Table of Contents
- New Rules for Technology Licensing Agreements in EU and UK Start 1 May
- Authority Issues First Fine Under New UK Consumer Protection Rules
- First Conditional Approval of Procurement Process Occurs Under EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation
- Conditions Imposed on Transaction Under UK NSI Act to Cover Supply Chain Concerns
New Rules for Technology Licensing Agreements in EU and UK Start 1 May
On 16 April 2026, the European Commission announced it adopted a revised technology transfer block exemption regulation (TTBER) and related guidelines, which enter into force on 1 May 2026 and replace the versions in place since 2014.
The TTBER and guidelines set the competition law rules applicable in the EU when an owner of technology rights (e.g., patents, design rights or software copyright) authorises another firm — usually by granting a licence — to use the rights to produce goods or services. These technology transfer agreements are often procompetitive, but some restrictions can have negative effects on competition.
Provided certain conditions are met, the TTBER automatically exempts technology transfer agreements from the general prohibition of anticompetitive agreements affecting the EU contained in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The guidelines contain details on the operation of the TTBER and provide guidance on the assessment of technology transfer and other technology-related agreements that fall outside the TTBER.
The main changes to the rules concern data licensing agreements and licensing negotiation groups (LNGs). The guidelines include a new section on the assessment of data licensing for production purposes. The section sets out that since the licensing of databases protected by copyright or the EU database right is generally procompetitive, the EC will assess this type of data licensing by applying the same principles it uses for technology transfer agreements.
LNGs are arrangements among technology implementers to negotiate jointly the terms of the technology licences they wish to obtain from technology owners. The new guidelines contain a section that explains the possible pro- and anticompetitive effects of LNGs, the distinction between genuine LNGs and buyer cartels, and the relevant factors for assessing whether an LNG is likely to restrict competition. It also highlights measures that LNGs can take to reduce the risk of infringing Article 101 TFEU.
Further changes in the guidelines clarify and simplify the application of the rules, including the application of the TTBER’s market share thresholds for situations in which licensing takes place before a technology is commercialised. In addition, certain conditions of the safe harbour for technology pools, found in the guidelines, were amended. Technology pools are arrangements under which multiple technology owners contribute their technology rights to a package, which is licensed out to the contributors and third parties.
The UK adopted an equivalent block exemption that applies under UK competition law as of 1 May 2026, the Competition Act 1998 (Technology Transfer Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2026. The UK exemption is largely consistent with the EU’s approach, with some tailoring for the UK market.
Authority Issues First Fine Under New UK Consumer Protection Rules
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued its first fine under new consumer enforcement powers contained in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 (DMCC Act). The case concerned the use of drip pricing by two driving schools owned by Automobile Association Developments Limited (AA).
Under the DMCC Act, if a company infringes consumer protection law, the CMA can investigate and fine it up to 10% of its global turnover (or £300,000 when this is higher than the 10% figure). A company under investigation may enter a settlement with the CMA if it admits to breaching consumer law and agrees to pay a fine. Settlement can result in a fine discount of up to 40%.
In the AA case, the CMA found that more than 80,000 learner drivers were not shown the total price upfront when booking lessons online. Instead, new customers only saw the full price at checkout — after they selected lessons and times and entered personal details. Returning customers saw the booking fee separately from the initial price and only saw the total price on the following page at checkout. Those were, according to the CMA, “clear” breaches of consumer protection law, which requires mandatory fees to be included in the price from the start and not added at checkout, a practice known as drip pricing.
The AA reached a settlement with the CMA under which the AA will refund affected customers over £760,000 and pay a fine of £4.2 million (a 40% reduction on the original figure of £7 million).
The CMA said it is prioritising consumer protection law enforcement against drip pricing and other unlawful online pricing practices. It noted that in 2023, the Department for Business and Trade found that almost half of online businesses (46%) use hidden or dripped fees, with consumers estimated to spend up to £3.5 billion extra online each year as a result. Service fees — such as booking or processing charges — were particularly problematic, as they were typically mandatory and revealed late in the checkout process.
