducting a large‑scale review of pricing algorithms to identify potential red flags and anomalous pricing conduct.

In 2020, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) published a position paper outlining how algorithmic applications fall within its competition, consumer protection, and sector‑specific oversight. The paper clarifies that algorithms used for price‑setting, personalisation, market coordination, or influencing consumer choice can be scrutinised under existing legal frameworks, regardless of whether they are rule‑based or self‑learning systems.

The ACM also highlights enforcement challenges such as limited transparency of complex models, reliance on third‑party developers, and cross‑border data dependencies. Overall, the paper establishes that algorithm‑driven conduct does not escape regulatory scrutiny simply because decisions are automated, and it provides the conceptual foundation for later ACM initiatives on algorithmic pricing and digital markets.

In July 2025, the ACM launched a market study into computer-driven consumer pricing in the aviation sector. The inquiry focuses on how airlines use dynamic and potentially personalised pricing algorithms to set ticket prices for consumers resident in the Netherlands. Rather than being triggered by suspected infringements, the study aims to better understand how data- and algorithm-based pricing systems operate in practice and what effects they have on consumers and competition.

According to the ACM’s published research approach and consultation paper, the authority is examining whether algorithmic pricing contributes to reduced price transparency, difficulties in price comparability, or risks of tacit coordination between pricing algorithms. Particular attention is paid to the use of large datasets, machine‑learning techniques, and demand-based pricing adjustments that can cause rapid price fluctuations for identical tickets. While the ACM has not made any findings of unlawful conduct at this stage, it has explicitly noted that algorithmic pricing may, in certain circumstances, undermine effective competition or consumer trust. In sum, the ACM’s initiative signals heightened supervisory scrutiny of algorithmic pricing in aviation, with a strong emphasis on transparency, consumer understanding, and the competitive effects of automated pricing systems.

The CMA investigated a cartel between two online retailers of posters and picture frames on Amazon’s UK Marketplace. On 12 August 2016, the CMA issued an infringement decision finding that Trod Ltd. and GB eye Ltd. (trading as “GB Posters”) colluded not to undercut each other’s prices on Amazon. The cartel was implemented through automated price-monitoring software – both companies programmed a repricing tool to coordinate and maintain higher prices, rather than compete. GB eye received immunity for alerting the CMA under the leniency program, while Trod (which admitted the conduct) was fined £163,371. The case (settled in July 2016) is notable as one of the first UK cases where an algorithm was used to implement a price-fixing agreement, and the CMA issued warnings that use of automated pricing tools is no excuse if they are configured to break competition law.

Across a series of RPM enforcement decisions in the musical instruments and lighting sectors, the CMA found that suppliers including Casio, Fender Europe, Korg, Roland, Dar Lighting Limited, and, in one case, retailer GAK (with Yamaha), used price‑monitoring software to detect and enforce minimum online resale prices. The total fines imposed amount to approximately £16.4 million. In these cases, real‑time monitoring tools enabled firms to quickly identify discounting retailers and intervene (through pressure, threats, or supply restrictions) when prices fell below specified thresholds. The CMA emphasised that while price‑monitoring software can be used legitimately, its deployment in these cases facilitated systematic RPM, contributing to sustained restrictions on online price competition and resulting in significant fines and infringement findings.

On 2 March 2026, the CMA announced a formal investigation into several major hotel chains (Hilton, IHG, Marriott) and a hotel data analytics firm (STR, owned by CoStar) for suspected anti-competitive information sharing. The CMA’s probe focuses on whether these hotel groups used a third-party “hotel data services provider” to exchange competitively sensitive business information (such as pricing and occupancy data) through an analytics platform. The concern is that by sharing real-time commercially sensitive information via a common data tool, competing hotels might reduce uncertainty about each other’s pricing and potentially coordinate their prices or business strategies, harming competition. The investigation was opened in late February 2026 (publicly confirmed by the 2 March 2026 press release) and was prompted by worries that new data-driven tools and algorithms could be facilitating collusion or soft pricing coordination in the UK hotel sector.

In July 2025, Italy’s competition authority (AGCM) concluded a market investigation into airline ticket pricing on routes to and from the islands of Sicily and Sardinia. The inquiry scrutinised the role of pricing algorithms and dynamic pricing systems used by airlines. AGCM’s findings (published in a Preliminary Report) did not establish evidence of unlawful collusion or price-fixing by airlines, but did raise concerns about a lack of price transparency and comparability for consumers. In particular, the authority noted that automated pricing and ancillary fee algorithms made it hard for travelers to compare the true final costs of flights, potentially dampening competition. As a result, AGCM opened talks with the Commission in July 2025, seeking EU-level measures to improve airfare transparency and comparability (especially regarding ancillary services like baggage fees) in order to bolster competition. In sum, the Italian regulator highlighted that “sky-high airfares” and algorithmic pricing techniques require greater oversight and transparency, although it stopped short of enforcement due to no formal infringement found.

In September 2025, the President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), Tomasz Chróstny, publicly revealed that UOKiK is investigating potential price-fixing facilitated by algorithms in two sectors: banking and pharmaceuticals. According to a report by Global Competition Review (8 September 2025), Chróstny confirmed his agency’s concern that:

• Major banks in Poland may have used pricing algorithms fed with data from the nation’s largest credit risk database combined with internal data to coordinate interest rates and fees on consumer loans and mortgages, rather than competing independently.
• In the pharmaceutical wholesale sector, UOKiK is examining whether three leading drug distributors (controlling about 80% of the market) used shared IT systems to exchange sensitive information, such as medicine prices, profit margins, and sales volumes at pharmacies, to align their strategies.

These investigations remain ongoing. They illustrate UOKiK’s focus on algorithmic tools as possible “collusion facilitators”. Notably, UOKiK had previously taken enforcement action in 2022 against a group of pharmaceutical wholesalers for allegedly sharing sales data, showing a pattern of vigilance in this area.