Cartels 2020

Cartels 2020 features 23 jurisdictions. The guide provides expert legal commentary on the key issues for businesses involved in competition matters, including enforcement, dawn raids, sanctions and remedies, private civil litigation and the impact of COVID-19.

Last Updated: June 12, 2020

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

Select Locations

Select Topic(s)


Please select at least one location and one topic to use the compare functionality.



Dentons is the world's largest law firm, with over 100 offices in 66 countries around the globe, including 36 in the United States. Dentons is premised on a polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge to the status of legal practice in order to advance client interests in the communities in which the firm operates. The firm's core competition practice includes over 170 professionals in 34 countries, plus others with competition experience.

Cartels - An Overview


Cartels? To many, the term "cartel" calls up images of secret meetings in which sizeable companies with global footprints fix the prices for the products they sell, leading to government action and, in some jurisdictions, multi-million dollar private class actions or actions for collective redress. 

These are, of course, classic examples of cartel behaviour. And they can lead many companies to say “not an issue for us; we are too small”. The reaction is understandable, but wrong. A more durable definition is one that encompasses a wide variety of arrangements between actual or potential competitors involving agreements that may set or affect price (or price factors), output (including volume and geography), product (including features, characteristics, and other classifications), practices (such as operating rules, restrictions on innovation and the like) and often inputs (such as raw materials used, sources, employment practices and restrictions, and related costs). A memorable, if not also useful, acronym is P-O-P-P-I. Some argue that “costs” deserves its own initial, particularly because of the current focus on agreements and practices that restrict employee movement (aka “No-Poaching” agreements), so they prefer “POPPCI”.

The definition used by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is even more direct and simple (if somewhat overstated): "A cartel exists when businesses agree to act together instead of competing with each other".

Tracking cartel activity

The common method for tracking cartel activity by regulatory agencies around the world is to count up the number of cases and total the monetary value of sanctions imposed. Those numbers go up and down from year to year; for example, they dipped downward in 2018 and rose back up in 2019.  While they are an interesting point of reference, they can be misleading.  Many competition cases have long gestation periods so that one year’s metrics do not reflect current levels of activity. Given the length of time needed to conclude investigations and prosecutions, annual data may simply reflect stages of case development.

Changes from year to year rarely, if ever, reflect a continuing trend, and emphasis on significant fines, or on actions against leading firms do not provide instructive guidance to the full business community. Additionally, metrics fail to capture information regarding significant procedural changes, such as rulings that extend liability to parent or controlling corporations, dawn raids, or revisions in steps involving leniency regimes, or initiatives in regulatory agencies addressing specific problematic areas.

The number and variety of proceedings involving cartel behaviour, applying sanctions to all manner of POPPCI agreements between competitors, is the meat on which regulatory authorities, worldwide, feed. And the impact on business entities and individuals caught in these proceedings - both criminal and civil - can be extraordinary. Over 130 countries, as well as the EU, have some form of competition laws, and co-operation between regulatory authorities is robust.

Over 40 countries have laws imposing criminal penalties on cartels and their participants. The jurisdictions in which anti-cartel activity is just beginning to be noticed - consider, for example, Brazil, Chile, Egypt and Mexico - leave little doubt that concern for potential cartel issues is mandatory.  Put simply, agreements that restrict the decisions of competitive market participants in any of the POPPCI categories, in any jurisdiction and among entities of any size, are likely to be problematic and should only be pursued after obtaining legal guidance from qualified and experienced counsel.

Targets and actions

The targets of competition agencies are varied. Small and medium-sized enterprises, and activities in economic sectors that might be thought of as less significant, do not escape scrutiny. Consider the activities in the past few years of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the US Federal Trade Commission. They have ranged from opposition to a proposed regulation that would bar Kansas real estate brokers from offering gift cards to home buyers, to action against companies using electronic media to set the prices of customised online promotional products, to foreign exchange manipulations, to restrictive agreements between hospitals in southeast Michigan limiting where they would market, to employers' "no-poaching" and wage-fixing agreements affecting workers (between major multinationals, but also between local Texas therapist staffing companies) and classic alleged price fixing and/or market allocation schemes in international shipping, electrolytic capacitors and packaged seafood.

In addition, cartels face the administrative authority of the Federal Trade Commission, which has been applied to a trade association code of conduct restricting competition among organists and chorus conductors and fee-setting methods used by appraisal management companies. Both agencies predict that their efforts in 2020 will be increasing. And state attorneys general maintain antitrust enforcement teams under their state antitrust laws as well. 

Competition authorities actions against cartels in major sectors of the economy - e-commerce platforms, energy, transport, banking and finance, public project bid-rigging, etc - are well-known. But regulatory scrutiny also extends to matters as diverse as musical instruments; rolled lead roofing products, cleaning services; arrangements among four publicists; two cardboard box companies (with one given immunity for co-operation); metal packaging manufacturers (referred by Germany's Bundeskartellamt to the European Commission); spark plug manufacturers; pricing of drugs to small or medium-sized pharmacists; online sellers of posters and frames; courier services; chicken supply (in Singapore and Chile); real estate commissions among agents in a local area (with disqualification of company directors in both cases as an added sanction); adult incontinence undergarments; in-home personal care services; Tasmanian growers of Atlantic salmon; arrangements setting the recovery of the costs of emission compliance in product pricing; and even a truck/tractor mechanic who quoted a repair cost for a front end loader and then sought cover from the only other mechanic in a remote region of Australia.

Economic dislocations

One additional area for caution. As economic dislocations occur in economies worldwide, there is typically increased emphasis on a firm’s ability to gain insight regarding the upcoming strategies of competitors: when will production levels be increased; can volume be managed to avoid downward pressure on prices; and ultimately whether it is possible to co-ordinate market developments so as to have smooth changes. These are topics that can easily evolve into illegal cartel behaviour. They must be monitored carefully, as they will also be monitored by regulatory agencies.


Remember, this guide is intended as a broad, first-level, survey of principles and practices in a substantial number of jurisdictions. It will, we hope, be useful in helping to identify issues and shape further inquiry. Its scope will also help underscore the fact that effective competition law compliance programs are an essential element of risk management and client education (as well as having potential salutary effects in affecting the sanctions imposed when companies and individuals find themselves under scrutiny).

But the guide is not a compendium of answers to actual problems that arise in the course of business activity. "Answers" require detailed review and evaluation. Competition laws are not only complex as written and interpreted; they most often call for fact-intensive inquiry and analysis by experienced counsel. Those caveats notwithstanding, this is a body of information of immense value to anyone concerned with the application of "cartel" (or "POPPCI") questions that arise on a regular basis.


Dentons is the world's largest law firm, with over 100 offices in 66 countries around the globe, including 36 in the United States. Dentons is premised on a polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge to the status of legal practice in order to advance client interests in the communities in which the firm operates. The firm's core competition practice includes over 170 professionals in 34 countries, plus others with competition experience.