Review of merger remedies approach
- From:
- Competition and Markets Authority
- Published
- 12 March 2025
- Last updated
- 29 May 2025 — See all updates
Summary
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) invited views on its approach to remedies in merger cases.
This call for evidence was held on another website.
This call for evidence ran from
to
Call for evidence description
The CMA helps people, businesses and the UK economy by promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour. Ensuring effective competition will drive greater innovation, investment and growth, which in turn, will deliver sustained and long-term benefits across the UK economy. The CMA’s merger control function is part of its general duty to seek to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.
We’re launching a review of our approach to merger remedies and inviting your views.
Documents
A&O Shearman response
PDF, 278 KB, 13 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Addleshaw Goddard LLP response
PDF, 242 KB, 10 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
AlixPartners response
PDF, 179 KB, 4 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
American Bar Association response
PDF, 223 KB, 11 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Baker McKenzie response
PDF, 280 KB, 7 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Booking Holdings Inc. response
PDF, 165 KB, 2 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association response
PDF, 274 KB, 20 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Civil society organisations response
PDF, 163 KB, 8 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP response
PDF, 215 KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Clifford Chance LLP response
PDF, 282 KB, 13 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Covington & Burling response
PDF, 315 KB, 10 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Euclid Law response
PDF, 209 KB, 6 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP response
PDF, 328 KB, 11 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Fingleton response
PDF, 99.6 KB, 5 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Forvis Mazars response
PDF, 367 KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Freshfields LLP response
PDF, 337 KB, 20 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Frontier Economics response
PDF, 221 KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Geoff Meeks, University of Cambridge, Judge Business School response
PDF, 430 KB, 22 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Google response
PDF, 198 KB, 3 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
IBM response
PDF, 96.5 KB, 1 page
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
In-house Competition Lawyers' Association UK response
PDF, 174 KB, 8 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Law Society of Scotland response
PDF, 2.11 MB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Linklaters LLP response
PDF, 289 KB, 14 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Macfarlanes LLP response
PDF, 176 KB, 7 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Mills & Reeve response
PDF, 236 KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
NOCON response
PDF, 114 KB, 4 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Oxera Consulting LLP response
PDF, 117 KB, 6 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Pennon Group
PDF, 146 KB, 3 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Ropes & Gray International LLP response
PDF, 247 KB, 5 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
RSM UK response
PDF, 160 KB, 9 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Simon Pritchard response
PDF, 208 KB, 4 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Slaughter and May response
PDF, 217 KB, 10 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Ugur Akgun, Matthew Bennett, Matteo Foschi, Oliver Latham, Sara Ross and Benoit Voudon (Charles River Associates) response
PDF, 1.1 MB, 12 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
UK Finance response
PDF, 201 KB, 4 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Veolia response
PDF, 5.44 MB, 10 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Vodafone response
PDF, 468 KB, 23 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (London) LLP response
PDF, 194 KB, 8 pages
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format.
Share this page
The following links open in a new tab
Updates to this page
-
Responses published.
-
First published.