The CMA also launched a Clear Pricing campaign, which provides businesses with a practical three-step checklist to make sure their prices are clear and upfront — as well as detailed guidance to help companies stay on the right side of the law.
First Conditional Approval of Procurement Process Occurs Under EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation
The EC issued its first conditional approval after an in-depth investigation of a public procurement process under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). The case concerned the award of a contract by Metropolitano de Lisboa for the construction and design of the Lisbon “Violet” metro line.
The FSR, which applied as of 13 July 2023, enables the EC to address distortions in the EU market caused by foreign subsidies. Under the FSR, companies are required to notify the EC when they participate in large public tenders in the EU if the estimated contract value is at least €250 million net of VAT and participants (including their main subcontractors and suppliers) received aggregate foreign financial contributions of at least €4 million per third country during the three years prior to the notification.
The EC will open an in-depth investigation when, following a preliminary review, it finds sufficient indications that the foreign financial contributions may constitute a distortive foreign subsidy in the context of the public procurement procedure. In the Lisbon case, the EC opened an in-depth investigation based on indications that one of the subcontractors in a consortium bid, Chinese-owned Portugal CRRC Tangshan Rolling Stock Unipessoal, may have received subsidies from the Chinese government that distorted the procurement procedure, enabling the consortium to submit an unduly advantageous tender.
The in-depth investigation confirmed these preliminary findings. To deal with the concerns, the consortium committed to replace the subcontractor with a Polish rolling stock manufacturer that had not received subsidies. On that basis, the consortium was allowed to participate in the tender, although the final award will still be determined by Metropolitano de Lisboa.
As it does each time the FSR is applied against Chinese companies, the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU (CCCEU) raised concerns about the decision. It noted that the Chinese entity participated solely as a subcontractor, with a contract value accounting for less than 10% of the overall contract value of the project. Similar to comments it made in previous cases, the CCCEU also stated that the FSR grants the EC excessive discretion in subsidy assessment, impact evaluation and selection of remedial measures. According to the CCCEU, the lack of sufficiently clear, consistent and predictable standards increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement and selective application, raising concerns regarding de facto discrimination against Chinese companies.
Conditions Imposed on Transaction Under UK NSI Act to Cover Supply Chain Concerns
On 22 April 2026, the UK announced the first conditional approval of a transaction in 2026 under the UK National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSI Act), which authorizes the UK’s foreign direct investment control regime relating to national security grounds.
The transaction is the acquisition of Manx Telecom by CVC Capital Partners and JT Group of Jersey, the Isle of Man’s leading telecommunications provider. The Isle of Man is not part of the UK but is a self-governing entity.
Following a review under the NSI Act, the government identified a risk to national security due to Manx Telecom’s role as a critical supplier of services provided to UK government departments that are in support of UK national security. The transaction was cleared subject to conditions.
The parties must ensure that, so long as it is subject to an agreed contract for services in support of UK national security, Manx Telecom continues to fulfil those services to the UK government. It must also establish and maintain a cybersecurity group within the company that will perform certain obligations, including carrying out activities that have an impact on or are in respect of UK national security, and will maintain the cybersecurity posture of the company.
The transaction did not raise national security concerns based on the identity of the buyers, which is the concern in most cases. Instead, references to Manx Telecom being a critical supplier and the conditions the government imposed indicate that the government took the opportunity to strengthen UK national security by ensuring that contracts would remain in place and by improving the company’s cybersecurity profile. Those narrower issues need to be considered in relevant transactions that may fall under the NSI Act, whether through a mandatory notification or a potential call-in when notification is not required.
Additional EU and UK competition law news coverage can be found on McGuireWoods’ Insights page. McGuireWoods also publishes legal alerts on U.S. antitrust developments and numerous other topics.