Until recently, some compliance departments may have treated algorithmic pricing more as a theoretical antitrust risk in the EU – a topic discussed in conferences but not for enforcement actions. Any such compliance departments should reconsider: with several investigations confirmed, the European Commission has sent its clearest signal yet that algorithmic pricing is not just a matter of academic concern, but a live enforcement issue.
Europe joins the enforcement stage
At a recent event, Deputy Director-General Linsey McCallum confirmed that several investigations into algorithmic pricing are currently underway at EU level. She did not disclose specific cases or sectors, but the message was clear: algorithm-driven pricing strategies are firmly on the Commission’s radar – not just as a policy concern, but as an enforcement priority.
This can be seen as a turning point. While competition authorities in other jurisdictions have already brought cases or launched legislation some time ago, the EU had so far focused more on producing guidelines and studies. That is now giving way to concrete enforcement activity.
National authorities are following suit. Dr. Katrin Roesen, Head of the Special Unit on Cartel Prosecution at the German Bundeskartellamt, recently contributed to a panel on algorithmic pricing and enforcement at a competition law conference, underscoring that the momentum is building across Europe.
“Collusion by code” now part of EU doctrine
This is not a leap into the unknown. The Commission has laid the doctrinal groundwork for years – and is now acting on it.
The Commission’s 2023 Horizontal Guidelines refer in multiple places to the role that algorithms – whether used unilaterally or jointly – may play in facilitating anti-competitive outcomes. In particular, paragraph 379 explicitly warns that
“Algorithms then become a device to facilitate collusion (collusion by code).”
The Guidelines emphasize that firms remain liable for pricing decisions implemented through algorithms, and that the use of automated tools does not insulate anti-competitive conduct from scrutiny. This applies in particular where:
- competing firms use shared pricing software,
- a common vendor applies algorithmic logic across market participants, or
- data inputs and model parameters effectively lead to parallel pricing.
Conduct that is unlawful offline does not become lawful simply because it is executed online.
Global convergence on algorithmic pricing risks
The EU is not alone in this assessment. Competition authorities around the world have highlighted the risks of algorithm-driven pricing. Notable examples include:
- United States: The RealPage litigation is the most prominent of the publicly-filed algorithmic pricing actions in the US. The various federal and state actions target a vendor of rent-setting algorithms that allegedly commingles proprietary pricing data of landlords to provide optimal pricing for rental housing units across the United States. Private cases began in 2023, lawsuits by state Attorney Generals followed, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil complaint in August 2024 (Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-WLO-JLW). In June 2025, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia announced the first settlement in its case against RealPage, requiring a large landlord to pay approx. $1m to the District, prohibit the use of any software that relies on non-public or confidential data, and refrain from promoting and encouraging others to use software to accept recommended prices. Several U.S. states have also introduced legislation in 2024 and 2025 aimed at restricting such algorithm-driven pricing practices. In addition, algorithmic pricing software remains at the center of multiple price-fixing lawsuits in the healthcare and hotel industries that have largely been allowed to proceed by the courts.
- United States: In the consolidated litigation In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation (Case No. 24 C 6795, N.D. Ill.), plaintiffs allege that a cost-optimization platform provided by MultiPlan was used by competing insurers to suppress reimbursements through centralized algorithmic logic. The case illustrates how algorithmic pricing tools – even when positioned as efficiency-enhancing – may raise concerns about tacit coordination and systemic price suppression in sensitive consumer markets such as healthcare.
- Germany: In its 2025 Amazon platform case (Bundeskartellamt, press release of 2 June 2025), the FCO criticized algorithmic mechanisms used to influence third-party seller pricing.
- Europe (Eturas): In 2016, the European Court of Justice found that restrictions embedded in a travel booking platform’s algorithm could form part of a concerted practice (Case C-74/14).
- Canada, UK, Australia: Competition authorities in these jurisdictions have issued policy statements and warnings in recent years on the use of pricing algorithms. For instance, Canada’s Competition Bureau released a June 2025 discussion paper addressing algorithmic coordination risks.
The underlying concern is shared across jurisdictions: algorithmic tools – especially when used by multiple firms or designed by common vendors – may enable tacit coordination, price alignment, or even hard-core cartels without direct human contact.
Implications for companies
What this means for companies is clear: the compliance bar is rising. Firms using algorithmic pricing – whether developed in-house or licensed from third parties – should review:
- Which data feeds the algorithm, and whether any of it reflects market-sensitive information;
- Whether pricing outcomes could reflect implicit coordination driven by shared algorithmic design;
- How vendors explain, monitor, and govern algorithm logic across clients;
- Whether internal controls exist to detect and document unintended price alignment.
Pricing compliance can no longer stop at “no contact with competitors.” Instead, algorithmic structures and vendor dependencies must be actively managed.
A structural shift in enforcement logic
The cases reportedly under investigation suggest a broader shift in enforcement logic: Pricing coordination may now arise without explicit agreements, but through shared systems and logic.
Where incentives, data, and models align, enforcement will increasingly focus on the architecture of pricing systems, not just the behavior of individuals.
Outlook
It remains to be seen whether the Commission’s open cases will focus on specific sectors or software types. But Linsey McCallum’s remarks indicate a clear direction: algorithmic pricing is no longer just a compliance talking point. It is now a live enforcement reality.
And just to be clear: this is not about software that helps detect price fixing – as discussed in our recent blog post on signaling theories in earnings calls (see here) – but about software that is itself alleged to facilitate unlawful coordination.
