Quick Updates — May 2026
QUICK UPDATES2026
Aahan Oza, Second-Year, B.Sc. LL.B., NUJS
8/24/20268 min read
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s May 2026 landmark ruling cleared Amazon of the Future Coupons controversy, while the appellate tribunal reprimanded the CCI for its failure to follow the tenets of natural justice. Apple, on the other hand, refused to back down from its fight against India's global-turnover penalty regime, even as it was forced to work with the regulator's App Store investigation. a stinging natural-justice rebuke in the Grasim case. Apple, meanwhile, continued its battle against India's global-turnover penalty regime even as it was compelled to cooperate with the regulator's App Store probe. Beyond India, the European Commission unveiled its most significant rewrite of merger guidance in over two decades, US regulators secured a $700 million settlement with Google over Play Store practices, and the DOJ moved to dismantle a decades-old price-data-sharing arrangement in the American meat industry. Together, these developments point to two converging themes: courts and tribunals are increasingly insisting on procedural rigour from competition regulators, and enforcers worldwide are recalibrating how aggressively, and on what basis, dominant firms should be restrained.
Indian Competition Law Updates
1. Supreme Court Quashes CCI's Amazon–Future Coupons Order, Orders Refund with Interest
By its judgment dated 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court allowed Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC's appeal, setting aside the NCLAT's 13 June 2022 order and the CCI's underlying order of 17 December 2021, which had kept in abeyance the CCI's 2019 approval of Amazon's 49% investment in Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL) and imposed a INR 202 crore penalty for alleged non-disclosure.[1] Future Group had alleged Amazon concealed its true strategic interest in Future Retail Limited's retail business.[2] The dispute had simmered for nearly six years and become emblematic of tensions between India's foreign-investment rules in multi-brand retail and the structuring techniques global investors use.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that mischaracterising a transaction is not the same as failing to notify it, and that Regulation 9(4) of the Combination Regulations is satisfied once the relevant instruments and their linkages are placed before the Commission. In other words, even if Amazon's stated rationale understated its true strategic ambitions in Future Retail, that went to the substance of the transaction, not to whether adequate disclosure occurred at notification. The Court found that the CCI and NCLAT had exceeded their statutory authority by reopening a cleared combination after the limitation period lapsed, and directed a refund with 6% interest, cautioning that "fair treatment of foreign investors" means equal, law-governed treatment not special treatment. The ruling is a significant course correction for merger-control certainty in India, reassuring cross-border investors that a cleared combination cannot be revisited indefinitely on a counterparty's later change of heart.[3]
2. NCLAT Sets Aside ₹301.61 Crore Penalty on Grasim Industries Over Natural Justice Lapse
On 5 May 2026, the NCLAT set aside the CCI's six-year-old order penalising Grasim Industries INR 301.61 crore for alleged abuse of dominance in the supply of Viscose Staple Fibre.[4] While the Director General's investigation report found no contravention over Grasim's alleged non-disclosure of its pricing policy, the CCI's 2020 order nonetheless departed from several DG findings without issuing a fresh show-cause notice on those specific points, effectively penalising the company on grounds it never had a formal opportunity to contest.
Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in BCCI v. CCI and InterGlobe Aviation v. CCI, the NCLAT held that whenever the Commission proposes to differ from the DG's findings to a party's detriment, it must first grant that party notice and a hearing on the specific points of departure: an omission that deprived Grasim of any meaningful chance to defend itself before the penalty was imposed.[5] The matter has now been remanded to the CCI for fresh adjudication, and the Supreme Court subsequently declined to interfere, dismissing the CCI's appeal against the NCLAT's order.[6] Beyond its effect on Grasim, the case reinforces procedural fairness as a non-negotiable safeguard in competition enforcement, regardless of penalty size or the age of the order, a message the CCI must internalise when its final orders diverge from its own investigative arm's findings.
