Anticompetitive conduct in Brazil: CADE’s key findings in the second half of 2025

CADE-imposed fine reduced after court finds it to be disproportionate

CADE has reviewed a fine it set in an administrative proceeding after a Federal Regional Court (TRF-1) found it to be disproportionate and annulled it. In the original 2021 ruling, CADE’s Tribunal concluded that Rumo Logística (Rumo-ALL) abused its dominant position by preventing competitors from accessing essential infrastructure, thereby affecting the market for rail transport and logistics services used for exporting sugar from the Brazilian port of Santos. The authority then set a BRL 247 million fine based on Rumo-ALL’s aggregate gross revenue across several segments.

However, the TRF-1 ultimately found that the fine set by CADE’s Tribunal was disproportionate, as it was based on the company’s revenues in several markets beyond the specific market that the conduct affected. The court therefore ordered CADE to review its fine calculation methods and the case itself. On September 3, 2025, CADE’s Tribunal set a new fine of BRL 20.1 million, which may be reduced to BRL 18.1 million if Rumo-ALL and CADE reach an agreement in judicial proceedings. The new fine is based on Rumo-ALL’s gross revenues from transporting sugar via the Paulista Rail Network during 2018.

This case illustrates how companies are increasingly utilizing Brazilian courts to challenge CADE’s rulings, with some achieving successful outcomes.

New signs of CADE’s interest in digital markets: investigation involving a search platform and journalistic content reopened

CADE’s Tribunal has decided to reopen an administrative inquiry into certain Google practices. Originally launched in 2019, the investigation relates to Google’s alleged scraping of third-party journalistic content for direct display on its Google Search and Google News platforms. The case sought to determine whether this would constitute an abuse of dominant position in the online search and news markets by leveraging Google platforms’ traffic and position in the online advertising sector.

CADE’s General Superintendence (GS) eventually dismissed the investigation and later rejected an appeal filed by the Brazilian Newspapers Association (ANJ) against the move. However, CADE’s Tribunal subsequently approved a request for a secondary review from Commissioner Camila Pires-Alves in March 2025.

In her request, Commissioner Pires-Alves highlighted the legally and economically complex nature of the case, as well as the need for CADE’s Tribunal to decide on potentially anticompetitive conduct in digital markets. The tribunal is now responsible for deciding whether the dismissal should be upheld or whether administrative proceedings should be launched against Google. The Reporting Commissioner, current Interim President Gustavo Augusto Lima, voted to dismiss the investigation, however, the ruling has been suspended due to a request from Commissioner Diogo Thomson to review the case. In August 2025, the commissioner opened a public consultation for contributions.

This case demonstrates CADE’s interest in refining its enforcement efforts in digital markets. The decision also puts CADE in the spotlight in international debates on the role of digital platforms in distributing journalistic content, as competition authorities in countries such as France and Australia have already faced.

CADE analyzes intersection between competition law and sustainability policies in landmark case

On August 28, 2024, the GS launched an administrative inquiry to investigate companies and associations participating in the Soy Moratorium, a voluntary policy commitment between Brazilian soy exporters signed in 2006 that involves restrictions on soy production in deforested areas of the Amazon Biome, and is supported by certain NGOs and the Brazilian state itself.

Although the moratorium focuses on environmental matters and meeting international consumer market requirements, the GS initially viewed it as having the potential to restrict competition for soybean acquisition. As such, the GS imposed an interim measure to suspend the Soy Moratorium in August 2025.

Following this, one of the associations involved in the moratorium convinced a Brazilian court to provisionally suspend the interim measure, before a majority of CADE’s Tribunal partially accepted the defendants’ appeals on September 30, 2025. The tribunal decided that the Soy Moratorium is allowed to remain in effect until December 31, 2025 – a transition period for “private and public parties to engage in dialogue,” according to Commissioner José Levi.

This case raises a pertinent debate about the interactions between competitors aimed at promoting environmental sustainability.

CADE discusses Standard Essential Patents

The GS launched an administrative inquiry to investigate a possible infringement by Ericsson after Motorola and Lenovo submitted a complaint, in which they complained about Ericsson’s refusal to license essential patents related to 5G technology, as Ericsson had conditioned the use of these patents on the signing of a global agreement, rather than one limited to Brazil. Both companies requested an interim measure, which the GS denied.

Motorola and Lenovo then submitted an appeal to CADE’s Tribunal before ultimately withdrawing it upon executing an agreement with Ericsson. The tribunal confirmed the withdrawal on April 23, 2025. Still, it concluded that executing the agreement did not eliminate possible concerns, as the conduct in question may not have only affected the parties involved but also competition itself.

