Competition law highlights: merricks settlement review, apple’s bid and global sanctions

A concise roundup covering the Innsworth judicial review in the Merricks/Mastercard settlement, Apple’s de-certification push, law firm hires in london and high-profile international antitrust enforcement actions.

Uk court greenlights judicial review in merricks distribution dispute as global enforcement tightens

The past week saw notable moves in competition law and litigation funding across the UK and beyond. A UK court permitted a judicial review of distribution arrangements in the landmark Merricks collective action against Mastercard.

Parallel developments included a fresh legal strategy from Apple seeking de‑certification of a large iPhone battery claim, high‑profile hires in London as firms rebuild antitrust teams, and intensified regulatory scrutiny of digital and media mergers worldwide.

Who is affected and what changed? Claimants, defendants, funders and advisers now face renewed uncertainty over how collective awards will be allocated and financed.

From a regulatory standpoint, authorities continue to impose heavy sanctions while scrutinising platform and media transactions more closely.

Why this matters

In my Deutsche Bank experience, distribution mechanics can determine whether a successful collective action delivers meaningful redress. Judicial review of Merricks’ distribution arrangements raises questions about fairness, transparency and the role of third‑party funders in award allocation.

Anyone in the industry knows that changes to distribution policy reshape negotiating leverage for both claimants and defendants.

Key legal moves

The court’s permission for judicial review targets how sums awarded in collective proceedings are to be shared among class members and funders. Separately, Apple’s motion to decertify an iPhone battery claim shifts litigation risk back to class representatives and may reduce potential recoveries if successful. Firms in London are responding with strategic hires to bolster merger control and cartel defence capacity.

Implications for litigation funding and collective actions

The numbers speak clearly: allocation disputes and decertification efforts increase legal complexity and transaction costs. Funders may demand higher returns or stricter covenants to protect liquidity and maintain acceptable spreads on deployed capital. Claimants should expect longer timelines for distribution and more rigorous due diligence from both funders and courts.

Regulatory context and market impact

Regulators globally are tightening enforcement on digital market structures and media consolidation. From a regulatory standpoint, this means more intrusive remedies, deeper behavioural conditions and closer merger scrutiny. Corporates contemplating dealmaking should prepare enhanced compliance dossiers and economic models to withstand intensive review.

What practitioners should do

Legal teams should revisit standard funding agreements and distribution protocols. Anyone in the industry knows that early clarity on allocation rules and contingency planning for decertification scenarios reduces execution risk. Advisers should model multiple outcomes for awards, funding recovery and reputational exposure.

Looking ahead, expect additional litigation about distribution frameworks and increased interplay between merger control and competition damages litigation as regulators and courts test the boundaries of remedy design and funding economics.

Judicial review challenge to Merricks/Mastercard distribution plan

On 11 February 2026, a UK court authorised Innsworth Advisors to apply for judicial review of parts of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s distribution plan for the £200 million opt‑out settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard case. The permission allows Innsworth, an external litigation funder, to challenge how settlement proceeds would be allocated among claimants and third parties.

The decision centres on the interaction between funding agreements and procedural fairness in large collective actions. Who will receive what share of the £200 million is now a live legal question, and the court’s permission signals heightened scrutiny of allocation mechanisms that affect funders’ returns and claimants’ recoveries.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, distribution design can determine whether a settlement restores liquidity and market confidence or simply reallocates costs between intermediaries. Anyone in the industry knows that opaque allocation rules can create perverse incentives for funders and claimants alike.

The challenge targets aspects of the Tribunal’s methodology, including the prioritisation of payments and any provisions tied to funding fees or expense recovery. The applicants argue these features may undermine fair compensation for claimants or confer disproportionate benefits on funders acting under commercial agreements.

The legal test for permission required the court to assess arguability and public interest. From a regulatory standpoint, courts and competition authorities have increasingly examined remedy design to ensure outcomes do not subvert competition policy or consumer redress objectives.

Inevitably, the litigation will probe metrics such as net recoveries, expected funder returns, and the distribution waterfall. The numbers speak clearly: small percentage shifts in fee structures can materially change claimant outcomes in multi‑party settlements.

The case may influence future settlements and funding practices in UK collective litigation. Observers will watch whether the judicial review reshapes standards for transparency, due diligence and compliance in funding arrangements for large damages claims.

