Global antitrust regulation is increasingly complex and fast-moving. Heightened scrutiny by competition authorities and the increased number of active merger control regimes across jurisdictions have the potential to extend deal timelines and complexity and raise the risk of disputes.
As organizations navigate the current antitrust environment, they are also tasked with anticipating longer-term trends. For example, the EU’s proposed merger control guidelines demonstrate how dealmakers will need to look beyond market shares when considering deal impacts. And challenges around AI’s potential anticompetitive impacts may be manageable at present, but the possibility of more complex scenarios looms large.
Our survey of 600 senior decision-makers around the world affirms that organizations are bracing themselves for the impact of antitrust regulation in the medium-term and that understanding the changing tides of antitrust enforcement priorities globally is business critical.
Antitrust regulation will have a major future impact
In the medium-term, antitrust regulation is expected to have widespread consequences, with 87% of respondents anticipating at least a moderate effect and half expecting a high to very high impact over the next five years.
As a result, antitrust considerations are becoming embedded in strategic decision-making, influencing mergers, acquisitions and competitive positioning.
Recent, ongoing and proposed changes to merger control regimes around the world, such as the European Commission’s draft Merger Guidelines and Australia’s newly in force merger control regime, are highlighting the direction of travel for competition authority priorities as well as necessitating thoughtful and proactive approaches to risk mitigation in respect of M&A activity.
The United States
In the US, the current antitrust environment has fostered a more conducive atmosphere for dealmaking, which has remained relatively resilient despite headwinds and ongoing economic disruption. "Dealmaking has encountered a bumpy road over previous years," observes Brian Burke, a partner in Washington, DC. "But right now, there's more volume, and we're definitely seeing that in the United States."
When it comes to mergers and remedies, the current US administration has reverted to the more traditional approach that most practitioners will find familiar. However, enforcement remains robust.
Sector-specific considerations can heighten challenges. For certain transactions involving technology, healthcare, data, and other sensitive industries, dealmakers will need to account and prepare for increased scrutiny as well as potential foreign direct investment (FDI) considerations.
Big ticket transactions will also continue to attract heightened scrutiny as concerns remain centered on industry consolidation and with increased focus on labor issues (driven by prevailing perceptions regarding income and wealth distribution). This also touches on ancillary antitrust concerns around employee wages and underscores how shifts in antitrust enforcement are working as a mechanism of broader market conditions.
"US agencies still seem to have an appetite for using the flexibility that is inherent in antitrust law to explore enforcement in areas that aren't a traditional focus of US antitrust law," says Burke.
On the administrative side, pre-merger filing rules have been a consistent area of instability in the US. In February 2025, a new pre-merger filing form and rules for complying with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) were adopted, shifting some of the burden from the government to private parties to add more information to their pre-merger filings.
This February 2025 HSR form has now been invalidated, and the previous form is in place, subject to potential amendments in the near future, which the Federal Trade Commission is actively considering.
In the current climate, deal teams should account in advance for possible longer review timelines that could lead to unexpected delays and subsequent disputes.
Latin America
The disjointed nature of global antitrust regulation and merger control regimes is apparent in Latin America. Here, while new jurisdiction-specific regimes have emerged, the only common theme is rising enforcement and scrutiny, says Buenos Aires partner Esteban Rópolo.
For example, in 2025, oversight of competition matters in Mexico shifted to a newly created National Antitrust Commission (NAC). The new authority has stronger investigative powers, while broader changes to the Mexican competition law have introduced lower merger control thresholds, higher fines for violations of the law, new technological tools, criminal sanctions and international cooperation mechanisms.
Argentina is currently in the process of setting up a new competition authority that is independent from the government. With less influence from government policy and budget and a sharper focus on competition priorities, heightened enforcement should be expected.
“In Argentina, the current authority is already aggressive in imposing remedies and injunction orders. I anticipate that this could become an even bigger issue once pre-merger control enters into force by the end of 2026," says Rópolo.
The EU
The European Commission’s draft Merger Guidelines signal a meaningful evolution in EU merger review — without making outcomes or processes any simpler. The exercise is not just codification: it reflects both developments in case law and a deliberate move to embed broader policy considerations (including innovation, resilience and competitiveness) into the Commission’s analytical framework.
“The update reflects not only recent decisional practice, but also a clearer recognition that merger control sits alongside wider EU policy objectives, particularly around innovation, resilience and growth,” says Tom Jenkins, a partner in Brussels.
Any expectation that this translates into lighter scrutiny is misplaced. The core standard is unchanged, and there is no category of transactions that would, having previously been deemed as problematic, now be waved through. What is changing is how effects are assessed. The Guidelines confirm a shift away from static indicators, with the Commission placing greater weight on forward-looking and contextual factors.
“Merger control will not get easier under the proposed Guidelines," says Jenkins. "While the increased focus on dynamic effects is welcome in principle, it comes at the cost of reduced predictability at the margins. This includes a softening of market-share-based safe harbours, particularly in vertical and conglomerate settings.”
