Antitrust Litigation 2026 Comparisons

The Swedish framework for private antitrust damages actions is primarily governed by the Swedish Competition Damages Act (the “Competition Damages Act”), which entered into force on 27 December 2016 and implements Directive 2014/104/EU (the “Competition Damages Directive”).

The right to seek compensation for harm resulting from competition law infringements pre-dates the current legislation, as such damages claims have been available under Swedish law since 1993.

Case law under the Competition Damages Act has so far been limited. A significant development came on 1 July 2026, when the Patent and Market Court delivered its judgment in PriceRunner v Google. The court ordered Google to pay approximately USD2 billion in damages and interest for harm suffered by PriceRunner as a result of Google’s abuse of its dominant position. The case was based on the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision. The Court also found that Google’s abusive conduct had continued beyond the period established by the Commission. The damages awarded are the largest to date in a Swedish competition case. The judgment has been appealed and is therefore not final.

There is also a limited body of case law pre-dating the Competition Damages Act. In 2011, Euroclear was ordered to pay damages for abuse of a dominant position despite there being no prior infringement decision by the Swedish Competition Authority (Svea Court of Appeal, Case No T 10012-08). In other earlier cases, damages claims have been dismissed where the claimant failed to establish either the underlying competition law infringement or the requisite causal link between the infringement and the alleged loss.

A significant development in Swedish private antitrust litigation occurred on 1 July 2026, when the Patent and Market Court delivered its judgment in the proceedings between PriceRunner and Google. The case followed the European Commission’s 2017 Google Shopping decision, in which Google was found to have abused its dominant position by favouring its own comparison shopping service in its general search results to the detriment of competing services.

The Patent and Market Court ordered Google to pay PriceRunner approximately USD2 billion in damages and interest. This represents the largest damages award to date in a Swedish competition law case. The court also concluded that Google’s abusive conduct had continued beyond the period covered by the Commission’s infringement decision.

The principal statutory basis for private antitrust damages claims in Sweden is the Competition Damages Act, which entered into force on 27 December 2016 and implements the Competition Damages Directive.

Under the Competition Damages Act, any natural or legal person that has suffered harm as a result of an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, or the corresponding provisions of Swedish competition law, may seek compensation for that harm. Claims may be brought either as follow-on actions, based on a prior infringement decision, or as standalone actions, where the claimant must establish the underlying competition law infringement.

Liability for damages requires the infringement to have been committed intentionally or negligently. The threshold for establishing fault is relatively low. In practice, an infringer may generally escape liability on this basis only where the infringement resulted from an excusable error.

Swedish competition law also provides for certain private enforcement actions seeking injunctive relief. Where the Swedish Competition Authority has decided not to pursue an alleged infringement, an undertaking affected by the conduct may, under Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Swedish Competition Act, bring an action before the court seeking an order requiring the infringement to cease. This right of action does not apply where the Swedish Competition Authority has applied Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Competition law cases in Sweden fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the specialised Patent and Market Courts, which hear cases concerning competition law, intellectual property and market law.

At first instance, cases are heard by the Patent and Market Court, which forms part of the Stockholm District Court. Depending on the nature of the case, the composition of the court generally includes two or three legally qualified judges together with two or three economic experts.

Decisions and judgments of the Patent and Market Court may be appealed to the Patent and Market Court of Appeal, subject to leave to appeal being granted. Judgments of the Patent and Market Court of Appeal cannot be appealed unless the Patent and Market Court of Appeal allows an appeal and the Swedish Supreme Court grants leave to appeal.

Final infringement decisions of the Swedish Competition Authority are binding on Swedish courts in subsequent actions for damages. The same applies to infringement decisions adopted by the European Commission.

By contrast, infringement decisions issued by competition authorities in other EU member states do not have binding effect in Swedish civil proceedings. Such decisions may nevertheless be relied upon as prima facie evidence that an infringement of competition law has occurred.

The Swedish Competition Authority is not a party to private antitrust damages proceedings. Its decisions may, however, have an important bearing on such proceedings, in particular in follow-on actions where a final infringement decision establishes the existence of the relevant competition law infringement

As a general rule, the claimant bears the burden of proof in an antitrust damages action. The claimant must therefore establish:

• the existence of a competition law infringement;
• that the infringement was committed intentionally or negligently;
• that it resulted in harm; and
• the amount of the loss suffered.