This case concerns Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their licensing conditions, which must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) in line with international commitments. Although licensing conditions are usually a private matter, CADE’s Tribunal concluded that the case is an antitrust matter because it involves technology essential for entering the markets for mobile telecommunications, smart devices, and the Internet of Things (IoT) – especially if the companies concerned develop technological products based on the 5G standard.

According to CADE’s Tribunal, Ericsson adopted case-by-case and confidential licensing practices without objective criteria for pricing, which could have been discriminatory. In addition, the company’s global licensing requirement was considered an unjustified barrier – especially in view of the patent territoriality principle, which means that patents are only valid in the jurisdictions in which they were filed. Therefore, even in light of the withdrawn appeal, CADE’s Tribunal ordered the GS to launch an administrative inquiry into Ericsson’s possible infringement.

CADE indicates its stance on minimum announced price (MAP) schemes

In August 2025, in consultation with CADE’s Tribunal, Pirelli’s proposed MAP scheme with its network of tire dealers was rejected by the authority. According to the company, it was seeking prior approval for a scheme aimed at protecting its brand image and correcting significant distortions between the price and quality of its products advertised on marketplaces. Reporting Commissioner Diogo Thomson recognized the complexity of the practice and concluded that the consultation proceeding did not permit the level of investigation necessary to assess the effects of the conduct. As such, although the tribunal agreed to rule on the consultation, it was ultimately rejected by a majority vote due to a lack of sufficient elements confirming the proposed MAP scheme as legal.

The tribunal also established that MAP terms resemble resale price maintenance (RPM) schemes, in which manufacturers fix the price their distributors/resellers charge their customers. According to the vote, MAP schemes must be analyzed under a rebuttable presumption of illegality, with companies needing to demonstrate three aspects for their intended MAP scheme to avoid such a presumption:

• The rationality of the MAP scheme,
• Market conditions that may (or may not) give rise to the exercise of market power, and
• Pro-competitive justifications.

Despite not pursuing its investigations further into the matter, the decision from CADE’s Tribunal suggests a more conservative stance in regard to minimum announced price schemes.

General Superintendence sets parameters for assessing competitively sensitive information exchanges between competitors

The GS recently signaled its view about the applicable review standards and the statute of limitations in relation to competitively sensitive information exchanges.

In 2016, the GS launched an administrative proceeding against 28 companies and dozens of executives regarding alleged anticompetitive conduct in Brazil’s independent automotive aftermarket. According to the authority, the defendants allegedly engaged in systematic exchanges of commercial and strategic information, including revenues, prices, sales targets, commercial structure, and future price increases, between 2003 and 2016. The conduct was structured in phases and informal groups, with face-to-face meetings and spreadsheets shared by e-mail. In September 2025, the GS submitted an opinion recommending partial convictions for those involved and referred the case to the CADE Tribunal for a final ruling.

The opinion notes that exchanges of competitively sensitive information between competitors may constitute autonomous anticompetitive conduct even if not part of broader conduct (e.g., a cartel). According to the GS, such conduct may reduce the uncertainty of competitive dynamics, facilitate strategic alignment between competitors, and produce anticompetitive effects equivalent to those of collusive practices, even in the absence of an explicit agreement between the competitors. When competitors exchange recent, disaggregated, and sensitive data that allows the parties involved to infer their competitors’ current or future intentions (i.e., thus reducing uncertainties), the GS indicated that the conduct will be assessed under a rebuttable presumption of illegality. According to the GS, to dispel the presumption of illegality, the investigated companies must demonstrate that the conduct has pro-competitive justifications and that there are no less competitively harmful alternatives.

The GS also applied two distinct periods regarding the statute of limitations for such cases. A 12-year period applies to companies that were direct competitors in any of the segments in Brazil’s independent automotive aftermarket. In this case, the GS concluded that the conduct had effects similar to those of a cartel, so the statute of limitations matches the one provided for the respective crime under criminal law. A five-year statute of limitations was applied to the other companies that were not direct competitors in any segment.

CADE’s Tribunal will still rule on both approaches, and it will be important to observe whether they will be confirmed or dismissed. This case is of great importance, as its final decision will serve as a precedent for other significant investigations the GS is currently conducting that involve competitively sensitive information exchanges.

For more information on these topics, please contact Mattos Filho’s Antitrust practice area.