The European Competition Network (ECN) has issued a joint statement supporting the implementation of national “call-in mechanisms” to catch problematic corporate mergers that fall below traditional regulatory radars. The endorsement marks a unified push by Europe’s antitrust regulators to close enforcement gaps that allow harmful transactions to fly under the radar.
Closing the Regulatory Blind Spot
Historically, merger control has relied heavily on the financial turnover of the merging businesses to trigger automatic notifications. However, the ECN notes that this revenue-only approach is increasingly failing to capture transactions that can severely warp market dynamics. Regulators point to a rise in “killer acquisitions”—where large firms buy out promising startups to neutralize future competition—alongside roll-up strategies and mergers that monopolize highly concentrated local or low-turnover industries.
A call-in mechanism solves this dilemma by allowing a competition authority to claim jurisdiction over a merger on a case-by-case basis, even if the companies do not meet standard notification thresholds. According to the ECN, these powers have already proven highly effective across the European Economic Area. In Italy, Lithuania, and Iceland, regulators have used call-in rules to intercept sub-threshold transactions in sectors ranging from online ticketing to fiber optic networks, resulting in behavioral remedies or outright prohibitions.
Balancing Regulation and Legal Certainty
Currently, nine EU member states—including Denmark, Italy, and Ireland—alongside Iceland and Norway, have fully integrated call-in powers into their legal frameworks. Another twelve nations, including France and the Netherlands, are actively considering the move. This expanding patchwork of rules is aligned with broader European initiatives, such as the Digital Markets Act, which mandates tech gatekeepers to log their acquisitions with regulatory bodies.
While advocating for the tool, the ECN stresses that new legislation must balance enforcement with market predictability. Regulators advise that call-in mechanisms should feature clear boundaries. They recommend a strict temporal scope, such as Italy’s six-month post-closing deadline, to prevent indefinite legal limbo for businesses. Furthermore, the statement suggests that governments pair these laws with soft-law instruments—like voluntary notification systems, informal guidance, and pre-merger consultations—to lower the administrative burden on companies and ensure that market interventions remain proportionate and legally sound.