There are, however, important exceptions and presumptions. In particular, cartel infringements are presumed to cause harm. Accordingly, in a damages action arising from a cartel, the claimant does not have to establish that the infringement caused harm, although the defendant may rebut the presumption.

A final infringement decision by the Swedish Competition Authority is binding on the court in a subsequent damages action. The same applies to infringement decisions of the European Commission. Consequently, where such a decision establishes the relevant infringement, the claimant is not required to prove the infringement again. As noted above, decisions of competition authorities in other EU member states are not binding but constitute prima facie evidence of an infringement.

As regards causation, the assessment is based on whether it is more likely than not that the harm was caused by the infringement, compared with the hypothetical situation in which the infringement had not occurred.

The evidentiary requirements concerning the quantification of harm may be relaxed where establishing the precise amount of the loss would be particularly difficult. Under Chapter 35, Section 5 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the court may estimate the amount of damages at a reasonable amount where full proof cannot, or can only with difficulty, be presented. The court may also make such an estimate where the costs or inconvenience associated with producing the evidence would be disproportionate to the amount of the damage and the compensation claimed.

A pass-on defence is recognised under Swedish law. A defendant may therefore argue that the claimant has mitigated or avoided some or all of its loss by passing on an overcharge to its customers. The burden of establishing that such passing-on occurred rests with the defendant.

The Competition Damages Act also contains a presumption concerning claims brought by indirect purchasers or suppliers. Unless otherwise demonstrated, an overcharge or undercharge is presumed to have been passed on where the competition law infringement resulted in an overcharge being imposed on the direct purchaser or an undercharge being imposed on the direct supplier.

Under the Competition Damages Act, which entered into force on 27 December 2016, the limitation period for an antitrust damages claim is five years. The period does not begin to run until the infringement has ceased and the claimant knows, or can reasonably be expected to know, of the conduct constituting the infringement, the fact that the infringement caused harm and the identity of the infringer.

The involvement of a competition authority affects the limitation period. Where a competition authority takes action in respect of the infringement to which the damages claim relates, the limitation period is interrupted. A new five-year limitation period begins to run once the authority’s infringement decision has become final or the authority has otherwise concluded its proceedings.

The limitation rules applicable to claims relating to periods before the Competition Damages Act entered into force must also be considered in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Volvo and DAF Trucks (C-267/20) and Heureka (C-605/21), the Court clarified that national limitation rules must not make the exercise of the right to seek compensation for infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU practically impossible or excessively difficult. In particular, the limitation period cannot begin to run before the infringement has ceased and the injured party knows, or can reasonably be expected to know, the information necessary to bring a damages action. EU law may also require the limitation period to be suspended during an investigation by the European Commission.

The Court’s case law further addresses the temporal application of the limitation rules introduced by the Competition Damages Directive. Where the relevant limitation period had not expired by the deadline for transposing the Directive, the Directive’s limitation rules may apply even where the underlying infringement occurred before that date. Accordingly, the interaction between the previous Swedish limitation regime and the Competition Damages Act must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the individual case and the applicable EU law principles.

Proceedings in private antitrust cases can generally be expected to take approximately 18–36 months at first instance, although the duration will vary depending on the complexity and circumstances of the individual case.

Claims for damages arising from competition law infringements may be pursued as class actions under the Swedish Class Action Act.

Swedish law provides for three forms of class action, depending on the party bringing the proceedings:

• private class actions, which may be brought by an individual or legal entity that has a claim of its own and is a member of the relevant class;
• organisation class actions, which may be initiated by certain non-profit organisations, including consumer and labour organisations; and
• public class actions, which may be brought by a designated public authority on behalf of a group of claimants.

For a class action to be admissible, the claims must involve common or similar factual circumstances. The class must also be sufficiently defined to enable both the court and individual claimants to determine whether a particular person falls within its scope.

Any settlement concluded on behalf of the class members is subject to court approval. Approval will be granted unless the terms of the settlement are discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable.

Swedish class actions operate on an opt-in basis. A person wishing to participate as a member of the class must notify the court in writing within the time period specified by the court. A person who does not do so will not be included in the class action.

Both direct and indirect purchasers may bring claims for damages resulting from an infringement of competition law under the Swedish Competition Damages Act.

