The State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) published its first cartel decision in late January. The case concerned non-price-related conduct in the market for concrete in Jiangsu province. The Construction Material and Machinery Trade association in Jiangsu and sixteen companies were found to have violated Article 13 of the Anti-Monopoly Law by dividing the market and restricting competition. RMB 200,000 fines were imposed on the Association. Five cartel participants were also fined amounts undisclosed in the decision, while immunity from fines was granted to the remaining cartel participants, who had co-operated in the investigation.

With respect to national security, the State Council issued Circular on Establishing the Security Examination System for Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors on 3 February, introducing a national security review system targeting foreign investment in Mainland businesses. In March the Ministry of Commerce passed the Interim Provisions on Matters Pertaining to the Implementation of a Security Review System for Mergers and Acquisitions of Enterprises within China Involving Foreign Investors, which are open to public comment until 31 August 2011. The Interim Provisions give details as to how the national security review system will be implemented and the documents to be submitted. The Interim Provisions follow publication last December of a range of regulations implementing the Anti-Monopoly Law:

• Anti-Price Monopoly Regulation (NDRC).
• Regulation of Anti-Price Monopoly Administrative Enforcement Procedure (NDRC). 
• Regulations for the Prohibition of Acts of Monopolistic Agreements (SAIC).
• Regulations for the Prohibition of Conduct Constituting Acts of Abuse of Dominant Market Position (SAIC).
• Regulations for the Prohibition of Conduct Constituting Abuse of Administrative Authority to Eliminate or Restrict Competitive Acts (SAIC).

The Bills Committee scrutinizing the Competition Bill has been advised by the Government that it will consider a "de minimis" exception for undertakings having a small market share or small turnover. The Government will examine whether such a rule should be set out in the Bill itself or left to the proposed Competition Commission to implement under guidelines. The proposed maximum penalty for competition law infringements (10% of the undertaking’s total worldwide turnover in the year or years in which the conduct occurred) has been argued by some members to be excessive and the proposal to exempt all statutory bodies except those specified in secondary legislation has also attracted criticism in recent meetings.

In response to persisting objections from some quarters as to whether Hong Kong should have a competition law at all, twenty-two scholars from Hong Kong and overseas issued an open letter entitled "Responses to Objections to the Hong Kong Competition Bill" (Response Letter), in late February. The Response Letter summarized and commented on the twelve main objections that have been heard against a competition law for Hong Kong. The Response Letter was tabled before the Bills Committee on 15 March, together with a reply by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. The HKGCC proposes that debate on the Bill should progress to “what kind of competition law Hong Kong should have” and argues that “significant amendments” to the Bill are required “to alleviate the burden of the law” for SMEs and other businesses.

In January the European Commission (EC) blocked a proposed merger between Aegean Airlines and Olympic Air on the basis that the merged entity would have 90% of the Greek domestic air transport market. The EC considered the remedies proposed were unsatisfactory, as they were unlikely to attract credible new entry to the market. This was the EC's first complete prohibition of a merger since 2007.

In a February decision, the European Court of Justice addressed in TeliaSonera the circumstances in which a margin squeeze may constitute an abuse of dominance contrary to TFEU Art. 102. Significantly, the ECJ considered it unnecessary to show that the upstream input supplied by the dominant undertaking is indispensable to a downstream competitor’s ability to compete.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA), which has regulated the competitive and consumer conduct of businesses in Australia for over 36 years, was replaced by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), with effect from 1 January 2011. Substantial changes are effected, including:

• relocation of most of the consumer protection provisions to Schedule 2 of the CCA, known as the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
• a provision for joint administration and enforcement of the ACL by the ACCC and State regulators;
• introduction of a set of definitions in the ACL;
• incorporation of the law on unfair terms in standard from consumer contracts into the ACL;
• new national consumer guarantee provisions;
• a new national product safety regime;
• new information standards for goods and services;
• new laws relating to lay agreements; and
• new enforcement powers for regulators.

In March the Commonwealth Government introduced the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010. The Bill endeavours to respond to concerns about banking competition and is intended to prohibit anti-competitive price-signalling. In particular, the Bill introduced two new civil prohibitions on information disclosure, namely “private disclosure to competitors” of information relating to pricing and a more general prohibition against disclosure of information with the purpose of substantially lessening competition. The prohibitions are subject to several exceptions. The Bill is intended to apply initially to the banking sector but might be extended to other sectors in future. The Bill has already incurred substantial criticism, including as to the scope of the prohibitions and exceptions from them.