Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – Israel

The past two years have marked a decisive turning point in the evolution of Israeli competition law. The Israel Competition Authority (ICA) has adopted an increasingly assertive and interventionist enforcement posture, utilizing its powers under the Economic Competition Law, 5748–1988, to strengthen deterrence and promote consumer welfare. The ICA’s actions during this period reflect a broader policy shift in Israel’s economic governance: competition law has become a central policy tool for addressing structural market concerns and enhancing deterrence, with enforcement increasingly positioned as part of the national effort to reduce the cost of living and shield consumers from abuses of market power .

Three key developments clearly illustrate this shift. First, a record administrative fine was imposed on one of Israel's largest food manufacturers for "gun jumping." Second, the ICA significantly escalated enforcement against restrictions on parallel imports. Third, the ICA advanced enforcement action against a foreign pharmaceutical company operating in Israel . Together, these cases demonstrate a markedly more interventionist enforcement environment, characterized by expanded use of administrative sanctions and closer convergence with international enforcement standards —developments that materially affect risk assessment and compliance planning for businesses operating in Israel.

A New Era of Gun Jumping Enforcement: The Strauss-Weiler Case

At the end of 2024, the ICA imposed a record fine of NIS 111 million—the maximum permitted under Israeli competition law—alongside personal financial sanctions on office holders of approximately NIS 600,000 per person. This marked the first time a sanction at the statutory maximum had been imposed.

According to the ICA's decision, Strauss sought to acquire Weiler, a company engaged in the manufacture of tofu products and active in the dairy alternatives sector. During negotiations, the parties discussed Weiler’s post-transaction activities. Weiler wished to continue operating in dairy alternatives, while Strauss requested that it focus on tofu products, given Strauss’s plan to establish a dairy alternatives plant. Ultimately, the merger agreements defined the merged company’s “field of activity” (i.e., the scope of activity following approval) to exclude the dairy alternatives sector. The agreements further stipulated that, during the interim period, Weiler would not enter “new fields of business beyond those included in the company’s field of activity” without Strauss’s consent. The Director-General determined that this interim restriction amounted to unlawful early implementation of the merger —effectively a “de facto merger” prior to approval—because it constrained Weiler’s operations in a line of business in which it had been allegedly active prior to signing the transaction documents. , Contrary to Section 19 of the Economic Competition Law, that prohibit merging parties from carrying out a merger until the ICA grants approval..

For Israeli businesses, the message is clear: any foothold granted to a merging party, or any early implementation of a merger agreement prior to merger approval may be deemed unlawful implementation and may constitute a violation.. The case further underscored the importance of robust internal compliance systems and legal oversight throughout merger negotiations.

Parallel Imports – From Policy Priority to Active Enforcement

Parallel imports constituted a second major theme in competition enforcement during 2024–2025. Parallel imports allow independent importers to bring genuine products into Israel without authorization from the direct importer. This practice is regarded as a mechanism for enhancing competition and lowering consumer prices.

The ICA significantly increased its enforcement activity regarding conduct that hinders parallel imports. Under Section 31E of the Economic Competition Law, direct importers are prohibited from imposing contractual restrictions that limit or prevent parallel imports. Such restrictions are considered vertical restraints that can harm competition and consumer welfare. The Director-General published an opinion clarifying her interpretation of the prohibitions in the Competition Law on preventing or impairing parallel imports, and the ICA initiated broad reviews and investigations against direct importers suspected of harming parallel import activity. The Director-General has also advanced proceedings aimed at imposing financial sanctions on direct importers and senior office holders.

In 2025, the ICA intensified its enforcement efforts in this area, launching several investigations against direct importers suspected of employing exclusive distribution agreements, territorial restrictions, or contractual clauses that effectively blocked parallel imports. The Authority reaffirmed that parallel imports are a cornerstone of competitive markets and warned that any attempt to limit them would be treated as a violation of the law.

