Key Takeaways
- The European Commission (EC) Executive Vice President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition (EVP) Teresa Ribera's recent endorsement of “soft” enforcement in antitrust matters, including commitment decisions and regulatory dialogue, as being as important as fines and prohibition decisions has provoked debate in the Brussels bubble.
- EVP Ribera noted that cooperative enforcement strategies are especially suited to digital markets, enabling the EC to agree to behavioral changes in real time. That said, the EC will still issue prohibition decisions and fines, as evidenced by the recent €2.95 billion fine in the AdTech case.
- The EC has a history of accepting commitments in antitrust cases involving digital markets, and the EVP’s remarks suggest that this trend is likely to continue.
On September 12, 2025, EVP Ribera’s opening remarks at the International Bar Association’s conference in Florence emphasized the growing importance of “soft” enforcement in competition cases. Some commentators have taken her remarks as a sign of politicization of competition enforcement. This read is curious, given both EVP Ribera’s remarks just one week earlier announcing the EC’s €2.95 billion fine imposed in the AdTech case and the EC’s long history of commitments decisions in digital markets.
EVP Ribera’s Conference Remarks
In Florence, EVP Ribera noted that “hard” enforcement of competition rules, such as fines, is not the only tool available to the EC, with “soft” enforcement, such as regulatory dialogue, playing a growing and “equally important” part of the EC’s toolkit.
She described cooperative interventions as being particularly relevant in digital markets, where products and strategies often “challenge the boundaries of regulation.” Referring to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), EVP Ribera observed that regulatory dialogues have worked well in most cases, allowing concerns to be addressed quickly and behavior to be modified in real time, rather than having to rely on retrospective investigations and sanctions. In relation to antitrust cases, she noted that the EC relies on commitment decisions to achieve “tangible and quicker results.” It is, of course, important to recall that during the course of commitment discussions, the EC has a much greater ability to shape both the scope and the details of the changes to the defendant’s conduct than it does following the issuance of a prohibition decision.
However, some of the reactions to the EVP’s remarks appear to be ignoring the fact that she also emphasized that “hard” enforcement, including fines and structural remedies, remains firmly on the table and that the EC “will not shy away” from deploying these tools. In her ad tech statement a week earlier, EVP Ribera emphasized that cease and desist orders remain in the EC’s toolkit and flagged the potential for a structural remedy (i.e., divestiture).
A Change in Approach?
In Florence, Ribera pointed to recent EC decisions—the acceptance of commitments in the Microsoft Teams investigation on the one hand, and the AdTech and Delivery Hero and Glovo fines on the other—as confirming both the utility of “soft” enforcement in certain circumstances and cease and desist orders in others.
Although the example of Microsoft Teams and the EVP’s discussion of the benefits of “soft” enforcement were taken by many to signal a new era in the EC’s approach, that reaction appears to ignore the EC’s long history of commitments decisions in antitrust cases in both the digital and other markets (e.g., Apple Mobile Payments, Amazon Marketplace and Buy Box, Amazon E-Books, Microsoft Browsers, Aspen, Network sharing, and Insurance Ireland).
What’s Next?
While the global discussion around antitrust enforcement is shifting, with much resulting debate over whether U.S. political developments will lead to changes in the EC’s enforcement approach, it is important to recall that the EC—and antitrust regulators around the world—have always balanced political pressure when enforcing competition rules. As Olivier Guersent, former director general for the DG Comp, said, "If competition policy is a policy, maybe it is political, but this does not mean it should be politicized.” Similarly, EVP Ribera reaffirmed that the EC will “continue to apply [its] rules firmly and fairly, without fear or favour, in relation to all companies operating in Europe.”