3. Delhi High Court Orders Apple to Cooperate with CCI Probe Despite $38 Billion Fine Fear
On 18 May 2026, the Delhi High Court declined Apple's plea to stay the CCI's App Store probe, directing the company to cooperate fully with the investigation while simultaneously barring the CCI from passing a final order before 15 July 2026.[7] The underlying investigation has found that Apple abused its dominant position by forcing app developers onto its proprietary in-app payment system, foreclosing competing payment processors from the iOS ecosystem. Apple has since resisted disclosing detailed financial information to the CCI, and has separately mounted a constitutional challenge to the 2023 Competition Act amendment and the 2024 Penalty Guidelines, both of which permit the CCI to calculate penalties on a company's global turnover rather than its India-specific revenue. Apple contends that such a penalty could reach as much as $38 billion, a figure it argues is wildly disproportionate given that it holds only around a 9% share of the Indian smartphone market.[8]
The CCI insists turnover-based deterrence is necessary because "deep-pocketed multinationals" can otherwise treat India-specific fines as a routine cost of doing business, echoing its reasoning in the Android case against Google. With cooperation now judicially mandated and the constitutional question still pending, the Apple dispute has become a bellwether for how far India's global-turnover penalty regime can reach.[9]
International Competition Law Updates
1. European Commission Unveils Once-in-a-Generation Overhaul of Merger Guidelines
Published on 30 April 2026, just ahead of the review period, the European Commission's draft revised Merger Guidelines dominated global competition-law discourse throughout May.[10] The nearly 100-page draft consolidates the 2004 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the 2008 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines into a single, effects-based framework, the first such wholesale restructuring in over two decades. The consultation period remains open until 26 June 2026, with formal adoption expected by late 2026 or early 2027, giving practitioners a narrow but important window to shape the final text.[11]
Substantively, the draft signals a markedly more permissive posture toward consolidation: it expressly recognises scale, resilience, and the ability of European firms to compete against dominant US and Chinese rivals as legitimate pro-competitive objectives, echoing the industrial-policy recommendations of the Draghi and Letta reports. Among its most notable new features are an "innovation shield" offering a lighter-touch review pathway for small, innovative acquisitions; a "theory of benefit" mechanism that, for the first time, lets merging parties proactively argue efficiencies as an affirmative case for clearance rather than merely a defensive rebuttal; and, in a counterbalancing move, expanded scrutiny of entrenchment and foreclosure strategies pursued by already-dominant acquirers. Commission President von der Leyen has framed the changes as helping European firms "thrive, scale and innovate" while preserving investor certainty, though the draft also hands the Commission new tools to block deals it deems strategically undesirable, suggesting permissiveness for "European champions" may be paired with sharper scrutiny of foreign acquirers.[12] [13]
2. US Reaches $700 Million Google Play Store Antitrust Settlement
On 4 May 2026, a US federal court granted final approval to a $700 million settlement resolving a five-year, 52-state antitrust suit against Google concerning its control over Android app distribution and in-app payment processing. First filed in 2021, the case alleged that Google used exclusionary Play Store policies including restrictions on sideloading and mandatory use of Google's own billing system to suppress rival app stores and lock developers into its payment ecosystem. The settlement, secured by a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general led by Delaware, delivers direct consumer relief nationwide and closes one of the longest-running state-level Big Tech antitrust cases in the US.[14] It arrives even as Google fights parallel federal battles over search and adtech monopolisation, underscoring that state-level coalitions remain a durable route to Big Tech antitrust relief even as federal priorities shift.[15]
3. DOJ Forces Meat-Industry Data Broker Agri Stats to Dismantle Price-Sharing Reports
On 7 May 2026, the DOJ's Antitrust Division, together with six state attorneys general, filed a proposed consent decree resolving a 2023 suit against Agri Stats Inc., a data broker that for decades had distributed granular, non-public pricing and output reports to America's largest chicken, pork, and turkey processors.[16] The government's core allegation was that this arrangement allowed rival meat processors to effectively track one another's pricing and production decisions, enabling tacit coordination that harmed both consumers, through higher retail prices, and buyers denied access to the same competitively sensitive data.[17]
Rather than imposing a monetary fine, the settlement instead imposes structural fixes designed to dismantle the mechanics of the alleged information-sharing scheme: Agri Stats must permanently discontinue its detailed "Sales Report Books," anonymise and aggregate any remaining reports, impose minimum data-recency limits so pricing information can no longer be shared in near-real time, and open its reports to non-producer buyers on non-discriminatory terms. The case follows a parallel settlement with RealPage, the rental-pricing algorithm provider accused of enabling similar tacit coordination among landlords, and together the two settlements signal an intensifying US enforcement focus on data intermediaries that facilitate tacit collusion without any express agreement between competitors: a long-dormant corner of antitrust law now squarely back in enforcers' sights.[18]