Why this matters for claimants and funders

The Innsworth challenge tests whether third‑party funders can secure direct remedies when distribution designs affect their commercial returns. The action targets the mechanics of settlement allocation rather than the merits of underlying claims. From a regulatory standpoint, its outcome could alter tribunal practice on distribution schemes in future mass actions.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, allocation rules shape incentives across a claims ecosystem. Anyone in the industry knows that shifts in distribution methodology change bargaining leverage for funders and lead counsel. The numbers speak clearly: even modest changes to spreads or priority rules can materially affect recoveries for both backers and individual claimants.

Practically, a successful challenge would push tribunals to increase transparency and to document the due diligence that informed distribution choices. That, in turn, would raise compliance and disclosure burdens for funders seeking to protect their economic interest. From a regulatory standpoint, greater scrutiny of funding arrangements may draw in supervisory bodies interested in market integrity and consumer protection.

The dispute also has transactional implications. Claim negotiation strategies may evolve if funders expect an enforceable role in shaping distribution. Lead lawyers may need to model alternative allocation outcomes before agreeing to an opt‑out architecture. Watch whether the judicial review reshapes standards for transparency, due diligence and compliance in funding arrangements for large damages claims.

The permission to proceed signals that courts will entertain challenges from non‑party commercial actors when allocation rules materially affect their financial returns. Claimants must now build settlement structures that foresee potential objections from funders. Funders gain a route to defend commercial expectations, but they also face reputational and legal risk when contesting court‑sanctioned deals.

Apple seeks de-certification of uk iPhone battery claim

This episode follows the tribunal’s decision to allow third‑party intervention and continues the thread on transparency and due diligence in funding arrangements. In my Deutsche Bank experience, market participants often underestimate how allocation mechanics translate into real cash flows and contractual exposure.

For claimants, the practical lesson is straightforward: build allocation models that survive scrutiny. Ensure settlement documentation shows clear priority rules, payment waterfalls and independent verifications of entitlement. Anyone in the industry knows that opaque structures invite costly litigation and regulatory attention.

For funders, the case offers a template to protect economic interests without triggering adverse publicity. The numbers speak clearly: funders must weigh the marginal gain from contesting distributions against legal costs and potential damage to future deal origination.

From a regulatory standpoint, expect courts to press for greater transparency around funding terms, conflicts of interest and the roles of intermediaries. That trend echoes lessons from the 2008 crisis about hidden exposures and liquidity mismatches.

Watch whether the judicial review reshapes standards for compliance and disclosures in large damages claims. The next rulings will set practical rules for how allocation designs are tested and enforced.

The next rulings will set practical rules for how allocation designs are tested and enforced. On 10 February 2026, Apple asked the Competition Appeal Tribunal to strike out or decertify an already‑certified £853 million opt‑out claim over iPhone battery performance.

The company argues the claim has narrowed since certification and that parts now fall within consumer protection law rather than competition law. If the tribunal accepts that characterisation, the case could exit the Tribunal’s procedural framework for collective competition claims.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, litigation strategy often mirrors trading tactics: change the venue or the legal label to alter risk and capital allocation. Anyone in the industry knows that defendants in large collective claims increasingly press forum and legal‑theory arguments to erode certification or jurisdiction.

The numbers speak clearly: a certified claim of £853 million raises significant allocation and funding questions for claimants, funders and defendants. From a regulatory standpoint, the Tribunal’s response will clarify how flexible certification is when legal theories evolve.

Practically, the decision will influence case management across the market. Litigators will watch for guidance on when a shift from competition to consumer protection law requires decertification or dismissal. Expect follow‑on rulings to define thresholds for re‑testing class composition and legal characterisation.

Implications for case strategy

Defendants are likely to seek narrower class definitions to limit exposure. Claimants must prepare to litigate both the merits and the appropriate procedural vehicle for relief.

When the legal characterisation of claims is contested, the border between competition law and consumer protection remedies becomes decisive. In high‑value mass litigation, that choice can determine available damages, limitation periods and certification thresholds.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, litigation over procedural form often matters as much as the underlying facts. Anyone in the industry knows that litigation strategy now routinely integrates regulatory and damages modelling. The numbers speak clearly: small differences in class composition can change potential liability by orders of magnitude, affecting firms’ spread and liquidity planning.

From a regulatory standpoint, courts will test whether class treatment is the appropriate mechanism for redress. Expect follow‑on rulings to refine standards for re‑testing class composition and legal characterisation. Parties should build robust compliance and due diligence records to withstand those tests.

