This is the new MLex platform. Existing customers should continue to use the existing MLex platform until migrated.
For any queries, please contact Customer Services or your Account Manager.
Dismiss

Pricing algorithms throwing up 'red flags' in EU scrutiny, McCallum says

By Lewis Crofts

March 25, 2026, 17:58 GMT | Insight
Algorithms that automatically determine product pricing are subject to a broad review by EU competition enforcers and have already thrown up some “anomalous” contacts, Linsey McCallum said. The acting director general of the EU’s antitrust department said staff have picked up some “red flags,” and she stressed that the bloc’s competition rules allow for the investigation of such conduct, if necessary.

Algorithms that automatically determine product pricing are subject to a broad review by EU competition enforcers and have already thrown up some “anomalous” contacts, Linsey McCallum said.

The acting director general of the EU’s antitrust department said staff have picked up some “red flags,” and she stressed that the bloc’s competition rules allow for the investigation of such conduct, if necessary.

As companies move to data-driven decision-making, enforcers have become concerned that they might serve as a means for indirect collusion on prices, with algorithms working towards harmonized rates or contacts that lead to price-fixing.

In short, the use of algorithms removes the usual price competition of a well-functioning market.

The challenge enforcers face is whether antitrust rules designed for old-fashioned cartel conduct between people can also catch such tacit collusion by automated algorithms.

"On pricing algorithms, we have a large-scale exercise underway currently that has allowed us to pick up what look to be some red flags, maybe some anomalous pricing contact. So, some very live issues for the time being," McCallum told a conference* in Washington DC.

McCallum explained that the EU’s legal framework allows the pursuit of potential cases of algorithmic collusion.

EU enforcers don’t need to demonstrate that two colluding parties reached an “agreement,” but it suffices to show that sensitive information was exchanged or there were “concerted” practices.

Furthermore, algorithms that “facilitate” contacts between competitors can also fall under the scope of EU law, she said.

Earlier this week, Omeed Assefi, the acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Antitrust Division, said his agency is fighting against algorithmic collusion.

He pointed specifically to a company running a database that receives private, competitively sensitive information that competitors would normally never share with each other, which is then used to spit out a baseline of price information shared widely across the industry.

"That's very concerning," Assefi said. "What you see in an algorithmic collusion sense... you see competitors take off their gloves and decide to work with each other."

*American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting 2026. Washington, DC. March 25-27, 2026.

Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.

Tags