Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – Australia

As 2025 draws to a close, Australia’s competition law and policy landscape has experienced significant developments over the past year. These developments have been especially prominent in the areas of supermarkets, digital markets, mergers, and sustainability, largely building on the themes from the previous year (see my 2024 blog post). However, this year has marked a decisive turning point for some of these areas. Notably, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) finalised two major inquiries: the year-long Supermarkets Inquiry (2024-2025) and the five-year Digital Platform Services Inquiry (DPSI, 2020-2025). The Supermarkets Inquiry generated widespread media coverage and prompted lively public debates across Australia, while the DPSI garnered international attention from overseas antitrust agencies facing similar regulatory challenges in digital markets. Additionally, 2025 represented a pivotal period of preparation and transition for Australia’s new mandatory merger control regime, which will take effect on 1 January 2026.

This blog post offers an overview of some of the key regulatory developments and enforcement cases that have shaped Australian competition law and policy in 2025. It examines:

•       ACCC’s final report in the Supermarkets Inquiry

•       ACCC’s proceedings against ALDI’s fresh produce suppliers

•       Mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct coming into effect

•       Federal Court rulings against Apple and Google in Epic Games and class action cases

•       ACCC’s tenth and final report in the Digital Platform Services Inquiry

•       ACCC’s proceedings against Google over anti-competitive conduct

•       Australia’s transition to a new merger control regime

•       ACCC’s guide for businesses on sustainable collaborations

ACCC’s final report in the Supermarkets Inquiry

As discussed in last year’s blog post, in early 2024 the ACCC was tasked with conducting an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector to examine the pricing practices of the supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale, including farmgate, and retail prices.

After reviewing data from a survey involving over 20,000 consumers; hosting a series of roundtables with farmers, suppliers and industry bodies; and analysing more than 100 public submissions, the ACCC released its long-awaited Supermarkets inquiry final report on 21 March 2025, concluding a comprehensive year-long inquiry.

This report addresses issues concerning consumer experience, retail competition, supply chains, and supermarket margins. It reaffirms that Australia’s supermarket industry is highly concentrated, with an oligopoly structure. Coles Group and Woolworths Group collectively control 67% of national grocery sales, followed by ALDI Stores Australia’s 9% share, and Metcash-supplied supermarkets with 7%. Barriers to entry and expansion are significant. Coles and Woolworths have been found to exert monopsony power in acquiring fresh produce and certain packaged groceries, as well as advantages in securing new supermarket sites. Their promotional practices can make it difficult for consumers to evaluate value for money, with more than half of their products offered on promotion. The inquiry also demonstrated that some suppliers’ dependence on Coles and Woolworths increased their costs and risks.

In response, the ACCC made 20 recommendations aimed at addressing the key structural and behavioural issues identified in the supermarkets sector over the course of this inquiry. These include:

·      clearer pricing practices,

·      greater transparency for suppliers,

·      regulation of promotional tickets,

·      shrinkflation notifications,

·      reforms to planning & zoning laws,

·      fair-trading oversight on price displays & complaints.

ACCC’s proceedings against ALDI’s fresh produce suppliers

On 1 September 2025, the ACCC commenced civil proceedings in the Federal Court against four suppliers and three senior executives for alleged price-fixing conduct in the supply of fresh vegetables to ALDI, in breach of Australia’s cartel laws. The proceedings name the following parties:

·      Perfection Fresh Australia,

·      Hydro Produce (Aust),

·      Veli Velisha Fresh Produce and Velisha National Farms, its Director and Chief Executive Catherine Velisha, and its Senior Sales Manager Kaushik Vora,

·      M. Fragapane & Sons, and its General Sales Manager Roberto Nave.

The conduct is alleged to have occurred across Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland between 2018 and 2024. According to the ACCC, the suppliers engaged in, or attempted to engage in, arrangements or understandings on 28 separate occasions for the purpose of controlling or maintaining the price of broccoli, cauliflower, iceberg lettuce, cucumber, Brussels sprouts or zucchini. The ACCC also alleges that, on 48 occasions, one or more of the suppliers submitted prices to ALDI in accordance with these arrangements or understandings.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, civil penalties, compliance orders and costs against the businesses, as well as declarations, civil penalties, disqualification orders, non-indemnification orders and costs against the individuals.

Mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct coming into effect

The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act, transitioned from voluntary to mandatory status on 1 April 2025. Prior to this date, grocery retailers and wholesalers had the option to voluntarily opt in to being bound by the code.

The code sets the rules for how supermarkets and wholesalers negotiate and contract with their suppliers. It requires them to have written supply agreements in place, act lawfully and in good faith towards their suppliers, and ensure suppliers do not face retribution for exercising their rights under the code.

The transition makes the code mandatory for all retailers and wholesalers, meaning large supermarkets and wholesalers will face significant penalties for any violations of the updated code, while their suppliers are automatically protected under its provisions. The ACCC is empowered to issue infringement notices and take court action seeking penalties against businesses that contravene the code. For the most harmful contraventions, this includes a maximum penalty per contravention that will be the greater of $10 million, or three times the value of the benefit derived, or, if that value cannot be determined, 10% of the company’s turnover during the preceding 12 months.

Additionally, the ACCC introduced a new online portal that allows anyone to report potential code violations anonymously.

Federal Court rulings against Apple and Google in Epic Games and class action cases

On 12 August 2025, the Federal Court of Australia’s Justice Jonathan Beach ruled against Apple and Google in four high-profile proceedings brought by Epic Games and class applicants David Anthony and Brett McDonald. This Australian trial is part of a larger web of ongoing litigation involving Epic's disputes with Apple and Google in the US, the UK and the EU. In 2020, Epic launched a global campaign targeting Apple and Google, filing lawsuits in US courts alleging app store monopolies. While Apple's defense successfully rebutted monopolisation claims in 2021, Google was found to have violated US antitrust laws in 2023.

In Australia, Epic Games filed proceedings against Apple and Google from November 2020, involving the ACCC and multiple appeals. Additionally, in June 2022, class actions were launched on behalf of 15 million consumers and 150,000 app developers, alleging that Apple and Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct and misused their market power in the operation of their app stores and in-app payment systems. Class action attorneys argued that Apple and Google are stifling competition by effectively prohibiting alternative app stores on their devices and mandating the use of their payment platforms, which impose fees ranging from 15% to 30%.

In 2024, the Federal Court of Australia in Melbourne held a 16-week trial to investigate the allegations advanced by Epic Games and the class action. Central to the proceedings was a discussion regarding market definitions; Epic sought to broaden the scope to include app distribution and in-app payments, while Apple and Google advocated for narrower definitions. The trial also examined the nuances of Google's ‘Project Hug’, which allegedly incentivises select developers to stay within its Play Store ecosystem, thereby stifling competition. Ultimately, the Australian cases claim that Google and Apple have leveraged their substantial market power to restrict app distribution and in-app payment options within their mobile ecosystems, in contravention of sections 46, 45, and 47 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and (alternatively) engaged in unconscionable conduct under section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law.

Considering these cases together, the Federal Court ruled in August 2025 as follows:

·      Epic vs Apple: The Court accepted Epic’s definition of two separate markets (app distribution market and in-app payment market) and found that Apple had substantial market power in both. Justice Beach also found that Apple had engaged in conduct with the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition, specifically by preventing the sideloading of native apps and requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system.

·      Epic vs Google: Similarly, the Court accepted Epic’s three-market definition: mobile OS licensing, Android app distribution, and Android in-app payment solutions. Google was found to have substantial market power in all three. Conduct found to contravene s 46 included Google Play billing restrictions and anti-steering provisions, as well as ‘Project Hug’ and related manufacturer incentive programs, which likely lessened competition in Android app distribution.

The Court ruled in favour of both class actions, as Apple and Google had caused developers to pay materially higher commissions than they would have in a competitive counterfactual. The exact quantum of overcharge will be determined in further hearings.