In the case of indirect purchasers or suppliers, the Act provides for a rebuttable presumption concerning the passing-on of overcharges or undercharges. An overcharge or undercharge is presumed to have been passed on where the infringement resulted in an overcharge for the direct purchaser or an undercharge for the direct supplier, unless the contrary is established.

There is no separate class certification procedure under Swedish law. Instead, the court assesses whether the requirements for bringing a class action under the Swedish Class Action Act are satisfied.

If the action is permitted to proceed, the members of the relevant class are notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to opt in within the time period specified by the court, as described in 4.2 Opting In or Out.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in Swedish private antitrust proceedings is primarily determined by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the “Brussels I Recast Regulation”) where the defendant is domiciled in an EU member state. In cases involving defendants domiciled in states covered by the Lugano Convention, the jurisdictional rules of that Convention may apply.

Under the general rule in Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a defendant domiciled in an EU member state may be sued in the courts of that member state.

Special jurisdiction may also arise in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. Pursuant to Article 7(2), proceedings may be brought before the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur. In an antitrust damages action, this may therefore provide a basis for Swedish jurisdiction where the relevant harm occurred in Sweden, even though the defendant is domiciled in another member state.

Where proceedings are brought against several defendants, Article 8(1) may allow the claims to be heard together before the courts of the member state in which one of the defendants is domiciled. This requires the claims to be so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.

Where the applicable European or international jurisdictional rules do not apply, Swedish courts determine jurisdiction by reference to principles developed in Swedish case law, including through analogous application of the jurisdictional provisions of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. The assessment generally concerns whether the dispute has a sufficient connection to Sweden. Relevant connecting factors may include whether the defendant has assets in Sweden and whether the relevant harm occurred or was suffered in Sweden.

Applicable Law

The law applicable to antitrust damages claims based on non-contractual obligations is generally determined under Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (the “Rome II Regulation”). Article 6(3)(a) provides that the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from a restriction of competition is, as a general rule, the law of the country whose market is, or is likely to be, affected by the restriction. Where the restriction affects, or is likely to affect, markets in more than one jurisdiction, the claimant may choose to apply the law of the country of the proceedings on the entire claim, if at least one of the defendants are seated there. See Article 6(3)(b) of the Rome II Regulation.

A party to an antitrust damages action may request that the court order another party, or a third party, to produce documents that can be assumed to have evidentiary relevance to the proceedings. The request must identify the document or category of documents sought and specify the information that the documents are expected to contain.

However, there are a few exceptions to disclosure. The following information cannot be subject to disclosure:

• communications between a party and its counsel;
• trade secrets, unless there are special reasons for disclosure;
• documents held by a competition authority concerning declarations in a leniency process and settlement submissions; and
• documents produced for the competition authority’s investigation, while the investigation is still ongoing.

It should be noted, in terms of documents including trade secrets, that disclosure of such information is assessed on a case-by-case basis. The court will take into consideration the need for protection as well as the evidentiary value of such information for the other party. The court may order that documents are disclosed with restrictions, such as limiting the number of recipients and the use of the documents (confidentiality rings).

A court may order a competition authority to produce documents from its file where the relevant evidence cannot reasonably be obtained from another party or third party.

Disclosure may be sought before proceedings have been initiated, although the requirements are more restrictive. In particular, there must be a risk that the evidence would otherwise be lost or become difficult to obtain.

Separately from the rules on disclosure in civil proceedings, documents held by the Swedish Competition Authority may be accessible under the Swedish constitutional principle of public access to official documents. Access is, however, subject to applicable rules on secrecy and confidentiality, including restrictions concerning commercially sensitive information and certain material submitted in the context of leniency proceedings.

Legal professional privilege is protected under Swedish law. Confidential communication between a client and its legal counsel are generally protected from disclosure and cannot be compelled as evidence without the client’s consent. The protection follows from the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure and applies also in private antitrust damages proceedings.

Leniency statements and settlement submissions contained in the files of a competition authority are protected from disclosure in private antitrust proceedings. Such materials may not be ordered to be produced and are also inadmissible as evidence in antitrust damages actions.

Witness evidence in Swedish civil proceedings is generally presented orally at the main hearing. As a rule, written witness statements from factual witnesses are not admissible as a substitute for oral testimony, although exceptions apply, including where the parties agree that the statement may be relied upon. Witnesses may be cross-examined.

