The future of merger control

As geopolitical tensions, industrial policy, and competitive pressures reshape global markets, merger control is undergoing recalibration across the EU, UK and US. Although the foundational principles remain steady, enforcement is being reshaped by political imperatives and evolving policy goals. As we look ahead to 2026, what can dealmakers expect in this shifting regulatory environment?

The focus on growth, competitiveness and political dynamics

Competition policy and enforcement underwent a shift in 2025. A new wave of political influence encouraged regulators to balance enforcement with broader economic goals, such as stimulating growth and attracting investment.

The Draghi Report, published in September 2024, prompted a reassessment of EU competition policy, recommending the removal of internal market barriers and highlighting strategic sectors in need of innovation and investment. The report also encouraged merger control reviews to take better account of innovation and long-term competitiveness. In response, the European Commission (EC) launched a review of its Merger Guidelines, with draft revisions expected in spring 2026.

In May 2025, after the unprecedented replacement of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Chair, the UK government issued a strategic steer directing the CMA to prioritise growth and investment. The steer also recommended a more proportionate and globally coordinated approach to merger control enforcement. The CMA has since launched consultations on its approach to jurisdiction and remedies, signalling a shift toward more streamlined investigations. This includes avoiding unnecessary scrutiny of non-problematic mergers and adopting a “wait and see” stance on global deals. The UK government has also announced that it will soon launch its own consultation on proposed reforms to the regime.

In the US, merger control is increasingly shaped by domestic political dynamics. Nevertheless, enforcement remained robust under the Trump administration in 2025, particularly in consumer-facing sectors.

This more-politicised environment has seen the role of lobbying increase, particularly around high-profile mergers such as HPE/Juniper. Despite internal resistance, the US Department of Justice leadership overruled the Antitrust Division’s preference for structural remedies, opting instead for a behavioural solution following political lobbying. While this case is now subject to judicial review, it signals a shift in how political dynamics can influence enforcement outcomes.

A new dawn for efficiencies?

As competition authorities consider how to adapt merger control policy to reflect this new environment, we are seeing a more flexible and pragmatic approach to efficiencies and remedies emerge in certain jurisdictions.

Efficiencies can play a critical role in merger review by helping to offset anticompetitive effects. However, because of a high burden of proof, merging parties have rarely relied on them in practice. Efficiencies are now gaining renewed attention, particularly in sectors requiring large-scale investment.

The CMA’s decision in Vodafone/Three UK illustrates this trend. While the CMA provisionally concluded that the merger could lead to price increases or reduced services, it accepted that there were strong efficiency arguments, including that the deal had the potential to improve mobile network quality in the UK. The CMA therefore cleared the deal based on behavioural remedies, including a long-term commitment to invest in infrastructure that “locked in” these efficiencies. More widely, the CMA has signalled its intention to revisit its approach to efficiencies in the near future.

The EC is also revisiting its treatment of efficiencies as part of its review of the Merger Guidelines. The forthcoming guidance is expected to address dynamic and out-of-market efficiencies, including those linked to sustainability.

In the US, while efficiencies have traditionally played a limited role in merger assessments, there is growing interest in broader, policy-aligned justifications, such as benefits to workers or national strategic interests.

Rethinking remedies

In recent years, several authorities had adopted a stricter approach to remedies, leading to several mergers being abandoned due to regulatory concerns. However, remedies policies are now being reconsidered.

The CMA’s decision in Vodafone/Three UK highlighted its evolving approach to behavioural remedies. In July 2025, the CMA accepted remedies in Schlumberger/ChampionX which included both divestments and behavioural commitments. The CMA then published draft remedies guidelines in October 2025, which signalled a wider scope for behavioural remedies and remedies aimed at securing efficiencies.

US antitrust agencies are again open to discussing remedies, marking a shift from the previous administration’s “litigate and block” approach. Alongside accepting divestiture remedies in 2025, agencies have also shown a willingness to consider behavioural remedies including in mergers between competitors, such as HPE/Juniper and Omnicom/Interpublic.

In the EU, the EC has maintained a consistent but cautious approach to merger remedies. In 2025, it cleared eight cases subject to remedies - all involving divestments – but still appears open to considering behavioural remedies in appropriate cases.

What to expect in 2026

Looking ahead to 2026, further developments are expected in both the UK and EU as authorities prepare to publish updated guidance, and potential legislative changes are on the horizon.

The UK government’s forthcoming public consultation will aim to clarify the scope of merger control review, improve the effectiveness of remedies and streamline decision-making – although it remains to be seen what proposals will be adopted. The CMA’s “wait and see” approach to global deals may also face tougher tests, raising questions about its long-term viability.

In the EU, the revised Merger Guidelines are expected to codify existing enforcement practice and provide clearer guidance on innovation, potential competition and ecosystem effects. We also expect further guidance on how merger review can support scale-up strategies. However, it remains unclear how much the new guidance will change the EC’s approach in practice. Recent cases like Prosus/Just Eat and Mars/Kellanova have shown that the EC is still willing to engage with, and intervene where necessary, based on nuanced theories of harm.

In the US, it is expected that the more interventionist Merger Guidelines introduced by the previous administration will remain in place, although they may be less frequently cited in practice. We also await the judicial review of HPE/Juniper and whether that case signals the high-water mark of lobbying affecting deal outcomes.

Overall, dealmakers should expect incremental change rather than sweeping reforms in 2026, but with shifting political tides, strategic foresight and thoughtful regulatory engagement will be more important than ever.

The road forward for dealmakers

Merger control is in a new phase marked by both convergence and divergence in enforcement styles. While authorities remain committed to protecting competition, there is growing recognition that merger control should also support investment and strategic priorities. For dealmakers, this means understanding jurisdictional nuances, anticipating dynamic competition arguments, and crafting compelling investment narratives will be key to securing clearance in 2026 and beyond.