July has been a busy month for Google's legal team: the European Commission issued four decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) against the tech giant. On 16 July, two compliance decisions were adopted specifying how Google must adjust Google Search and Google Android to open its services to rivals. One week later, on 23 July, the Commission released two non-compliance decisions, fining Google a total of EUR 890 million for self-preferencing in Google Search and restricting app developers on Google Play. These decisions open significant opportunities for businesses that have suffered harm from Google's practices. German courts are an attractive forum to pursue such claims. Private enforcement can be a good alternative to Brussels (see also here).

While digital ex ante regulation, such as the DMA, is all the rage lately, traditional cartel and abuse of dominance enforcement in the video games industry is more alive than ever with eye-watering fines for offenders, or remedies aiming to improve market conditions for studios and publishers. For developers, publishers, hardware manufacturers, platform operators, and any other business active in the video games industry, cartel and abuse of dominance prohibitions are not abstract legal theory. They directly shape how games are developed, published, distributed and monetised across the EU. Getting it wrong can mean serious trouble with competition authorities. This briefing zooms in on antitrust basics and their significance for gaming companies active in Europe.

The European gaming industry, like many digital sectors, is currently facing a perfect storm arising from an arguably incomprehensible – some might even say incoherent – patchwork of EU regulatory requirements. Driven by the European Commission’s (Commission) ambition to establish digital sovereignty, the regulatory net has tightened, moving from general data protection (GDPR) to specific technical and behavioural obligations for companies. The following briefing breaks down the key legislation on consumer protection as well as its implications on the European gaming industry.

The recent surge in gaming M&A activity (see Drake Star Report, available here) has been matched by a sharp increase in regulatory complexity and unpredictability. No deal illustrates this better than the proposed USD 55 billion buyout of Electronic Arts by a consortium led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund; a transaction simultaneously navigating merger control, screening by the US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and FDI scrutiny. This convergence of three distinct regulatory regimes on a single transaction is no anomaly: It reflects a structural shift in how gaming deals are regulated. Companies pursuing transactions in this environment must navigate an increasingly dense web of regulatory hurdles, including merger control, FDI and potentially even the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), depending on the scale of the transaction and whether or not it involves state-backed parties. As authorities tighten their scrutiny, successful deal planning hinges on aligning transaction strategy with the current regulatory landscape.

Zum fünften Mal in zehn Jahren steht das deutsche Kartellrecht vor einer umfassenden Reform. Am 4. Juni 2026 veröffentlichte das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie seinen Referentenentwurf zur 12. Novelle des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (GWB). Ziel ist es, das Kartellrecht effizienter zu gestalten – mit schnelleren Verfahren und stärkeren Durchsetzungsbefugnissen des Bundeskartellamts (BKartA). Unproblematische Zusammenschlüsse sollen aus der Anmeldepflicht herausgenommen werden und die freiwerdenden Kapazitäten für Fälle mit echter Wettbewerbsrelevanz genutzt werden. Ergänzt wird die Neuausrichtung durch Instrumente, die dem BKartA bislang nicht zur Verfügung standen, etwa die systematische Auswertung von Vergabedaten. Was sind also die zentralen Elemente der vorgeschlagenen Reform?

Summer is finally here. Sunlight is breaking through, sidewalk cafés are filling up, and the city is buzzing with energy. As we dust off our favourite pair of shades, we also look back at an incredibly inspiring week: Berlin just hosted the Games Industry Law Summit, bringing together the brightest minds in the sector. The atmosphere at the event made one thing clear: Games do more than entertain. They tell stories, spark imagination, and connect people across borders. However, as the fruitful discussions in Berlin highlighted, it is not all fun and games. They are also increasingly at the centre of regulatory scrutiny that directly affects growth, monetization, distribution and deal strategy.

“Europe needs bold, innovative companies that can compete on the global stage. We have the talent. Now we must build the environment for Europe’s next champions.”, Commission President von der Leyen said yesterday when the draft Merger Guidelines were published.

For the first time in 20 years, the EU Merger Guidelines are undergoing a substantial overhaul. Long discussed, particularly following the publication of the Draghi report on EU competitiveness and the mission letter by President von der Leyen in 2024, the update aims to address transformational shifts that have occurred since the current framework’s inception. These range from digitalisation to decarbonisation, with added urgency stemming from an increasingly complex geopolitical and geoeconomic environment. The publication follows a Call for Evidence that included an initial public consultation launched in May 2025 and a series of stakeholder events held by the Commission. Submissions received from stakeholders over the course of the review process have informed the preparation of the text that was now published.

In a series of upcoming briefings, we will deep dive into the revised framework and its implications for industry stakeholders.

The European Commission (EC) continues to intensify its scrutiny of territorial supply constraints (TSC). On 13 April 2026, it carried out another set of dawn raids in the consumer goods sector, reportedly at two European premises of one of the world’s largest sweet-packaged food producers. The inspections closely follow the EC’s decision in May 2024 to impose a fine of EUR 337.5 million on chocolate giant Mondelēz. The allegation in both cases: anticompetitive TSCs imposed on distributors. Both cases fit into a broader pattern of increased antitrust scrutiny of territorial restrictions in the consumer goods sector. What is at stake and what can suppliers do to stay out of the spotlight?

Amongst the pressing topics regarding the Defence Industry and the current challenges it faces is the question how competition policy can contribute to Europe’s security.

BLOMSTEIN advised Dragsbæk A/S, a subsidiary of Orkla Food Ingredients and a Danish producer of hybrid dairy products and specialty fats, on merger control and foreign direct investment aspects in connection with its acquisition of Vortella Lebensmittelwerk W. Vortmeyer GmbH.