Advocate General Rantos’ opinion in Groupama Asigurări (Case C‑357/25), delivered on 9 July 2026, is a timely reminder that competitors do not always need to exchange detailed pricing information to fall foul of European competition rules. In some markets, even general discussions can be risky.

The case arose from a Romanian regulator's finding that nine motor insurers and their trade body had breached competition law by discussing, in general terms, future rate increases at association meetings and in press announcements (although how detailed those discussions were in fact remains a point of contention). On appeal from the parties, Romania’s courts referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), seeking clarification on whether:

• A concerted practice requires an exchange of detailed, individualised pricing information, or whether more general discussions between competitors suffice; and
• A competition authority must always examine a company’s alternative, non-collusive explanation for the contested conduct.

In some markets, general information can be competitively sensitive

On the first point, AG Rantos advised that general discussions between competitors can constitute an exchange of competitively sensitive information, depending on their capacity to reduce competitive uncertainty in the relevant market.

He rejected the idea of a bright-line rule based on the level of detail exchanged. Instead, the test remains whether the information exchanged is capable of reducing or removing uncertainty about competitors' future conduct. This should be assessed holistically, against the characteristics of the market under scrutiny. 

Detail is relevant, but not decisive on its own. What tips the balance is market structure. In a concentrated and highly transparent market with highly inelastic demand (captive customers), even a generic discussion can cross the line. It follows that, in less concentrated markets with different characteristics – e.g. elastic demand, differentiated products or individualised pricing – more specific information would typically be needed.

AG Rantos also cautioned that a genuine industry crisis (which the parties argued they were facing at the time of their exchanges) is not, on its own, a shield to a breach of competition law, and that operating in a regulated sector will only reduce risk where the regulatory framework leaves undertakings no real discretion over pricing.

The role of the parties’ evidence

On the second point, AG Rantos drew a sharp distinction between two types of cases.

The first is cases that rest solely on “parallel conduct” – where competitors independently behave in a similar way on the market (for example, raising prices at the same time), without any contact between them. To prove collusion, an authority must consider a company’s alternative, non-collusive explanation, since collusion must be the only plausible explanation for that conduct.

The second is cases founded on evidence of actual contact between competitors, where this stricter requirement does not apply. Even then, a company remains free to rebut the presumption that it acted on the information exchange, and the authority must engage with that evidence. This is a reminder of the importance of timely “distancing” from potential exchanges of sensitive information, and keeping a record of that distancing. 

In summary

Taken together, these points offer a useful gauge for any business operating in concentrated or transparent markets: there, high-level discussions about pricing trends – at trade associations, in regulatory meetings, or in the press – can carry real risk. Conversely, in markets that do not share these characteristics, the risk that generic information will cross the line into exchange of competitively sensitive information and collusion remains lower.

The CJEU's ruling is awaited, and will be significant for drawing the line between lawful market commentary between market players and unlawful coordination. Although, post-Brexit, any judgment of the CJEU in this case will no longer be binding in the UK, it will still be informative for how UK regulators and courts might approach the issue.