For dealmakers, the practical implication is less about new theories of harm than about earlier and more granular engagement with them. Transactions that might previously have been screened primarily through market shares will now require a more developed narrative around innovation, entry and market evolution—driving more complex assessments and, potentially, longer and less predictable review processes if not addressed upfront.
“You need to be much earlier in identifying plausible theories of harm and the evidence needed to address them," says Jenkins. "That is what ultimately determines timing and process risk.”
Australia
Australia’s shift to a mandatory, suspensory merger control regime in 2026 significantly heightens complexity for cross border transactions, as foreign investors must now factor in pre completion Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) approval, longer deal timelines and alignment with global filing strategies alongside EU/US regimes.
Transactions involving an Australian nexus, even minority or serial acquisitions are more likely to trigger mandatory notification thresholds, increasing regulatory burden and execution risk, particularly for multinational deals that must coordinate simultaneous filings across jurisdictions.
Filing thresholds for approaching the ACCC are extremely low and carry relatively high fees. "This new process has increased costs and complexities as companies try to work out whether or not their transaction is caught and should be notified," says Lynsey Edgar, a partner in Sydney.
In general, the ACCC's approach to antitrust law enforcement is increasingly proactive and aggressive. The stronger enforcement stance and broader substantive review (including digital ecosystems and market concentration) mean cross border transactions face greater scrutiny, higher likelihood of remedies, and potential delays or deal restructuring, making early-stage antitrust assessment and integrated global clearance planning essential for deal certainty.
But despite challenges, dealmaking remains resilient. "These new changes are certainly causing disruption and increasing costs for businesses who are wanting to do deals if they have some sort of nexus to Australia," says Edgar. "But while we are in an environment that is much more highly regulated, deals are still getting done."
AI poised to influence antitrust enforcement priorities and risk
Around the world, competition authorities are responding to residual impacts from AI. Data-based pricing and AI tools can inform commercial decisions, which could in turn affect competitive terms. 32% of survey respondents are concerned that their implementation of AI could open their organization up to an antitrust dispute.
Read more about key cyber, data and AI dispute trends
”AI algorithmic collusion is what regulators are looking at right now," says Edgar.
Burke adds that "in the US, there's been some enforcement actions taken, or suits brought by private parties, but the challengers have run into some obstacles in establishing antitrust liability based upon utilization of an AI solution."
However, there are also the long-term and more unforeseen impacts of AI to consider.
"We don’t fully understand the implications of everything that AI can and will influence in the very near future," says Burke. "Antitrust will be one of the areas of law that governmental agencies and private parties should be expected to deploy to counter any perceived dislocations or disruptions to competition."
Key actions
From new merger control regimes to uncertainties around how AI will reshape antitrust laws in the long-term, the landscape is ultimately giving way to longer deal timelines, more intense reviews, increased costs and even blockages. Organizations that proactively integrate the below considerations into their strategies will be better positioned in an increasingly regulated environment:
1. Consider deal feasibility first and foremost
Transactional feasibility needs to be top of mind for strategic deals. "Feasibility is key," says Rópolo. "Dealmakers now have to be better prepared for the types of transactions that will raise significant concerns."
Increasingly, organizations are accounting for deal feasibility in the bid context. How it plays out depends on the bargaining dynamics at play for any particular transaction.
"We are seeing targets/sellers proactively evaluate their bidders' clearance stories," says Burke. "Ease of clearance can become part of the narrative shared with the target to differentiate the bid.
Alternatively, if a tougher clearance path is anticipated, that could influence consideration offered."
2. Plan for delays and obstacles
Dealmakers need to plan ahead, factoring in extended time frames and additional costs associated with increased scrutiny and requirements. In jurisdictions where deal transparency has become a focus of competition authorities, such as in Australia, it is also important to understand how this might impact deal confidentiality and therefore how deal plans should be structured.
3. Mapping future complexities
The confluence of fluidity and rising scrutiny means that organizations need to balance short-term needs with long-term planning. Expertise in global remit and attention to the nuances of local regimes can make a difference.
About the survey
The Convergence of Risk: Today's pressures, tomorrow's disputes
A series overview
Our flagship Global Disputes Forecast survey revealed that in 2026, geopolitical flux, technology and supply chain disruption are driving disputes risk externally, while resource constraints mean that organizations must also be intentional and flexible in where they allocate resources.
With robust disputes preparedness key to building organizational resilience, we commissioned another wave of research to delve further into these initial findings. In this series, we explore the intersection of key risk areas and identify how respondents are taking action.
Methodology
We surveyed 600 senior decision-makers with oversight or key roles in legal, risk, compliance, or tax functions. Respondents included Directors in Legal, Risk, Compliance, or Tax, Heads of Function/Departmental Leaders, and C-suite roles such as General Counsel, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, and Chief Compliance Officers.
Geographic coverage: United Kingdom, United States, Singapore, Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong
Sector coverage: Industrials, Manufacturing & Transportation; Consumer Goods & Retail; Healthcare & Life Sciences; Technology; Financial Institutions; Energy, Mining & Infrastructure
