Competition policy conference 2026

Speakers
Sarah Cardell, CEO, Competition and Markets Authority
Chair: Elizabeth Sinclair, Partner, Clifford Chance

• How can authorities calibrate merger control thresholds and remedies to remain pro-competitive without becoming a vehicle for protectionist industrial policies?
• As the stakeholders recalibrate their approach to merger review under strategic and national interest pressures, can the current US framework be understood as ‘America First Antitrust’ and how durable are these shifts likely to be across future administrations?
• At a European level, how successful will the revised Merger Guidelines be in creating a new, legally and economically sound approach with an evidence-based analytical framework for mergers across sectors?
• What does the UK-EU reset mean for merger control alignment - a natural convergence on procedural cooperation or a lasting point of divergence that will be maintained for political convenience?
• In a landscape of geostrategic competition, will merger controls end up becoming a tool that generates national champions or can they generate genuine efficiencies still?

• As economic security displaces market efficiency as a core pillar of regulatory policy, should competition authorities redefine their mandate or resist the drift and defend the primacy of consumer welfare?
• How are policymakers looking to reduce dependence on foreign supplies of critical inputs in key areas like rare-earth minerals or semi-conductor lithography and in turn, how is this impacting FDI, merger control and foreign subsidy regulation enforcement?
• Is sector-specific industrial policy, such as the Industrial Accelerator Act and the EU Ports Strategy, a proportionate response to these security concerns or is it protectionism in disguise?
• Have transatlantic tensions caused European FDI authorities to view American investors as less “friendly”, or European investors to face tougher CFIUS scrutiny?
• For businesses already operating globally, how should they navigate a compliance environment in which trade remedy instruments, FDI rules and competition enforcement increasingly target the same conduct with potentially conflicting outcomes? 

• Where should stakeholders focus efforts to provide operational value on anti-trust regulations and how could updated guidelines ensure legal certainty for firms, authorities and judges alike?
• Do the revised Article 102 TFEU guidelines enhance legal certainty for firms and national competition authorities alike in Europe and if not, what areas should be focused on to improve these efforts in this specific context?
• In the technology domain, to what extent does algorithmic preferencing constitute a form of digital nudging under Article 102, and does current guidance give enforcers sufficient tools to act without clearer evidence of market foreclosure?
• In the environment and climate domain, what do the new guidelines say on sustainability and how can stakeholders use the abuse of dominance provisions to tackle unsustainable conduct? In turn, what comforts might the new guidelines give dominant firms in their sustainability efforts?
• Does current legislation adequately distinguish between or address distribution and functionality self-preferencing by gatekeepers?

• How has prolonged exposure to each other changed the relationship between technology stakeholders and digital market regulators over recent years?
• Is the flexible and faster approach of the DMCCA, a post-Brexit success story and what lessons should be learned from the European Commission’s review into the effectiveness of the DMA. How might these two stories tell the tale of the potential UK-EU rest?
• Where does this leave businesses in the technology space, particularly those operating in the rapidly developing world of AI?
• Does an ex-ante approach to AI regulation provide a proactive risk mitigation strategy or will the speed of AI’s rapid advancement and the complexity of algorithms make effective enforcement too challenging?
• How do stakeholders tackle divergence between US and European approaches and do current geopolitical trends risk turning regulating into politicised decision making?