I speak with Or Brook, Associate Professor of Competition Law at the University of Oxford, about how competition authorities decide which cases to pursue and which to leave aside. Or explains why priority setting shapes the substance, transparency, and social beneficiaries of enforcement, with examples from EU competition law and digital markets.Throughout the episode, we mentioned quite a few developments and decisions that competition authorities have issued over the years. Click on them directly below: - 02:34, Empirical research on the fact that 90% of cases are not pursued by public bodies: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51408921.- 03:11, Or's work with Prof. Kati Cseres on priority setting, available in Modern Law Review: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/211903/7/Modern%20Law%20Review%20-%202024%20-%20Brook%20-%20Priority%20Setting%20as%20the%20Blind%20Spot%20of%20Administrative%20Law%20Enforcement%20%20A%20Theoretical%20.pdf.- 07:24, My own research on the decentralisation of EU regulation and how Member States incorporate regulations into their national regimes: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6479620.- 09:38, Commentators stating that competition law enforcement is dead: https://itif.org/publications/2026/03/25/antitrust-undone-how-competition-enforcers-are-undermining-competition/.- 09:58, The European Commission triggers proceedings in the luxury sector: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_25_2361/IP_25_2361_EN.pdf.- 10:27, CMA statement on their lack of enforcement action for the past 5 years: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6761ac6e0345cd72db2534e3/Administrative_Penalties__Statement_of_Policy_on_the_CMA_s_Approach.pdf.- 14:02, Studies on the uneven distribution of competition law enforcement: https://www.cpb.nl/system/files/cpbmedia/publicaties/download/opportunistic-competition-law-enforcement.pdf.- 15:09, Or Brook's action against Google: http://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/17207725-or-brook-class-representative-limited.- 15:35, Studies documenting that 98% of private enforcement cases are follow-on cases: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4223770.- 16:38, Non-Competition Interests in EU Antitrust Law book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/noncompetition-interests-in-eu-antitrust-law/FD3291CD6230F1767DE80BE02C4BAA97.- 20:16, The OECD's roundtable on priority setting: https://www.oecd.org/en/events/2026/06/case-prioritisation-and-prosecutorial-discretion.html.- 22:57, OECD study on a general decline in competition law cases: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/12/a-decade-of-oecd-competition-trends-data-and-insights_8aabb981/full-report/component-8.html.- 27:16, Or's article co-authored with Kati Cseres and Ben van Rompuy on the European Commission's discretion in priority setting: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3930189. Key moments00:00 Why competition authorities choose which cases to pursue02:00 The 90% enforcement gap and priority-setting blind spot04:02 Why discretion is built into competition law05:18 Four models, national cultures, and good-governance tests07:56 Multi-mandate regulators and digital-market tools09:36 Luxury cases versus everyday public concerns11:30 Leniency, complaints, and who benefits from enforcement15:07 Why private competition actions remain difficult17:06 Public policy interests in antitrust and digital cases20:45 Making priorities transparent without weakening independence24:15 EU harmonization, soft power, and institutional autonomy26:07 Regulation 1/2003 and the future of formal complaints The views and opinions expressed by our guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this podcast, its host, or any affiliated organisations.
