- within Transport, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and Family and Matrimonial topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
A year ago, few would have predicted the extent to which politics would have reshaped the antitrust regulatory landscape when it comes to merger control.
Yet across the world, leadership changes and governments' growth agendas have pushed some of the leading agencies to adopt, or move towards adopting, a more business-friendly approach, resulting in many cases in a faster and more predictable approach, more flexible remedies and fewer prohibitions. Whether this is a lasting trend or just a cyclical shift is the question we should see answered during the course of 2026.
New leadership, new pressure
In the UK, the new Labour government removed the CMA's chair, Marcus Bokkerink, over concerns that the agency was failing to support and contribute to the government's pro-growth and pro-investment agenda.
In Europe, the new Competition Commissioner, Teresa Ribera, was similarly instructed by the EU Commission's president Ursula von der Leyen to adopt an approach to competition policy that encourages investment and increases EU competitiveness globally, by supporting European businesses in scaling up in global markets, while always ensuring a level playing field.
Across the Atlantic, the US Government has been centralising its control over merger reviews. One of President Trump's many executive orders is aimed at increasing the White House's control over independent regulatory agencies including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and in March 2025 he fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners to further consolidate that control.
How agencies have responded
The CMA itself recognised the need for a change in its approach to ensure investors choose the UK over other destinations, and rolled out a range of internal policy measures based on its new '4Ps' framework – supporting pace, predictability, proportionality and process. Recognising that the CMA is limited in how far it can act within the existing legislative framework, the government is also consulting on reforms to the regime. These include potential changes to the decision-making process – which could increase the scope for political involvement – as well as efforts to provide greater clarity around certain jurisdictional thresholds that are notoriously broad, vague and a source of uncertainty for dealmakers.
In the EU, early on in her tenure, Competition Commissioner Ribera embarked on a review of the merger assessment guidelines to reshape the Commission's approach and reflect the reality of fast-moving innovation-driven markets. This review is ongoing, but the Commission is not waiting for the revised guidelines to be finalised and is already adopting a more dynamic approach in merger reviews ahead of their publication. We saw this in the Commission's approval of the merger of American Axle & Manufacturing and Dowlais. Despite the merged entity holding market shares of up to 60% in certain segments, the deal was cleared on the basis that demand for its products is declining in line with reduced sales of fossil-fuel powered vehicles. The Commission is prepared to take a flexible approach in fast-moving markets where a strong market position is not guaranteed to continue in the future.
In the US, we are starting to see a shift towards a less aggressive anti-M&A rhetoric, and a move towards more restrained antitrust enforcement. With new leadership at the Department of Justice and FTC, public statements and case outcomes point to a pragmatic enforcement approach as opposed to defaulting to litigation to block transactions.
The regulatory landscape is clearly changing towards more business-friendly merger reviews and the statistics reflect this.
Practical impact on deals
As a result of the CMA's internal policy reforms to support the government's pro-growth agenda, we are starting to see a less interventionist approach in the UK, as well as shorter timelines for deal reviews, more engagement with the merger parties and greater flexibility in the approach to remedies. The CMA did not prohibit a single merger in 2025, the first time this has happened since 2017. This should, of course, not be seen as a complete relaxation of scrutiny. We expect the CMA to continue to closely review mergers it considers to be problematic, as can be readily seen from the recent referral of Getty Images/Shutterstock for a detailed phase 2 investigation.
At EU level, the trend of political interference has been less prominent, and compared to the UK, we are seeing less radical change. Still, Ribera's mandate involves modernising EU merger control policy to encourage investment and increase EU competitiveness on the global stage. Despite the fact that her review of the merger assessment guidelines remains ongoing, we expect to see a move towards a more dynamic and forward-looking approach, with broader considerations than just market effects taken into account.
Under the second Trump Administration, merger enforcement has eased in tone and process, with agencies reopening the door to negotiated remedies and clearing more deals quickly where overlaps are modest. We are starting to see a rise in settlements, as well as the return of early Hart Scott Rodino termination in appropriate cases, alongside targeted litigation when needed. In short: fewer suits based on novel theories and more case‑by‑case pragmatism aimed at speed and predictability.
Lasting trend or cyclical shift?
The regulatory landscape is clearly changing towards more business-friendly merger reviews and the statistics reflect this. But business-friendlier messaging can also invite more speculative transactions that push the envelope, hoping the pendulum has swung far enough. If a wave of such filings materialises, intervention rates will increase, and today's clearance statistics will look like a high‑water mark rather than a new normal.
So, is the competition regulator your new friend? Not quite – and it shouldn't be. What you can realistically expect, particularly in 2026, is a willingness to consider deals in a more dynamic context. Regulators may be more open to looking at deals with investment and innovation, as well as more global considerations forming part of the backdrop for assessment. They may also be more open to considering well-designed remedies. This can, however, cut both ways. Innovation and investment may be helped by a merger, but it may also be impacted negatively. And some deals in sensitive sectors may face increasing scrutiny when issues such as resilience are included in the mix. The regulator may be more open and focused on investment and growth, but the best you can – and should – hope for is a fair and consistent arbiter, which is key for deal certainty.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