In December 2024, the ICA announced its intention to impose a monetary sanction of NIS 15.7 million on a direct importer of KYMCO scooters, alongside a proposed personal sanction of NIS 396,000 on an office holder. According to the Authority, shortly after a parallel importer began importing KYMCO scooters via a Polish supplier, a representative of the direct importer visited the parallel importer’s showroom, photographed VIN/chassis numbers, and forwarded the images to the foreign manufacturer. The Polish supplier then halted supply the same day, reportedly following the manufacturer’s instruction. The Authority highlighted the high concentration of the scooter market (over 90% imported by three importers in Israel) as a factor magnifying the competitive harm of any interference with parallel imports.

In August 2025, the Authority published a proposed consent decree involving a food importer called Moshe Sides and Sons Ltd., under which Sides would pay over NIS 500,000 to the state treasury. The Authority’s investigation found that, in September 2024, a Sides representative sent a photograph of “Baby Doll” lollipop packaging to the manufacturer in Argentina. The packaging bore a label identifying a parallel importer in Israel and an importer in the Netherlands. Following that communication, the Argentine manufacturer stopped supplying the lollipops to the Dutch importer, which in turn affected parallel imports of the product from the Netherlands to Israel. After the Authority’s intervention, Sides asked the manufacturer to resume exports to the Netherlands and to refrain from interfering with parallel imports into Israel, and the manufacturer agreed.

In October 2025, the Director-General  announced her intention to impose monetary sanctions of NIS 9.8 million on the Rolltime Group, the official importer of brands including Samsonite, Tumi, and Tissot, together with a personal sanction of NIS 1.5 million on a senior office holder (the highest personal sanction proposed to date on office holders). The ICA alleged that Rolltime acted systematically with brand owners to identify and block parallel imports—including sharing information and photographs about parallel-imported products and points of sale, flagging especially competitive pricing at those outlets, pressing manufacturers to stop supply by identifying foreign suppliers, and using a mystery shopper to document purchases. These allegations underscore the Authority’s heightened emphasis on deterrence, including meaningful personal exposure for senior management,, in cases involving parallel imports.

The ICA'scurrent focus on parallel imports requires direct importers, as well as foreign manufacturers operating in Israel, to carefully review their distribution contracts and conduct, as any interference may breach the Economic Competition Law.

Enforcement Against Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies: The BMS-Neopharm case

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) is a foreign pharmaceutical company that, among other products, manufactures Revlimid, a medicinal product used to treat multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow. Neopharm Scientific Ltd. is part of the Neopharm Israel group, which operates across various healthcare-related fields, including the marketing, sale, and distribution of pharmaceuticals. Neopharm is the marketing authorization holder and distributor in Israel of Revlimid, which is manufactured by BMS.

In Israel, a company seeking to register a generic medicinal product (i.e., a product based on the same active ingredient as the originator product) must undergo a process that requires comparison of the generic product to the originator product registered in Israel, which typically necessitates obtaining samples of the originator product.

The Israel Competition Authority’s review identified indications that BMS and Neopharm imposed unreasonable conditions on supplying Revlimid samples to a generic company seeking to conduct trials for purposes of registering a generic version, including, inter alia, a USD 10 million insurance requirement; demands for extensive information about the generic company (including financial and business information); and delayed supply only two months after execution of the conditions agreement, notwithstanding that the product was in stock.

Following discussions with the ICA, a draft consent decree has been published for public comments on August 2025, under which BMS and Neopharm undertake to pay more than NIS 44 million to the State Treasury and an officer will pay more than NIS 200,000, all without any admission of violations of Israel’s Economic Competition Law.

Notably, this is the first instance in which the Israel Competition Authority has enforced Israeli monopolies and restrictive trade practices rules against an international pharmaceutical company. The decision also indicates that the Israel Competition Authority does not hesitate to pursue enforcement action against foreign companies operating in Israel.