[1]Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Upholding CCI’s ₹202 Crore Penalty On Amazon In Future Coupons Deal, LiveLawBiz, 27 May 2026, https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-sets-aside-nclat-order-upholding-ccis-202-crore-penalty-on-amazon-in-future-coupons-deal-535849
[2]Supreme Court Sets Aside CCI Order Against Amazon Future Coupons Deal, Medianama, 28 May 2026, https://www.medianama.com/2026/05/223-supreme-court-cci-order-rs-202-crore-fine-against-amazon-future-coupons-dispute/
[3]Supreme Court sets aside CCI’s order against Amazon in future coupons transaction, Lexology (Khaitan & Co), 10 June 2026, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eb64afae-8996-4e18-b802-b4a40485f7fc; see also Khaitan & Co client alert, 30 May 2026, https://www.khaitanco.com/sites/default/files/2026-05/30052026_Supreme%20Court%20Sets%20Aside%20CCI%20Order%20in%20the%20Amazon-Future%20Combination.pdf
[4]NCLAT sets aside ₹301.6 crore CCI penalty on Grasim, orders fresh hearing, Business Standard, 5 May 2026, https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/nclat-sets-aside-rs-301-6-crore-cci-penalty-on-grasim-orders-fresh-hearing-126050501402_1.html
[5]Natural Justice in Competition Proceedings: NCLAT Sets Aside CCI Order in Grasim Industries Abuse of Dominance Case, India Law, 8 May 2026, https://www.indialaw.in/blog/competition-act/nclat-sets-aside-cci-order-grasim-industries/
[6]Supreme Court Dismisses CCI Appeal Against NCLAT Order Setting Aside ₹301.61 Crore Penalty On Grasim, LiveLawBiz, https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-nclat-order-setting-aside-30161-crore-cci-penalty-on-grasim-industries-543736; The Indian National Company Law Appellate Tribunal sets aside and remands an abuse of dominance decision against a viscose staple fibre producer, Concurrences, 5 May 2026, https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/news-issues/august-2026-iii/the-indian-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-sets-aside-and-remands-an
[7]Delhi HC refuses Apple’s plea to halt CCI probe, asks firm to cooperate, Business Standard, 18 May 2026, https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/delhi-hc-refuses-apple-s-plea-to-halt-cci-probe-asks-firm-to-cooperate-126051800417_1.html
[8]Apple Challenges Findings of India’s Competition Authority in App Store Case, Revera Legal, 1 July 2026, https://revera.legal/en/info-centr/news-and-analytical-materials/2164-apple-osparivaet-vyvody-antimonopolnogo-organa-indii-po-delu-app-store/amp/
[9]Indian court orders Apple to fully cooperate in antitrust probe, delays final ruling until mid-July, MacDailyNews, 18 May 2026, https://macdailynews.com/2026/05/18/indian-court-orders-apple-to-fully-cooperate-in-antitrust-probe-delays-final-ruling-until-mid-july/
[10]EU Commission Publishes Draft Merger Guidelines for Public Consultation, Sullivan & Cromwell, 12 May 2026, https://www.sullcrom.com/insights/memo/2026/May/EU-Merger-Control-New-Draft-Merger-Guidelines
[11]New Draft EC Merger Guidelines – Learnings & Implications, Cleary Gottlieb, 19 May 2026, https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/new-draft-ec-merger-guidelines-learnings-and-implications
[12]EC’s Draft Merger Guidelines Open New Arguments for Merger Parties, Skadden, 5 May 2026, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2026/05/ecs-draft-merger-guidelines; The EU Commission publishes its new draft merger guidelines, Concurrences, 30 April 2026, https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/news-issues/may-2026-ii/the-eu-commission-publishes-its-new-draft-merger-guidelines-signalling
[13]Review of the Merger Guidelines, European Commission, Competition Policy, https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/mergers/review-merger-guidelines_en
[14]AG Jennings, coalition secure final approval in $700 million Google Settlement over app store monopoly, State of Delaware News, 4 May 2026, https://news.delaware.gov/2026/05/04/ag-jennings-coalition-secure-final-approval-in-700-million-google-settlement-over-app-store-monopoly/
[15]DOJ urges DC Circuit to beef up remedies in Google monopoly ruling, Courthouse News Service, https://www.courthousenews.com/doj-urges-dc-circuit-to-beef-up-remedies-in-google-monopoly-ruling/
[16]The US DoJ requires a data-sharing company to end the exchange of competitively sensitive price, output, and cost information among the nation’s largest meat processors (Agri Stats), Concurrences, 7 May 2026, https://www.concurrences.com/en/bulletin/news-issues/preview/the-us-doj-requires-a-data-sharing-company-to-end-the-exchange-of-competitively
[17]DOJ, States Reach Significant Settlement in Agri Stats Information Sharing Antitrust Litigation, WilmerHale, 12 May 2026, https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20260512-doj-states-reach-significant-settlement-in-agri-stats-information-sharing-antitrust-litigation
[18]Proposed settlement would limit Agri Stats’ reporting, Agri-Pulse, 13 May 2026, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/24665-proposed-settlement-would-limit-agri-stats-reporting; DOJ Settles Poultry Price-Fixing Case with Agri Stats, Civil Eats, 8 May 2026, https://civileats.com/2026/05/08/doj-settles-poultry-price-fixing-case-with-agri-stats/