A PYMNTS Company

UK: CMA pushes cartel campaign

 |  October 22, 2018

The latest campaign to encourage whistleblowing over cartel activity continues the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) fight in this area. Earlier this year, it announced a sector-focused crackdown on activity, and in 2017 it launched an online advertising campaign offering rewards of up to £100,000 (US$129,700) for whistleblowers.

The body stated it had issued over £155 million (US$201 million) in fines since April 2015 following investigations into anti-competitive practices, and it is currently investigating 15 cases across a variety of sectors.

Major fines include the £3.4 million (US$4.4 million) handed out to two major charcoal and coal suppliers, which were found to have been part of a market sharing cartel. Meanwhile, water tank firms were fined over £2.6 million (US$3.4 million) after forming a cartel to divide up customers, fix minimum prices, and share commercially sensitive information.

The survey found that only 57% of businesses knew it was illegal to fix prices, and 25% of respondents thought it was legal to discuss prices with competing bidders when quoting for work. Over a third incorrectly said dividing up and sharing customers with rivals was legal and 24% were not sure whether or not this was legal.

While a majority of companies said they were in contact with rivals for professional networking purposes, 10% of respondents admitted they had discussed prices with competitors.

Full Content: Out-Law

Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in Consumer Bureau Battle Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in CFPB Battle

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in Consumer Bureau Battle

 |  April 3, 2025

A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that had delivered a significant victory to government employees and consumer advocates opposing President Donald Trump’s efforts to curtail the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). According to Reuters, the decision maintains a temporary pause while the court considers an emergency request from the Justice Department to overturn the previous ruling entirely.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stopped short of reversing any provisions set forth by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in her March 28 ruling. Per Reuters, her decision had ordered the CFPB to reinstate dismissed employees, restore canceled contracts, and continue performing its legally mandated duties. However, the appellate judges left in place interim measures preventing the administration from taking further action against agency staff or halting essential operations.

Despite the temporary stay, the three-judge panel emphasized that the decision should not be interpreted as an indication of their final ruling. “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the order stated, according to Reuters.

Related: CFPB Allows Some Operations to Resume Amid Legal Challenge

The Justice Department formally notified the court on Saturday of its intent to challenge Judge Berman Jackson’s order, seeking to overturn her directive that prevented the administration from erasing agency data, terminating employees, or discontinuing active contracts. The Trump administration’s moves against the CFPB began in February when the president dismissed the agency’s director and granted officials from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency extensive access to sensitive CFPB data systems. The actions resulted in widespread layoffs, contract cancellations, and office closures, prompting consumer protection groups and affected workers to file a lawsuit denouncing the changes as unlawful.

According to Reuters, agency leadership has since attempted to walk back some of these measures, a move Judge Berman Jackson described as likely “a charade for the court’s benefit.” While the appeals court’s temporary stay keeps aspects of the lower court’s ruling in place for now, the broader legal battle over the CFPB’s future remains unresolved.

Source: Reuters