Search
Contact
07.11.2023 | KPMG Law Insights, KPMG Law Insights

GWB amendment: These interventions threaten after sector inquiries

On April 5, 2023, the German government passed the 11th amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB), the so-called Competition Enforcement Act. The draft law is a turning point in antitrust law: serious antitrust measures can also be taken against law-abiding companies. The planned Section 32 f GWB-E provides for a new intervention instrument which, following a sector inquiry, gives the Federal Cartel Office new and significantly more far-reaching powers to put an end to identified competition problems. As an “ultima ratio,” this should even include an unbundling order, i.e., the breakup of a company.

Up to now, sector inquiries have primarily served the Bundeskartellamt to gain in-depth knowledge of markets and resulted in final reports. It can use these findings in procedures. So far, however, it has only been able to take measures if companies violate specific legal requirements or prohibitions. The sector inquiries into rolled asphalt and cement and ready-mix concrete subsequently led to extensive divestments of joint ventures, which were, however, justified on the grounds of violations of the ban on cartels (Section 1 GWB).

Draft amendment to GWB allows direct intervention following sector investigations for the first time, even against law-abiding companies

Section 32 f GWB-E is now intended to give the Federal Cartel Office the power to intervene and draw direct consequences if a sector inquiry reveals that competition has been disrupted. The paradigm shift is that an intervention under Section 32 f GWB-E is not dependent on proof of concrete violations of antitrust law. This means that action can also be taken against companies that are in themselves law-abiding, insofar as in the view of the Office there is a “significant, persistent or repeated disruption of competition in at least one market or across markets.” For the purpose of concretization, Section 32 f ARC provides for factors listed by way of example, some of which are based on the criteria of Section 18 (1) ARC. 3 GWB, but additionally include in particular market results and practices that are detrimental to competition.

While both German and European antitrust law have hitherto been based on the principle that law-abiding companies do not have to fear sanctions, the draft amendment to the ARC leads to a departure from this proven principle. The German government used Great Britain as a model. The reason given for this is that, unlike the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), German antitrust authorities have so far not been able to intervene effectively in cases where competition is disrupted primarily as a result of market structure.

The GWB amendment provides for these remedies

Remedies typically include primarily behavioral or quasi-structural commitments. These include in particular:

  • granting access to data, interfaces, networks or other facilities,
  • Specifications on business relationships between companies in the markets studied and at different market levels,
  • Commitment to establish transparent, non-discriminatory and open norms and standards by companies,
  • Requirements for certain forms of contracts or contractual arrangements, including contractual arrangements for the disclosure of information,
  • the prohibition of unilateral disclosure of information that favors parallel behavior by companies,
  • the organizational separation of corporate or business units.

However, if such measures are not promising, the Federal Cartel Office can order the unbundling of companies as a last resort. Affected companies can be market-dominant companies or those with overriding cross-market significance for competition (“gatekeepers”). In the event of prior clearance under merger control law, however, there is to be a basic ten-year period of protection of legitimate expectations.

To avert these measures, provision is made for affected companies to reach agreement with the Federal Cartel Office on an undertaking. The commitment to be declared binding by the Federal Cartel Office shall, in return, bind the Federal Cartel Office not to make use of the aforementioned measures.

Increased merger control as a further measure following the sector inquiry

Furthermore, as an additional measure following a sector inquiry, the Federal Cartel Office is to be able to require companies to notify relevant mergers for merger control even if the companies involved have only very low sales. This is intended to prevent corporate concentration. It is true that Section 39 a ARC also allows for an obligation to notify a merger below the notification thresholds of Section 39 ARC under the current legal situation. However, the regulation provided for in Section 32 f GWB-E is tightened. In particular, the sales thresholds will be lowered even further.

Conclusion

If the law is passed in this way, sector inquiries will in future be seen as a sign of potential antitrust intervention measures. Companies affected by sector investigations are therefore strongly advised to seek qualified antitrust advice in a timely manner.

 

Explore #more

23.10.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

What the Federal Network Agency’s FAQs mean for storage system operators

On October 17, 2025, the Federal Network Agency published FAQs on the regulatory treatment of stationary battery storage systems (“BESS”). The FAQs are a guide…

23.10.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

What the “construction turbo” means for municipalities and building supervisory authorities

The Bundestag has passed the “construction turbo” and local authorities can now significantly accelerate certain construction projects. According to the law passed on October 9,…

22.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law guest article in Das Investment: Private debt for the masses: How the FRBG is turning the fund market upside down

Paradigm shift in the fund market: The new FRBG makes private debt retail-capable and creates citizen participation funds. In this article, KPMG Law expert Ulrich

20.10.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Data centers: Requirements for emergency power generators continue to rise

When the power fails in data centers, the consequences are often severe: Data loss and system failures can cause considerable financial damage to companies. Emergency…

16.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law contribution to the anthology “Crypto-Asset Compliance”

KPMG Law experts Ulrich Keunecke and Marc Pussar have contributed chapter 3 on capital market and banking supervisory law aspects of crypto-assets to the anthology…

14.10.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law and KPMG advise Bühler Motor GmbH on the sale of Bühler Motor Aviation GmbH to Astronics Germany GmbH

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft (KPMG Law) and KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG) have advised Bühler Motor GmbH on the sale of all shares in Bühler Motor Aviation…

10.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law guest article in NZG: Compliance due diligence in SMEs: Minimum scope and contractual mapping of compliance risks of the target company

In the context of M&A transactions, compliance usually still plays a subordinate role in legal due diligence. The purpose of this article is, on…

10.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law honored at the M&A Award Night 2025

KPMG Law has been awarded the “M&A Transaction Advisory” prize at this year’s M&A Award Night of the Bundesverband Mergers & Acquisitions e.V. (BM&A) and…

10.10.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law guest article in CCZ: The guide for compliance management systems in small and medium-sized enterprises (DIN SPEC 91524)

Compliance in SMEs is challenging: the legal responsibility for compliance is undisputed, but the specific tasks are unclear and depend on the specific situation of…

10.10.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Transformation in legal departments in 2026 – the most important trends and best practices

Three topics in particular are currently driving the transformation of the legal department: AI, the rapid increase in regulation and geopolitical developments. There has always…

Contact

Dr. Gerrit Rixen

Partner
Head of Antitrust and Investment Control

Luise-Straus-Ernst-Straße 2
50679 Köln

Tel.: +49 221 2716891052
grixen@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll