Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – Norway

Introduction and Summary

The year 2025 saw significant developments in Norwegian competition law. The largest fine ever imposed by the Norwegian Competition Authority (NCA) for violations of competition law was upheld by the Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal and four acquisitions were subjected to Phase 2 review, with various outcomes. On the regulatory side, the new market investigation tool granting the NCA extensive powers came into force and amendments to the Norwegian Competition Act were proposed. The trend of private enforcement of competition law continued. Norwegian competition law materially mirrors EU regulations through the EEA Agreement. This article, however, provides an overview of the country-specific developments in Norway for the year 2025.

The main developments may be summarised as follows:

• The Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal (Nw.: Konkurranseklagenemnda) upheld the NCA's decision in the so-called "price hunter" case, thereby upholding fines totalling NOK 4.9 billion imposed on Norway's three largest grocery chains. The grocery chains have decided to challenge the decision before the courts.
• The NCA concluded four Phase 2 merger reviews in 2025. Two of the transactions (Vygruppen/Flytoget and Norgesgruppen/Norsk Medisinaldepot) were unconditionally cleared, while the remaining two (Schlumberger/ChampionX and Retriever/Infomedia) were cleared subject to remedies.
• The new market investigation tool for the NCA came into force in 2025. While the tool has not yet been utilised, it grants the NCA extensive powers to address competition concerns in markets where structural conditions significantly restrict competition, even in the absence of a specific infringement of the Norwegian Competition Act.
• A government-appointed committee has proposed amendments to the Norwegian Competition Act, which are currently subject to public consultation.
• Private enforcement continued to gain momentum in 2025, with the Court of Appeal delivering a landmark judgment in a follow-on damages case brought by Posten.

Illegal cooperation (Section 10 of the Norwegian Competition Act / Article 53 EEA / Article 101 TFEU)

The Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal Upholds Record-High Fines Imposed on Norwegian Grocery Chains

In August 2025, the Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal upheld the NCA's decision imposing fines totalling NOK 4.9 billion on the country's three largest grocery chains. The Tribunal confirmed the NCA's finding that the grocery chains' practice of permitting each other's price hunters to access their respective stores during opening hours to collect information on publicly displayed retail prices had increased price transparency between the chains without benefiting consumers. In the view of the NCA and the Tribunal, the cooperation had thereby harmed competition by reducing the chains' incentives to lower prices. For only the second time in its history, the Tribunal consisted of five members.

Decisions of the Tribunal may be appealed to the regional court of appeal in Western Norway, Gulating lagmannsrett, and ultimately to the Norwegian Supreme Court. All three grocery chains have decided to appeal the decision. The process of bringing the case before the courts and reaching a final decision may take several years.

Merger control

The NCA Concludes Four Phase 2 Investigations, Unconditionally Clearing Two Acquisitions and Clearing the Other Two Subject to Remedies

Vygruppen/Flytoget:  In February 2025, the NCA unconditionally approved Vygruppen's acquisition of Flytoget. Vygruppen is a fully state-owned company and the largest land-based transport group in the Nordic region. Flytoget operates a high-speed airport railway service between Oslo Airport and Oslo city centre. The transaction was initiated by a Royal decree transferring Flytoget from the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, ultimately resulting in Flytoget becoming a subsidiary of Vygruppen. Vy and Flytoget were both 100 percent owned by the Norwegian state. Vy argued that the merger did not constitute a concentration within the meaning of section 17 of the Norwegian Competition Act and that the Competition Authority did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Unfortunately, the Norwegian Competition Authority did not conclude on this question, missing the opportunity to provide much-needed guidance on merger control involving state-owned companies.

The NCA initially identified concerns in two key areas: (i) passenger train services between Drammen and Oslo Airport, where the parties were the only competitors, and (ii) the tender market for passenger rail transport.

Notwithstanding that the parties were the only competitors for passenger train services between Drammen and Oslo Airport, the NCA noted that both parties are bound by agreements with the Norwegian Railway Directorate governing scheduling, frequency, and station stops. Additionally, Flytoget's licence agreement remains in force until January 2028, limiting the parties' ability to implement changes following the merger. These factors, combined with the potential for competition from other operators in future rail service tenders, led the NCA to conclude that the transaction would not result in a significant impediment to effective competition. While the transaction was ultimately cleared unconditionally, it represents an unusual case given that it was driven by a political decision and involved two fully state-owned entities.

Schlumberger/ChampionX: On 26 May 2025, the NCA conditionally approved Schlumberger's acquisition of ChampionX following a Phase 2 review. ChampionX supplies quartz transducers and diamond bearings, which are key inputs for permanent well monitoring and directional drilling operations in Norway. The NCA concluded that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition in these markets due to the risk of input foreclosure.

To address these concerns, the parties proposed a comprehensive remedies package. First, US Synthetic, a ChampionX subsidiary, was to be divested to LongRange Capital. Second, ChampionX committed to entering into long-term supply agreements ensuring continued access to its Quartzdyne products and services for oil service providers. Third, ChampionX agreed to enter into a global licence agreement with sensor manufacturer Précis to facilitate market entry in the quartz transducers segment. The NCA approved the remedies in July 2025. In its remedies decision, the NCA referred to the British Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), illustrating the close cooperation between national competition authorities.

In contrast to the politically driven Vygruppen/Flytoget transaction discussed above, the Schlumberger/ChampionX case represents a more conventional merger control proceeding. The remedies package was specifically designed to mitigate input foreclosure risks and preserve competitive access to essential products and services for market participants.

Retriever/Infomedia: The NCA conditionally approved Infomedia Retriever Holding's acquisition of shares in Retriever and Infomedia. Infomedia Retriever Holding is a holding company established in 2024 to hold shares in both entities. Retriever and Infomedia are the two largest providers of media monitoring, media analysis, and media archive services in Norway. The merged entity would become the clear market leader in these segments.

The NCA concluded that the acquisition would significantly impede effective competition in the market for media monitoring services in Norway. Accordingly, the NCA approved the transaction subject to a commitment by Infomedia Retriever Holding to divest Infomedia Norway.

Norgesgruppen/Norsk Medisinaldepot (NMD): Shortly before year-end 2025, the NCA approved Norgesgruppen's acquisition of Norsk Medisinaldepot (NMD). Norgesgruppen is Norway's largest grocery retail group and also conducts extensive wholesale operations. NMD operates both as a wholesaler to pharmacies and in retail sales of pharmaceutical products and services through the Vitusapotek and Ditt Apotek chain concepts. Vitusapotek is Norway's second largest pharmacy chain.

The grocery and pharmacy markets are two significant consumer markets subject to close scrutiny by the NCA. The NCA initially raised concerns regarding Norgesgruppen's position as owner, part-owner, and tenant of commercial property. Specifically, the NCA was concerned that Norgesgruppen could leverage its position in commercial real estate following the acquisition to deny competing pharmacy operators access to premises, thereby significantly restricting competition in the pharmacy market. The NCA also raised concerns regarding the competitive overlap between over-the-counter medicines and consumer goods sold in both pharmacies and grocery stores, and that the acquisition could lead to increased prices for such products.

Following a Phase 2 review, however, the transaction was unconditionally cleared on 15 December 2025.

Norva 24 Vest/Vitek Miljø: Norva 24 Vest appealed the NCA's prohibition of its acquisition of Vitek Miljø to the Norwegian Competition Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the prohibition. The parties are the two largest providers of drain cleaning and pressure washing services in the former Hordaland County. The case illustrates that the NCA continues to scrutinize competition concerns in local markets.

Regulatory and policy developments

Entry into Force of the Market Investigation Tool

On 1 June 2025, the new market investigation tool entered into force. The tool empowers the NCA to implement targeted measures to address serious competition concerns, even in the absence of a violation of the Norwegian Competition Act.

The market investigation tool enables the NCA to address competition concerns in markets where structural conditions significantly restrict competition. Given that market investigations may result in far-reaching measures, the legislation requires thorough examinations. Prior to commencing an investigation, a public consultation must be held. Throughout the course of a market investigation, the NCA is required to ensure an open and transparent process and to maintain constructive dialogue with affected parties. As of the date of this article, the tool has not yet been utilised.

Proposed Amendments to the Norwegian Competition Act

On 1 December 2025, a government-appointed committee tasked with reviewing the Norwegian Competition Act submitted its report to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. The committee proposed several amendments aimed at facilitating faster case handling and more efficient enforcement of the Act. A public consultation is currently underway, with stakeholders invited to submit their input by 27 March 2026. Following the consultation, the Ministry will assess the responses and prepare a legislative proposal for consideration by the Norwegian Parliament. The proposed amendments include the following:

Enforcement and Case Processing: The committee proposes lowering the threshold for interim cease-and-desist orders by replacing the condition of "permanent and irreparable harm" with "serious harm", combined with faster appeal procedures.  The committee further proposes the introduction of a formal decision on further case proceedings, following preliminary investigation, to be made within 12 months from the completion of the first order or seizure as a general rule. The majority of the committee proposes a right to an oral hearing in cases concerning violations of Sections 10 and 11 of the Norwegian Competition Act where a penalty has been indicated.

Merger Control: The majority of the committee proposes maintaining the current turnover thresholds of 1 billion kroner in combined turnover and 100 million kroner in individual turnover, which have been in place since 2014. The majority of the committee proposes that an automatic suspension of the review period in the month of July. For voluntarily notified transactions, transactions called in below the thresholds, and minority acquisitions, no automatic standstill obligation would apply. The majority proposes granting the NCA the power to impose a standstill obligation in individual cases where the transaction has not yet been completed.

Sanctions and Settlements: The committee proposes extending the settlement procedure to also cover abuse of a dominant position, with increased penalty reductions of up to 20% for cartels and up to 40% for other violations. Full leniency granted to undertakings would also result in exemption from personal criminal liability for individuals involved in the infringement. The committee also proposes that companies having been granted full lenience, will not be liable for any potential follow-on damages claims, unless the injured party/parties does not receive coverage for the claim from the other involved undertakings.

Private Enforcement: The committee proposes introducing a new chapter on private enforcement of damages claims for infringements of competition rules, implementing several elements from the Damages Directive, including a presumption of harm for cartel violations.

Appeals and Judicial Review: The committee proposes reducing the appeal period for penalty decisions from six to three months. The majority proposes that judicial review should commence in the district court, rather than the court of appeal, with mandatory venue at the Oslo District Court.

Private enforcement of competition law

Landmark Judgment from the Court of Appeal in Private Enforcement of Competition Law

On 17 March 2025, the Borgarting Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in a case concerning follow-on damages claims brought by Posten Norge AS ("Posten") against four truck manufacturers. The claims were based on the EU Trucks case, in which the European Commission, in its Settlement Decision (Case AT.39824), concluded that Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA had been breached.

The Oslo District Court had ruled in favour of the truck manufacturers. First, the District Court held that there is no presumption of harm in follow-on cases in Norway, as the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) has not yet been implemented into Norwegian law. Second, the District Court found that Posten had failed to discharge its burden of proof, as it had not demonstrated actual economic loss and a causal link between the infringement and the alleged loss.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision and awarded Posten damages of approximately NOK 116 million (approximately EUR 10 million), plus interest. The Court concluded that Posten had paid an overcharge as a result of the cartel during the period from 1997 to 2011. The Court accepted Posten's submission that a causal link existed between the manufacturers’ unlawful conduct and the overcharge incurred. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on multiple sources of evidence, including the European Commission’s findings, economic theories regarding coordinated effects in cartel arrangements, and the empirical analyses presented by Posten’s experts. The Court determined the overcharge to be 10% for purchases in Norway and 5% for purchases in Sweden and Slovakia.

The Court of Appeal held Volvo Norge AS liable despite the subsidiary being unaware of the unlawful cooperation, on the basis that its parent company, AB Volvo, had participated in the infringement and that, in accordance with Case C-882/19 (Sumal), a "specific link" existed between the subsidiary's economic activity and the subject matter of the infringement.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendants' pass-on defence, holding that any passing-on of the overcharge to customers was legally irrelevant for the assessment of causation. The Court did, however, reject Posten's contention that compensation for consequential loss arising from its inability to utilise the funds paid as overcharges should be calculated by reference to the return on its own invested capital.

Upcoming Proceedings Before the Court of Appeal in the Telenor/Telia Case Concerning the Statute of Limitations in Private Enforcement of Competition Law

In January 2026, the Borgarting Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear certain elements of the case concerning Telia's damages claims against Telenor for abuse of dominance in the Norwegian mobile telecommunications market. The appeal concerns the statute of limitations.

Among other claims, Telia has sought damages on behalf of access purchasers it has acquired for losses allegedly suffered as a result of Telenor's violation of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, as established in ESA's decision of 19 June 2020. Telia contends that the access purchasers suffered economic losses as a result of an unlawful margin squeeze in the market for mobile broadband to private customers. The District Court decided that the question of whether the access purchasers' claims were time-barred would be addressed as a preliminary issue and held that none of the access purchasers' claims were time-barred. Telenor has appealed the District Court's judgment with respect to the damages claims brought by Network Norway and Ventelo based on ESA's decision.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision, and any subsequent appeals, the proceedings will continue to address the substantive questions relating to damages.