U.S. and EU Antitrust Enforcement: What Role in a More Heavily Regulated Financial Sector?
Todd Fishman, Olivier Fréget, David Gabathuler, Dec 22, 2011
The global financial crisis has led regulators and legislators in the United States and in the European Union to introduce a number of rules and regulations aimed at addressing market failures and improving regulatory enforcement in the banking and finance industry. The increasing convergence and complementarity of competition law and regulation across many regulated sectors, and the perceived commonality in interest, should mean that the antitrust authorities are strongly positioned to play an active and wide-ranging role alongside the financial regulators. Yet there is no consensus on whether unfettered competition in the banking sector will produce an optimal outcome in terms of financial stability. Some believe that intense competition may be detrimental to stability by causing excessive risk taking, while others argue that too much oversight into the financial industries will chill investment activities and stifle the markets. The apparent conflict between competition policy and a fundamental aim of financial regulation may explain, in part, why there has historically been a resistance to allowing competition policy to intervene heavily in the financial services sector. In particular, there are concerns regarding the ability of antitrust rules to address, quickly and effectively, conduct connected with deficiencies in market structure and transparency. This paper takes a comparative approach and examines how the enforcement of the competition rules in the United States and in the European Union could be constrained-on conflict grounds-by broadly-based rules and regulations addressing perceived market failures in the financial sector. It then briefly details the enforcement action taken by the U.S. and EU antitrust authorities in the financial sector following the advent of the economic crisis. Finally, the paper concludes by discussing whether the apparent differences between the two systems may lead to divergent enforcement outcomes, particularly in terms of the level of scrutiny by the respective antitrust authorities. This discussion also highlights the risk of conflicts arising from the divergent interests of financial regulators and antitrust authorities.
Featured News
Telecom Giants Explore Joint Bid for Europe’s Satellite Airwaves
Sep 7, 2026 by
CPI
OpenAI Files EU Report After AI Agents Hijacked German Website
Sep 7, 2026 by
CPI
US Clears Volaris-Viva Aerobus Combination as Mexico Review Looms
Sep 7, 2026 by
CPI
EU Suspension Clouds Timeline for Saipem-Subsea7 Merger
Sep 7, 2026 by
CPI
India Competition Chief Warns AI Could Accelerate Antitrust Risks
Sep 7, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – State Attorneys General
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
CPI Talks… with Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
Aug 27, 2026 by
Jonathan Skrmetti
What the Live Nation Jury Instructions Tell Us About California’s Unfair Competition Law
Aug 27, 2026 by
Henry Hauser, Brent Nakamura, Ashley Kaplan, Brian Wang & Cari Jeffries
From Backroom Deals to Public Scrutiny: The Tunney Act’s Past, Present, and Future
Aug 27, 2026 by
Christina M. Black & Ashley A. Locke
Understanding the Fragility of Economic Concentration Through the Principles of Ecology
Aug 27, 2026 by
Alexandra Spring