Other notable developments: firm moves and global enforcement

Van Bael & Bellis hired Becket McGrath to lead its UK competition practice, a move reported on 04 February 2026. The appointment follows the departure of the firm’s former antitrust head to Pinsent Masons.

Anyone in the industry knows that London’s market for antitrust work is driven by lateral hires. Firms are consolidating expertise to meet rising demand for complex competition and follow‑on litigation advice across jurisdictions. From a regulatory standpoint, this trend signals greater capacity to handle cross‑border enforcement and parallel proceedings.

Watch for further senior moves and role reallocations among London practices. Such hires will shape the market for expert evidence and influence how firms price risk on large‑scale cases.

Regulators increase scrutiny as €240 million cartel fine signals tougher enforcement

€240 million fine against three South Korean sugar producers underscores rising global enforcement pressure. The sanction ranks among the largest cartel penalties in the country.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, large fines reshape industry risk calculations rapidly. Firms reassess compliance budgets and litigation reserves when a single penalty alters expected loss metrics.

What happened and why it matters

Korea’s Fair Trade Commission fined three major sugar producers for price fixing. The decision highlights authorities’ willingness to impose heavy sanctions for cartel conduct.

At the same time, policymakers and regulators continue debating ex‑ante digital rules and intensified merger scrutiny in media and streaming markets. Lawmakers have called for closer examination of non‑price effects in proposed deals such as the Netflix/Warner Bros tie‑up.

Legal and market dynamics

Litigation funding models and distribution mechanics are receiving judicial review across jurisdictions. Defendants are testing procedural boundaries to narrow exposure. Firms are reorganising to capture a rising flow of antitrust work.

Anyone in the industry knows that such structural shifts affect expert sourcing and pricing. The numbers speak clearly: larger sanctions and extended scrutiny raise the cost of non‑compliance and increase demand for specialised counsel.

Regulatory implications

From a regulatory standpoint, authorities are signalling active enforcement and broader scope for intervention. Merger reviews now routinely consider non‑price effects such as content diversity, market access and data control.

Expect heightened emphasis on due diligence and documentation. Compliance teams should anticipate requests for granular evidence addressing both competitive effects and consumer welfare implications.

Practical takeaways for practitioners and corporate teams

Maintain careful oversight of procedural trends and jurisdictional nuances. Update risk models to reflect the possibility of significant fines and extended remedies.

Strengthen expert networks and consider contingency staffing to manage shifts in case volumes. From a compliance standpoint, reinforce internal controls, audit trails and records that demonstrate proactive mitigation.

In my Deutsche Bank experience, large fines reshape industry risk calculations rapidly. Firms reassess compliance budgets and litigation reserves when a single penalty alters expected loss metrics.0

Penalties will reshape corporate settlement and regulatory playbooks

The recent €240 million sanction has prompted firms to recalibrate settlement tactics, certification challenges and cross-border regulatory engagement. Anyone in the industry knows that a single large penalty rewrites expected loss models and shifts bargaining power in negotiations.

From a banking perspective, changes are already visible in risk budgeting. In my Deutsche Bank experience, teams move quickly to reprice exposure, increasing compliance budgets and bolstering litigation reserves. That shift reduces tolerance for protracted certification battles and makes early, evidence-driven settlements more attractive to corporate counsel.

Technical implications follow. Firms are likely to prioritize robust document retention, faster discovery workflows and more conservative certification strategies. The numbers speak clearly: higher projected penalties widen the gap between contesting class status and opting for negotiated resolution, especially where cross-jurisdictional enforcement raises the prospect of parallel fines.

From a regulatory standpoint, authorities appear poised to intensify coordination across borders and to test procedural tools that speed enforcement. Chi lavora nel settore sa che regulators will watch how courts handle certification and appeal outcomes, then recalibrate both guidance and enforcement tactics accordingly.

Market participants should expect tighter due diligence by investors and counterparties, and more granular covenant drafting in financing agreements. The evolving landscape will reward firms that translate lessons from past crises into stronger compliance architecture and measurable governance metrics.

Key next developments to monitor include appellate rulings on certification standards and any formal steps by regulators to streamline cross-border cooperation. These outcomes will determine whether the €240 million case becomes a template for enforcement or a jurisdiction-specific outlier.