This blog post explores a hand-picked key developments in both competition law policy and enforcement in Latvian competition law scene in 2025.

Legislative Amendments 

The end of “paying out” of a cartel?

On 2 October 2025, the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia (Saeima) advanced draft amendments to Competition Law for further review within the Saeima responsible committee that would introduce personal liability on company officials for competition law infringements, particularly prohibited agreements involving (mis)use of public funding.

The draft amendments that intend to fundamentally change the stakes of committing competition law infringements provide that the CC would be able to impose a three-year ban on the infringing company’s official from holding any official positions. In such case the CC would have to establish that either: (i) the official of a market participant has been directly involved in the infringement; or (ii) the official of the market participant was not directly involved in the infringement yet was aware of the infringement and did not take any preventive actions to cease the violation.

At the same time, the draft amendments provide an exemption from personal liability in three situations: (i) the market participant has received the exemption or reduction of the fine due to participation in leniency programme; (ii) the official of the market participant has submitted information on facts and circumstances that, within the view of the CC, are sufficient to find a competition law infringement, and has not taken actions that would encourage other market participants to engage in the cartel; or (iii) more than three years have passed since the day the competition law infringement was committed or, if the infringement is continuous, from the day the infringement ceased.

In other words, the legislator’s message for now seems to be clear – stay quiet and risk a career-risking ban. The legislative amendments come as a part of the wider policy agenda of preventing that the fine for participating in a prohibited agreement is just a “corporate expense”, but rather that such conduct shall result in a personal reckoning for these people that hold the stakes, putting professional reputation and ability to take executive positions on the line.

Anti-competitive Agreements

Half-million euro fine for a nationwide cartel

In 2025, the CC continued to prioritize the investigation of cartels in public procurement. This was highlighted by unfolding of a cartel between five construction companies that colluded in tenders for repair and construction works in engineering communication network projects nationwide. This collusion cost the companies a fine of total of half-million euro.

Interesting aspect of the case is that it was initiated following the receipt of initial information from municipal capital company SIA “Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks” as the company identified rather suspicious coincidences in the documents submitted by cartel participants in the tender. This clearly demonstrates the success of the CC’s attempts to educate the procuring entities on “red flags” in the bids of tenderers (see, e.g., a Signal List adopted by the CC).

The investigation revealed that there was no formal agreement and no allocation of projects occurred amongst the companies involved. However, the investigation revealed a concerted practice that took place for a period of 3 years in total distorting competition in more than 30 tenders. The case ultimately concluded with all companies settling with the CC.

The KIA Auto case concludes after a more than a decade-long litigation

In the last year’s edition we reported on KIA Auto case, which now, at the very end of 2025, has concluded by a decision of the Senate refusing to initiate cassation proceedings and thus dismissing the cassation appeal filed.

Therefore, the CC’s decision of 7 August 2014, by which KIA Auto and its parent company were fined for a total of 135 thousand euro, is final now. The fine addressed warranty conditions that were applicable during the time period of 2004 to 2009, by which KIA car owners were required to carry out routine maintenance exclusively at KIA authorised service shops and to only use KIA original spare parts.

KIA disagreed with the CC’s findings and appealed the decision. The litigation took place for several years and involved a judicial ping-pong between the Senate and the lower court when the Administrative Regional Court suspended the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for a preliminary ruling. The CJEU’s ruling shed light on the required standard of proof to demonstrate restrictions of competition by effect under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, noting that the national competition authorities are not obliged to have to demonstrate the existence of specific and actual effects on competition as the demonstrating of potential anticompetitive effects, insofar they are sufficiently appreciable, is sufficient.

Following the CJEU’s findings, the Administrative Regional Court upheld the CC’s decision closely following the guidance provided in the CJEU’s ruling.  

Closing the year with a landmark judgment in so-called “builders’ cartel”

Just a day before Christmas, the Senate delivered a landmark judgment in the infamous “builders’ cartel” case (we reported on the first instance court’s ruling in the last year’s edition), annulling the ruling of the Administrative Regional Court and reverting the case back for re-examination.

For a quick refresh of the memory, the case dates back to 2021 and concerns an alleged involvement of 10 construction companies in a cartel affecting approximately 70 procurements across Latvia. The key evidence used in the case was obtained throughout covert operations within a criminal investigation – including covert recording of private conversations – that were obtained by the Latvian Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (“the Bureau”) and transferred to the CC.

The Senate’s ruling ultimately squashes the CC’s existing practice (essentially similar evidence is used in the so-called “road construction” cartel fined back in 2023): covert recordings of conversations are inadmissible and cannot be used in administrative proceedings applying competition law. The Senate’s judgment largely follows a similar legal test concerning the quality of law as applied in the judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v The Netherlands, reinforcing the critical importance of the rule of law, procedural fairness and ultimately the protection of fundamental rights.

