Insights

The European Union has enacted its first major reform of the 2009 directives on defense procurement and intra-EU transfers of defense-related products. The amending directive, which has been adopted as part of the Defense Readiness Omnibus legislative package (also known as “Omnibus V”), aims to simplify and accelerate procedures both for buying defense- and security-related goods, and for transferring such goods between EU Member States.  

On 8 October 2026, Crowell & Moring, King's College London, and the Competition Law Center at George Washington University co-hosted the 7th EU Competition Law Conference at De Warande in Brussels. Mark Meador, Commissioner at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), delivered the opening keynote address, followed by four panels bringing together practitioners, regulators, academics, and in-house counsel to discuss the latest developments in EU, UK, and US competition law enforcement. Among other things, the panels examined algorithmic pricing; the European Commission's (Commission) new guidelines on exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU (Article 102 Guidelines); the impact of dominant positions in merger reviews; and lessons from the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. 

On September 9, 2026, the European Commission proposed a new Public Procurement Act that would fundamentally change the way that public procurement is regulated across the EU. In this alert we look at what changes have been proposed, and discuss how those changes would affect companies – whether EU-based or not — that wish to participate in European public procurement.  

In recent years, there has been a wave of new legislation impacting contracts and contractual terms. The Belgian legislator is gradually adopting the different Books of the Belgian Civil Code, and the Belgian Code of Economic Law has been updated several times. These changes affect the way contract terms need to be drafted, not only between companies but also with consumers. 

Until recently, Belgian law did not have a general regulatory framework for internal investigations. Companies wishing to conduct an investigation had to navigate a fragmented set of rules that covered general principles and, to a limited extent, privacy and employee rights. The application of these rules to internal investigations was not clear, and it was therefore often difficult to put the rules into practice. This legal vacuum created significant risks, both for the integrity of the investigation itself and for the admissibility of any evidence gathered. 

On 3 September 2026, the European Commission adopted new Guidelines on the application of Article 102 TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The Guidelines follow a public consultation on a draft published in August 2024 and reflect substantial stakeholder feedback. They replace the Commission's 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities (which ceases to apply 30 days after publication of the new guidelines in the Official Journal) and represent the most significant reset of the Commission's Article 102 enforcement framework in nearly two decades. The Commission's stated aim is to set out principles and operational guidance, enhance legal certainty, and help companies self-assess their exclusionary-abuse risk.

From June 19, 2026, all online traders active within the EU are required to provide a “withdrawal button” on their websites and apps. The introduction of this withdrawal button represents a significant shift in the online consumer cancellation landscape. In this alert, we provide an overview of what this requirement means in practice and why compliance is so important.

On June 8, 2026, a new EU regulation was adopted to replace the 2019 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation. The new regulation requires all Member States to establish a screening mechanism for inbound FDI. It also defines a mandatory minimum sectoral scope, expands coverage to investments by foreign investors’ EU subsidiaries, and improves coordination between Member States and the Commission.

Three years have passed since the EU Pay Transparency Directive ("PTD") came into existence, and it now appears highly likely that very few EU Member States will have fully transposed its provisions into national law by the 7 June 2026 deadline.  For employers operating across the EU, this creates a deeply uncomfortable question: what are your obligations right now?

On 30 April 2026, the European Commission published draft merger guidelines that will replace both the 2004 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the 2008 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, consolidating them into a single analytical framework.

In our ninth alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we discussed the proposals of the Commission, Council, and Parliament with respect to advertising of medicinal products.

On 29 April 2026, the European Commission adopted the Middle East Crisis Temporary State Aid Framework (METSAF), a temporary framework relaxing the conditions under which EU Member States can support companies in sectors particularly affected by fuel, fertilizer, and electricity price surges driven by the Middle East crisis.

The EU AI Act defines ‘AI literacy’ as the skills, knowledge and understanding to enable the informed use and operation of AI systems and increase awareness of the opportunities, risks and possible harm that AI systems may present — with the ultimate purpose being to ensure that staff (and other relevant individuals) are able to take informed decisions in relation to AI, such as how to interpret AI output and decision-making processes and their impact on natural persons.

In our seventh alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we provided an analysis of the increasing focus on shortages of medicinal products in the EU and the prevention and mitigation measures as proposed by the EU institutions.

In our sixth alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we provided an analysis of the history and interpretation issues for another highly debated topic: the “Bolar” exemption.

In our fifth alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we provided an analysis of the background and ongoing legal debates regarding the concept of the global marketing authorization (GMA). We discussed in particular the missed opportunities in the Pharma Package to further codify and clarify the GMA, in view of its central role in determining the regulatory data protection (RDP) rights of a medicinal product.

In our fourth alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we provided an analysis of the long-standing but increasingly debated issue of fiscal imports in the pharmaceutical supply chain and the EU’s evolving approach to this issue.

In our second alert in this EU Pharma Package Series, we provided a detailed overview of the diverging positions of the European Commission (Commission), the European Parliament (Parliament), and the Council of the European Union (Council) on one of the most debated and anxiously anticipated topics, the regulatory data protection (RDP). While all EU institutions proposed a modulation system, they differed significantly in terms of the baseline period and the structure of the possible extensions.

The EU Pharma Package represents the most significant reform of EU pharmaceutical legislation in over two decades, setting the stage for a new era in medicine regulation. Introduced by the European Commission back in April 2023, the proposals are designed to promote innovation, strengthen medicine availability and affordability, reduce regulatory burdens, ensure a fair and competitive European pharmaceutical market, and modernize the EU's pharmaceutical framework. The EU Pharma Package will replace the more than twenty-year-old Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation 726/2004, and incorporates the separate regulations on orphan and pediatric medicines, thereby bringing the entire regulatory framework up to date.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a significant ruling that clarifies the rules governing evidence disclosure in competition damages litigation. The judgment addresses three critical questions: (1) whether pre-action disclosure falls within the scope of the EU Damages Directive, (2) what evidence is needed to establish that there is a plausible damages claim, and that therefore a disclosure request should be granted, and (3) how the plausibility threshold should be assessed.