Justice Beach ordered that the remedies phase will be split into two parts, with an initial hearing on 17 December to outline legal and conceptual issues and a full relief hearing on 30 March 2026.

These judgments mark a significant milestone in Australian digital competition jurisprudence and are likely to influence the regulatory framework governing app stores moving forward.

ACCC’s tenth and final report in the Digital Platform Services Inquiry

On 23 June 2025, the ACCC published its tenth and final report in the Digital Platform Services Inquiry (2020-2025). Since the beginning of the inquiry in February 2020, the ACCC has been releasing interim reports every six months on a range of topics, including most recently on data brokers, and on revisiting search and generative AI.

The latest final report explores three broad topics:

1.     Recent international developments in digital competition regimes, unfair trading practices, and dispute resolution.

2.     Major developments and key trends across online private messaging, app marketplaces, mobile operating systems, ad tech, and general online retail marketplaces (which are the sectors examined in the previous digital reports).

3.     Potential and emerging competition issues in cloud computing and generative AI, as well as consumer concerns in online gaming.

The key insights include:

·      Australians need mandatory codes for the most powerful digital platforms to address their anti-competitive conduct. Such conduct can limit growth opportunities for other firms, stifle innovation, reduce consumer choice, and lead to higher prices.

·      Australians need greater protection against unfair trading practices, including subscription traps, fake reviews, harmful apps, and manipulative choice architecture that exploits behavioural biases.

·      Many firms are now leveraging data collected through existing services (such as social media platforms) for training and developing generative AI models. While some platforms allow users to opt out, not all do. According to the ACCC’s consumer survey, 83% of Australians agree that companies should seek user consent before using their data to train AI models.

·      72% of Australian consumers surveyed by the ACCC reported that they had encountered potentially unfair practices such as accidental subscriptions or hidden fees when shopping online.

·      Australians need an external dispute resolution body to help resolve complaints with digital platforms. The same survey indicates that 82% of Australians believe an independent mechanism is necessary to address disputes effectively.

Most importantly, the final report reinforces the need for regulatory reform to address digital platform-related competition and consumer harms, and an economy-wide prohibition on unfair trading practices, as recommended in the September 2022 interim report of this inquiry. Additionally, the report introduces two new recommendations:

1.     The ACCC should continue its monitoring of emerging digital technologies under the proposed digital competition regime.

2.     The Australian Government should prioritise a whole-of-government approach to digital platform regulation and endorse the Digital Platform Regulators Forum (DP-REG) as a permanent, well-resourced forum for cross-regulator collaboration and information-sharing. DP-REG is an information-sharing and collaboration initiative between Australian independent regulators (including the ACCC, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the eSafety Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) with a shared goal of ensuring Australia’s digital economy is a safe, trusted, fair, innovative and competitive space.

ACCC’s proceedings against Google over anti-competitive conduct

On 18 August 2025, the ACCC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against Google Asia Pacific over anti-competitive understandings that Google admits it reached in the past with Telstra and Optus concerning the pre-installation of Google Search on Android mobile devices. Google had cooperated with the ACCC’s investigation, acknowledged the existence of the relevant anticompetitive understandings, and agreed to pay a $55 million penalty, subject to the Court's approval.

The understandings, which operated between December 2019 and March 2021, required Telstra and Optus to pre-install only Google Search on Android phones they supplied to consumers, thereby excluding other search engines from being pre-installed. In exchange, Telstra and Optus received a share of the advertising revenue generated when consumers used Google Search on those devices. Google has admitted that, in entering into these understandings with each telco, it was likely to have had the effect of substantially lessening competition.

Google has also provided a court-enforceable undertaking, which the ACCC has accepted to address the ACCC’s broader competition concerns arising from contractual arrangements between Google, Android phone manufacturers and Australian telcos since 2017. While Google does not accept all of the ACCC’s concerns, it has acknowledged them and offered the undertaking to resolve the regulator’s outstanding issues. Under the terms of the undertaking, Google will remove certain pre-installation and default search engine restrictions from its contracts with Android phone manufacturers and telcos.