The Senate concluded that the cartel detection is not listed in the exhaustive list of purposes that justify the use of covert surveillance under Latvian Operational Activities Law. Therefore, individuals cannot reasonably predict that such covertly gathered information could be used to prove cartel infringements, thus, any repurposing of this information for competition law infringements is prohibited. Moreover, the Senate dismissed the CC’s argument that such information loses its “sensitive” nature when it becomes a part of criminal case materials – such evidence retains its special status and the subsequent limitations on its reuse continue to apply.

The message of the ruling is clear: the methods used to detect cartels, as well as the type and quality of evidence used to support the findings, are of critical importance. The ruling undoubtedly has caused a stir, landing the case both in the headlines, as well as on the working desk of the legislature, considering a potential changes to the law.

The case, now with the covertly used conversation transcripts missing in the case file, is reverted back to the Administrative Regional Court for re-examination. The outcome of the case is rather unclear as there is no doubt that the information received from the Bureau was the key evidence substantiating the CC’s findings.

The Prohibition of Abuse of a Dominant Position

The Competition Council pulls the plug: no more paying for “flushing” of the garden water

In summer of 2025, the CC imposed a 78 thousand euro fine on SIA “Mārupes komunālie pakalpojumi” (“MKP”) for abusing its dominant market position. As a provider of centralized water, sewerage services, and meter installation, MKP was found to have engaged in both exploitative and exclusionary practices.

The essence of the case may be summarized in a small piece – imagine watering your garden, where the water goes into the soil of flowers and produce growing in your backyard. While you are expecting the result of your cherished greenery, you are hit with a hefty “sewage fee” from your local utility provider for that water. Indeed, that same water that blooms your garden and which has never entered the sewer system at all.

The CC found that MKP had forced its customers to pay for sewage services even when the water was not entering the sewer system (e.g., water used on lawns), therefore essentially charging for a service that did not exist. Furthermore, the CC found that for almost a year and a half MKP conveniently had stopped providing installation and replacement services for secondary water meters that are used to separate garden water from indoor water, as well as banned its customers from doing the installing themselves or hiring other certified, independent third-party contractors to do so.

The result of this conduct is undoubtedly expensive – the residents had paid a price with three times the markup as they were unable to prove where the water was in fact going. Further, by its decision the CC imposed behavioural remedies: MKP must, within three months, resume the installation of secondary water meters, as well as allow customers use qualified third-party contractors for this work.

The case is currently pending before the court, yet CC has been proactive and loud and clear – if you have been overpaying for MKP’s services over the years, do not toss these bills just yet as the residents should not hesitate for filing a claim for damages to recover any overcharge.  

Merger Control

Overview

During 2025, there were a total of 18 merger decisions adopted by the CC out of which 4 cases entered into a phase II investigation. Only one merger involving retailers and wholesalers of fuel and petroleum products was permitted with the adoption of binding conditions. Compared to 2024, the merger activity slightly decreased.

Notwithstanding the numbers of notified mergers, the year involved some notable transactions, such as, e.g., Ingka Investments largest-ever forestland acquisition, merger of ADB Gjensidige and ERGO in the Baltics and the acquiring of DelfinGroup by INDEXO. Thus, despite the slight dip in the merger activity, the CC was nonetheless faced to evaluate several major transactions in various sectors.

Taking over a lease: a notifiable merger?

In Latvia, the CC’s established merger control practice in terms of retail mergers over the years has been straight forward – if the retailer leases premises that have been previously used by its competitor and the previous tenant had sufficient turnover in those premises, the merger shall be notified to the CC. The CC’s assessment does not involve any consideration on whether the transaction concerns whole or part of assets of an undertaking, or any other elements that are the object of control and constitute a business to which a market turnover can be clearly attributed. In practice, this means that nearly every retail lease agreement, as long as the statutory thresholds are met, is being notified to the CC.

Back in 2019, the CC adopted a decision blocking SIA “MAXIMA Latvija” from taking over a lease of the retail premises located in the centre of Riga. The retailer challenged the decision and after judicial battles before the Administrative Regional Court and later the Senate, the case was ultimately reverted back to Administrative Regional Court, which in November 2025 quashed the CC’s decision.

The Administrative Regional Court ruled on a fundamental ground – the lease of premises that had been previously used by another retailer does not per se constitute a merger, marking the crucial importance of substantive merger assessment. Furthermore, the previous tenant’s market share does not automatically transfer to the next retailer conducting its business in the premises.

