UK Competition Authority in Retreat on Dairy Products "Hub and Spoke" Information Exchange Case -- Partially abandons case and hands back GB£ 50 million in agreed penalties
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.30.10
Today, 30 April, the UK antitrust regulator, the Office of Fair Trading ('OFT'), announced that it was partially abandoning its case against various supermarkets and dairy firms in relation to the exchange of pricing information. As a result, the OFT will return GB£ 50 million in agreed penalties paid by parties that had reached "early resolution" settlements. The OFT has altogether abandoned its case against Morrisons, one of two supermarkets that did not settle.
The OFT will retain approximately GB£ 70 million in agreed penalties in relation to the remaining aspects of the case, and is likely to impose significant further penalties on Tesco, the other supermarket that contested the OFT's case.
In September 2007, the OFT issued a statement of objections alleging that in 2002 and 2003, 5 supermarkets and 5 diary processors had colluded in relation to the retail prices of milk, cheese and butter by exchanging commercially sensitive information. Between December 2007 and February 2008, the OFT announced that it had entered into settlements with 7 of the 10 parties under which they had collectively agreed to pay GB£ 120 million in return for a reported 35% reduction in penalties. An eighth party was granted immunity as a leniency applicant.
Two supermarkets, Morrisons and Tesco, contested the case. As a result of their efforts, the OFT has abandoned its allegations of collusion in relation to milk in 2002 and butter in 2003. The OFT said its decision was "in light of detailed representations and new evidence received".
The OFT has been a pioneer in bringing cases such as this one based on indirect 'hub and spoke' information exchanges. These latest developments illustrate the difficulties posed by these cases, and in particular the evidential difficulties in distinguishing between information that supermarkets (and other buyers) can and cannot lawfully exchange with their suppliers. It will be interesting to see what impact this will have on the OFT's ongoing investigation into supermarkets and branded goods suppliers, which also involves allegations of information exchange.
The announcement also represents a potential blow to the OFT's settlement program. Parties are likely to question whether there may be more to gain from contesting OFT allegations than from early resolution.
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
Executive Order Tries to Thwart “Onerous” AI State Regulation, Calls for National Framework
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.17.25
The new EU Bioeconomy Strategy: a regulatory framework in transition