Witnesses may be summoned by the court and are required to attend the hearing. A summons may be combined with a conditional fine and, if a witness fails to appear without a valid excuse, the court may ultimately order that the witness be brought before the court. A witness may also be required to bring documents or other material relevant to the examination.

As a general rule, a witness who has not yet given evidence may not be present in the courtroom while the proceedings are taking place. Witnesses are normally examined under oath, subject to certain statutory exceptions.

In Swedish antitrust damages proceedings, expert evidence is most commonly presented through experts appointed by the parties. Claimants will frequently engage economic experts to assess and quantify the harm allegedly caused by the infringement. Economic expert evidence may also address other competition law issues, such as market definition and dominance. Legal experts may also be engaged, for example, to provide opinions on the content of foreign law where relevant.

Defendants commonly appoint their own experts to respond to the claimant’s expert evidence and present alternative analyses or conclusions.

Experts will generally provide their opinions in a written report. If requested by a party, an expert may also be examined at the oral hearing. The opposing party is entitled to cross-examine the expert on matters addressed in the expert report.

The court may also appoint an expert, although this is relatively uncommon in practice. In addition, the court may request assistance from the Swedish Competition Authority in determining the amount of damages. The Authority is not required to comply with such a request.

As noted in 2.2 Courts, the Patent and Market Court itself generally includes economic experts alongside legally qualified judges, providing the court with specialist economic expertise when considering competition law matters.

The guiding principle for the assessment of damages is full compensation. The claimant should, as far as possible, be placed in the financial position it would have been in had the competition law infringement not occurred. The assessment therefore generally involves comparing the claimant’s actual financial position with the counterfactual position that would have prevailed in the absence of the infringement. The amount of compensation may be reduced where the claimant has contributed to the harm suffered.

Swedish law does not provide for exemplary or punitive damages in antitrust damages actions. However, where it is impossible or excessively difficult to quantify the harm precisely, the court may estimate the amount of damages at a reasonable level.

A passing-on defence is available. A defendant may argue that the claimant passed on some or all of an overcharge resulting from the infringement to its customers and therefore did not itself suffer that part of the loss. The burden of proving the passing-on rests with the defendant.

Interest is payable from the date on which the damage occurred. Until proceedings are initiated, interest accrues at a rate corresponding to the Swedish reference rate plus two percentage points. From the date of service, interest accrues at the Swedish reference rate plus eight percentage points.

As a general rule, where two or more undertakings are responsible for harm resulting from the same competition law infringement, they are jointly and severally liable for the resulting damages.

The Competition Damages Act provides for certain exceptions to this principle. Small and medium-sized enterprises, within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, may benefit from limited liability where their market share remained below 5% during the infringement and the application of the ordinary rules on joint and several liability would irretrievably jeopardise their economic viability and cause their assets to lose all their value. Subject to the statutory conditions, their liability is generally limited to harm suffered by their own direct and indirect purchasers or suppliers. This exception does not apply in certain circumstances, including where the undertaking led the infringement, coerced other undertakings to participate in it or has previously been found to have infringed competition law. Nor does the limitation apply where an injured party would otherwise be unable to obtain full compensation from the other infringers.

An undertaking that has received immunity from fines under a leniency programme remains liable for damages. Its joint and several liability is, however, generally limited to harm suffered by its own direct or indirect purchasers or suppliers. It may also be liable to other injured parties where full compensation cannot be obtained from the other undertakings involved in the infringement.

Specific rules also apply where an infringer has settled with an injured party. As a general rule, the settling infringer is no longer liable to the settling claimant for the remaining claim against the other infringers. However, the settling infringer may remain liable where the remaining damages cannot be recovered from the other infringers, unless this possibility has been expressly excluded by the terms of the settlement.

Where several undertakings are liable for the same competition law infringement, an infringer that has compensated the injured party may recover an appropriate share of the payment from the other infringers. The allocation between the infringers will depend on their respective responsibility for the harm.

A specific limitation applies to immunity recipients under a leniency programme. The amount that such an undertaking may be required to contribute is generally capped by reference to the harm suffered by its own direct or indirect purchasers or suppliers.

Injunctive relief is available in private antitrust proceedings, including by way of interim measures under the general rules in Chapter 15 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Such measures may include interim orders prohibiting or requiring certain conduct, as well as attachment of assets.

An interim measure may generally be granted where the applicant demonstrates probable cause for the underlying claim and there is a reasonable risk that the opposing party, by taking or refraining from certain action, will prevent or substantially impede the exercise or realisation of the applicant’s rights, or otherwise materially diminish their value.