The CC has  appealed the Administrative Regional Court’s ruling to the Senate, consequently, whether the CC’s long-standing practice in retail mergers will be overturned remains subject to final judicial review.  

Market Inquiries

In 2025 the CC conducted in total of 3 market studies which resulted in market monitoring reports: (i) Scrap Metal Market Monitoring Report; (ii) Market Monitoring Report on Payment Terms in the Fresh Fruit, Vegetable, and Berry Supply Chain; and (iii) Market Monitoring Report on Public Procurement by South Kurzeme Municipality.

Last year marked a significant step in the CC’s supervision agenda of food retail sector, which resulted not only with the adoption of market monitoring report, but also the first-ever fine for a violation of the Unfair Trading Practices Prohibition Law, hitting one of the largest retailers in Latvia – SIA “MAXIMA Latvija” – with a just shy of 2 million euro fine for alleged unilateral changing of the terms of supply agreement for agricultural and food products with regard to pricing. The case currently is pending before the court.

Furthermore, the CC has reported the launch of a new market monitoring project “Assessment of the Competitiveness of the Retail Sector in Latvia and the Baltic States”, which will be a pan-Baltic project including information gathered by all three Baltic competition authorities.

Outlook for 2026

Considering the CC’s activities in the food retail sector in 2025, it is expected that the food retail will remain one of the CC’s key priorities in 2026. Also, similarly as in 2025, the CC has noted that the detection and prevention of cartels in public procurement will be on the CC’s radar. The CC has also informed the public that work will continue on 11 active investigation cases, while market surveillance and digitalization projects will be finalized. Additionally, solutions for strengthening the supervision of public persons will be considered.

The Nasdaq Composite also surged 2.18% on Friday. But the rebound masked a sell-off in many tech names.

Shares of Amazon, the fifth largest public company in the world, sank 5.58% after it said Thursday that it planned to spend $200 billion in the coming year.

That money is primarily expected to be spent on the Amazon Web Services division, the largest cloud provider in the world.

Since Monday, Amazon’s stock has plunged 12% and shed more than $310 billion in market value.

Two other tech giants, Microsoft and Meta, have met similar fates this week. Both companies also announced hundreds of billions of dollars in planned spending on AI this year.

Collectively, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet plan to shell out around $650 billion this year to expand their data center and AI capabilities.

Taken together, the four companies shed nearly $1 trillion in market value over the last five days.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite also finished the week in the red. But there were definite bright spots.

Industrial stocks such as Caterpillar and a handful of energy firms soared on the expectation that their services would be in high demand for data centers.

The industrial and energy sectors of the S&P 500 were two of the best performers on Friday. Tech was as well, boosted by chipmakers.

Shares of Nvidia also boomed, rising nearly 8%. The AI chip maker is now worth more than $4.5 trillion.

After saying earlier this week that the sell-off was “the most illogical thing in the world,” Nvidia CEO went on CNBC to back the sector again on Friday. Huang said the stunning levels of spending was appropriate given the “incredibly high” demand for AI applications.

Likewise, Apple jumped 7% this week. The iPhone maker has been largely spared from recent AI-induced sell-offs because the company buys most of its cloud computing capacity from other firms, rather than build its own data centers.

The turmoil started on Tuesday, after AI developer Anthropic announced that AI agents could do advanced tasks such as data analytics.

This triggered a panic among investors in the software companies and firms that provide data analysis for industries as varied as real estate, human resources and banking.

Fear that AI agents could eat into their businesses prompted heavy selling this week in the sector.

Private credit firms, which own many of the big software and data companies, also plummeted this week. These firms play a growing role in helping to raise the extraordinary amount of money that AI and tech giants are seeking to expand.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average also hit 50,000 Friday for the the first time ever. While the index and each of all-time highs draw lots of attention, the Dow contains only 30 stocks, making it a relatively poor barometer of the overall strength of the markets, relative to an index like the S&P 500.

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to celebrate the Dow milestone, posting: “CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!” For the year, however, the more representative S&P 500 is up less than 1%.

Meanwhile, the value of one bitcoin swung nearly $10,000 in the last 24 hours, with the token plunging nearly to $60,000 late Thursday night. By late Friday, it had boomeranged back to more than $70,000.

But crypto can often be an outlier to more mainstream assets such as stocks and bonds.

“Crypto is not an asset, and is held by a tiny portion of society,” UBS Global Wealth Management chief economist Paul Donovan wrote on Friday. “It is unlikely that consumer behavior will change because of recent market moves.”

Small and medium stocks also well outperformed their larger peers on Friday, soaring almost 4% on the Russell 2000 index.

“We are long Main St., short Wall St.,” wrote Bank of America analysts on Friday. They suggested that until Trump’s approval rating improves, smaller stocks would continue to benefit.