Trend 6
Behavioural remedies prevail in FDI while merger control strikes a new balance
Merger control remedies are shifting away from a historic structural-first approach but regional divergence remains
Recent global rebalancing of merger control remedy types
Merger control remedies are shifting away from a historic structural-first approach but regional divergence remains
Recent global rebalancing of merger control remedy types
Where transactions raise competition law concerns, some authorities have traditionally preferred structural remedies (such as divestments). Recent data, however, shows a clear rebalancing globally: structural remedies have declined compared with previous years, while commitments to act in a certain way (behavioural remedies) have become the most common form of remedy. Behavioural remedies now account for approximately 44% of merger control clearance decisions with remedies, with structural remedies close behind at approximately 38%, and combined packages (behavioural and structural) making up the remaining 18%. This marks a meaningful evolution: in many jurisdictions, behavioural remedies are now viewed as an equally and sometimes more effective way to address competition concerns, particularly in markets involving innovation, data and digital platforms.
Against this global rebalancing, regional differences remain pronounced. The EU and its Member States continue to apply a mixed approach, with a continued preference for structural remedies. The UK, while still favouring structural remedies, is increasingly open to behavioural remedies following the CMA’s updated 2025 remedies guidance. By contrast, behavioural remedies are far more prevalent in Asia, and remain common in Latin America and in jurisdictions such as Austria, Belgium and Spain, particularly in cases involving digital, data and innovation-related concerns.
Regional variation in merger control remedy types
*Includes EU & Switzerland
US merger control: remedies return In the US, no transactions were cleared with remedies in 2024, reflecting an enforcement approach in which transactions raising concerns were more likely to be litigated by the authorities or abandoned by the parties. However, in 2025 the agencies pivoted back towards accepting remedies, clearing several high profile deals subject to structural divestitures, including Synopsys/Ansys (May 2025) and Keysight/Spirent (June 2025). For businesses, this means that deals raising competition law concerns may be cleared with remedies rather than being blocked or abandoned.
Regional variation in merger control remedy types
*Includes EU & Switzerland
US merger control: remedies return In the US, no transactions were cleared with remedies in 2024, reflecting an enforcement approach in which transactions raising concerns were more likely to be litigated by the authorities or abandoned by the parties. However, in 2025 the agencies pivoted back towards accepting remedies, clearing several high profile deals subject to structural divestitures, including Synopsys/Ansys (May 2025) and Keysight/Spirent (June 2025). For businesses, this means that deals raising competition law concerns may be cleared with remedies rather than being blocked or abandoned.
“Remedy tools may be converging, but regulatory objectives are not.”
Behavioural remedies are the default in FDI and FSR reviews
Unlike merger control, where structural and behavioural remedies now sit in a near balance globally, issues identified under FDI regimes and FSR are typically resolved through ongoing behavioural rather than structural remedies. This reflects the nature of the risks addressed under these regimes. In FDI, concerns typically relate to national security, data access, governance influence, supply chain resilience and operational oversight. Under the FSR, scrutiny focuses on the distortive effects of foreign subsidies on the Internal Market. In both cases, these risks are not readily addressed through structural remedies and instead lend themselves to ongoing behavioural remedies. In practice, such remedies fall into a number of recurring categories and, under the FSR, frequently involve preventing businesses from continuing to benefit from state-linked financial support (e.g. preferential loans or guarantees), as well as placing limits on how businesses operate following completion.
Common categories of behavioural remedies
Explore the trends shaping deal-making
Explore the trends shaping deal-making
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.
Connect with us