It is a matter for the Federal Court to determine whether the agreed penalty and other orders are appropriate.

Australia’s transition to a new merger control regime

At the end of 2024, the Australian Parliament passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024. This legislation marks a significant shift from Australia’s current judicial enforcement model to a mandatory and suspensory administrative merger clearance regime, with the ACCC as the first instance decision maker for all notified mergers and acquisitions.

The new merger clearance regime will be mandatory from 1 January 2026. It is designed to better identify and prevent mergers that are most likely to harm competition and consumers, with the ACCC estimating that approximately 80% of mergers will be cleared within 15 to 20 business days.

While the regime will be mandatory from 2026, the new law includes provisions (sections 188 and 189 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) to help businesses transition to the new regime, including the ability to notify under the new regime on a voluntary basis from 1 July 2025.  Additionally, on 4 March 2025, the ACCC published Guidance on transition to the merger control regime, outlining how the ACCC proposes to manage the transition to the new regime. Essentially, the ACCC offered two options for engaging with the ACCC about proposed acquisitions between 1 July and 31 December 2025:

1.     Continue seeking informal merger review.

2.     Apply for merger authorisation under the new merger control regime on a voluntary basis.

If the ACCC is unable to complete an updated informal review before the end of 2025, and the acquisition meets the notification thresholds, businesses will need to notify under the new regime or apply for a notification waiver. So far, several companies have opted to apply voluntarily for merger authorisation under the new framework. Ongoing and completed assessments are available on the ACCC’s Acquisitions Register.

Overall, the merger reform aims to provide businesses with a more efficient and predictable merger process, clear notification requirements, greater transparency, and faster timelines. The new merger regime will benefit the wider community by ensuring that transactions that could negatively impact competition undergo thorough, risk-based scrutiny. For more information on merger reform and the transition to the new mandatory system, please refer to the ACCC website.

ACCC’s guide for businesses on sustainable collaborations

As in 2024, the ACCC has released, at the close of the calendar year, its guide for businesses on sustainable collaborations and Australian competition law. This guide aims to assist businesses and other entities to understand when collaboration to achieve positive sustainability outcomes is less or more likely to breach Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It also provides insight into possible exceptions or exemptions from the ACCC when competition risks arise.

The ACCC is dedicated to ensuring that businesses are not unduly hindered from engaging in lawful sustainability collaborations. With Australia's commitment to transitioning to a net-zero economy, the ACCC recognises its essential role as the national competition regulator in facilitating an efficient and equitable transition that benefits the public. The guide addresses environmental sustainability, which has been the primary area of concern raised with the ACCC; however, its principles can extend to other sustainability efforts, such as initiatives aimed at combating modern slavery that carry regulatory obligations for businesses.

In addition, the ACCC has published an accompanying Quick guide featuring Q&A examples to further aid businesses in navigating Australian competition law risks and the exemption process. It is evident that sustainability continues to gain prominence in Australian competition law and policy.

Final remarks and outlook for 2026

This blog post offers a non-exhaustive collection of significant reforms, inquiries, lawsuits and decisions that have influenced Australian competition law and policy from January to 23 December 2025. As we transition to 2026, Australia is to fully embrace a new merger control regime, strengthen sustainability and international collaborations, continue monitoring and debating over the use of Artificial Intelligence across the Australian economy, and make the decision whether to move forward with the proposed digital competition regime. Notably, on 30 March 2026, the Federal Court of Australia’s Justice Jonathan Beach will preside over a full relief hearing during the remedies phase of the Epic Games and related class action lawsuits against Google and Apple. The outcome of this case is expected to attract international attention, as it has the potential to establish significant precedents for digital competition law worldwide. And while this falls beyond the competition remit, it is also noteworthy that the world will undoubtedly observe the outcome of Australia’s pioneering social media age restrictions, which could inspire other nations to implement similar protective measures for youth in the digital space.