An application for an interim measure is made to the court hearing, or competent to hear, the underlying claim. As a general rule, the opposing party must be given an opportunity to comment before the measure is granted. However, where there is an imminent risk, the court may issue an interim order without first hearing the opposing party. The matter will then be reconsidered once the opposing party has had an opportunity to respond.

Swedish procedural law does not impose a specific duty of “full and frank disclosure” equivalent to that applicable to without-notice applications in certain common law jurisdictions. The applicant must, however, provide sufficient material to establish that the statutory requirements for the interim measure are satisfied.

The applicant is generally required to provide security for any loss that the interim measure may cause the opposing party. Swedish law does not require a cross-undertaking in damages in the common law sense. However, if an interim measure is granted and the applicant ultimately fails to establish the underlying claim, the applicant may be liable for losses caused by the measure.

There is no fixed time period within which an application for interim relief must be determined. The time required will depend on the urgency and complexity of the circumstances. In particularly urgent cases, an interim order may be made at an early stage and, where appropriate, before the opposing party has been heard.

Alternative dispute resolution is available in private antitrust disputes but is not mandatory.

Swedish courts should seek to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties where this is considered appropriate. The parties may also agree to mediation. Where two or more parties to an ongoing antitrust damages action engage in consensual dispute resolution, the court may stay the proceedings while those efforts are ongoing.

Private antitrust disputes may also be resolved through arbitration, provided that the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Sweden and is not subject to any specific statutory regulation. Funding may in principle be provided in respect of private antitrust litigation.

There is no general requirement in Swedish court proceedings for a funded party to disclose the existence or terms of a third-party funding arrangement. As a result, there is limited publicly available information on the extent to which litigation funding is used in practice. The Swedish litigation funding market has, however, continued to develop, with both domestic and international funders active in Sweden.

Under the general rule in Swedish civil proceedings, the unsuccessful party is required to reimburse the successful party for its reasonable litigation costs. Recoverable costs may include court fees, legal counsel fees, expert fees and certain internal costs. Where each party succeeds on some issues and loses on others, the court may apportion the costs between them to reflect the outcome of the proceedings.

A defendant may, in certain circumstances, request that a foreign claimant provide security for litigation costs. This applies primarily where the claimant is a foreign individual who is not domiciled in Sweden or a foreign legal entity. Claimants domiciled in, or legal entities established under the laws of, an EEA country are treated in the same manner as Swedish claimants for these purposes. Further exemptions may apply pursuant to international treaties.

A request for security must generally be made no later than when the defendant first presents its case before the court. If the requirements are satisfied, the court will order the claimant to provide security within a specified period. Failure to provide adequate security may result in the claim being dismissed.

Security is generally provided by way of a pledge or guarantee. If the defendant does not accept the security offered, its adequacy is determined by the court. Other forms of security may be used with the defendant’s consent.

Judgments and decisions of the Patent and Market Court may be appealed to the Patent and Market Court of Appeal, subject to leave to appeal being granted. An appeal is not limited to points of law and may also concern issues of fact and the assessment of evidence.

As a general rule, judgments and decisions of the Patent and Market Court of Appeal in civil cases are final. The Patent and Market Court of Appeal may, however, permit an appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court where it considers that a review by the Supreme Court would be important for the development of case law. Any such appeal is also subject to the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal.

Private antitrust litigation has historically been relatively limited in Sweden. However, recent developments may contribute to increased interest in Sweden as a forum for competition damages claims. Sweden has specialised courts for competition law matters, with both legally qualified judges and economic experts, and the procedural framework provides opportunities for pursuing claims involving harm suffered across several jurisdictions.

A particularly significant development is the Patent and Market Court’s judgment of 1 July 2026 in PriceRunner v Google. The Court awarded PriceRunner approximately USD2 billion in damages and interest arising from Google’s abuse of its dominant position, making it the largest damages award to date in a Swedish competition law case. The proceedings concerned harm suffered in Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom and illustrate the potential for substantial, cross-border damages claims to be pursued before the Swedish courts. The judgment has been appealed and is therefore not final.

There are currently no indications of fundamental changes to the Swedish framework for private antitrust damages litigation. Future developments are therefore likely to be driven primarily by case law and the practical use of the existing Competition Damages Act.