Austria's Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (Federal Competition Authority, BWB) has materially sharpened its enforcement posture over the past year. Investigations have increased in frequency. Penalties for cartel conduct and abuse of market dominance have reached levels that dwarf earlier practice. International companies operating in Austria – even those headquartered elsewhere in the EU – are directly in scope.
The BWB has intensified enforcement across cartel, market dominance, and merger notification rules under Austria's competition legislation. Companies with Austrian revenues above relevant thresholds face mandatory merger notification obligations and heightened scrutiny of pricing and distribution conduct. Businesses that do not review their compliance programmes before mid-2026 risk fines calibrated to global group turnover.
This alert explains what has changed, which business categories are affected, and the five actions international companies should take immediately.
What changed – the enforcement shift and its legal basis
Austria's competition legislation grants the BWB broad investigative powers. Those powers have recently been exercised with greater frequency and greater ambition. Three developments define the current enforcement environment.
Expanded digital and platform scrutiny. The BWB has opened investigations into pricing algorithms and data-driven market dominance. Austrian courts – in particular the Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) in Vienna – have confirmed that coordinated algorithmic pricing can constitute a cartel even without a written agreement. Companies using third-party repricing software are exposed.
Stricter merger notification thresholds. Austria maintains its own merger notification regime alongside EU merger regulation. The domestic thresholds – measured by combined Austrian turnover and individual turnover of each party – remain in force and operate independently of EU-level filings. A transaction clearable at EU level may still require a separate BWB notification. Missing that obligation carries its own sanctions under competition legislation.
Higher penalty calibration. Recent fines imposed by the Cartel Court have been calculated on global group turnover, not Austrian turnover alone. This approach aligns Austria with EU enforcement practice. For a mid-size multinational, the difference in the penalty base is substantial. The leniency programme remains available, but the window to use it closes the moment the BWB opens a formal investigation.
For companies also managing related corporate disputes in Austria, the overlap between competition enforcement and shareholder or commercial litigation is increasingly relevant – particularly where cartel damages claims follow a BWB decision.
Who is affected – threshold criteria and business categories
The enforcement intensification applies across sectors. However, the BWB has publicly identified several priority areas for 2025 and 2026.
- Retail and grocery distribution – pricing coordination between suppliers and retailers
- Construction and infrastructure – bid-rigging and market allocation in public tenders
- Digital platforms and e-commerce – market dominance and self-preferencing conduct
- Pharmaceuticals and medical devices – information exchange and resale price maintenance
- Financial services – benchmark-related conduct and fee coordination
Any company with Austrian revenues exceeding the domestic merger notification thresholds is subject to pre-closing filing requirements. The obligation applies regardless of where the acquiring entity is incorporated. Non-EU acquirers are not exempt. Failing to notify – even unintentionally – constitutes a breach of competition legislation and triggers both fines and potential unwinding orders.
Companies that hold a position of market dominance in any Austrian product or geographic market face heightened obligations. Under Austrian competition legislation, dominance is not illegal in itself. Abusing that position – through exclusivity clauses, margin squeeze, tying, or discriminatory terms – is. The BWB has shown willingness to act on complaints from competitors and customers alike.
To receive an expert assessment of your competition law exposure in Austria, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
What to do now – immediate actions for international companies
The compliance deadline is not a fixed regulatory date. The risk is continuous. A BWB investigation can open at any time, triggered by a leniency application from a competitor, a customer complaint, or a sector inquiry. The following five actions should be completed as a matter of priority.
1. Audit distribution and pricing arrangements. Review all Austrian distribution agreements for resale price maintenance clauses, most-favoured-nation provisions, and exclusivity terms. These are active enforcement targets. Any arrangement that restricts a distributor's ability to set its own prices is presumptively unlawful under Austrian competition legislation.
2. Assess merger notification obligations before signing. For any transaction with an Austrian nexus, calculate whether domestic thresholds are met at signing – not at closing. The notification obligation crystallises early. A competent competition law team in Austria should carry out threshold analysis before the transaction documents are finalised.
3. Evaluate leniency programme eligibility. If your company has participated in any arrangement that could constitute a cartel – even informally – the leniency programme offers material fine reductions for the first applicant. That benefit disappears once the BWB opens its own investigation. Speed is critical. A competition authority investigation rarely announces itself in advance.
4. Train commercial and procurement teams. Information exchange at trade association meetings is a recurring source of BWB investigations. Sales staff who discuss pricing, capacity, or customer allocation with competitors – even casually – create exposure. A single meeting without a competition law briefing can generate years of investigation. Training should be documented and repeated annually.
5. Document market dominance assessments. If your business holds or may hold a dominant position in an Austrian market, commission a written market definition and share analysis. That document does not create liability. It does, however, provide a structured basis for reviewing conduct and demonstrating good-faith compliance if the BWB makes enquiries.
Enforcement alerts for adjacent jurisdictions – including our coverage of competition enforcement developments in Portugal – provide useful context for companies managing compliance across multiple European markets.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our competition law practice supports international companies facing BWB investigations, merger notification requirements, and cartel exposure in Austria and across the EU. The firm's practitioners have experience advising clients before competition authorities in both civil law and common law systems, combining Portuguese and European regulatory knowledge with English common law enforcement strategy. As a law firm in Austria and across Europe, we work with in-house legal teams, multinationals, and institutional investors who need results-oriented counsel when a competition authority acts. To discuss your situation in Austria, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.