<\/p>\n
At the 263rd Ordinary Judgment Session (“OJS”, from the Portuguese Sess\u00e3o Ordin\u00e1ria de Julgamento<\/em>, “SOJ”) in April 2026, the Tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“CADE”, from the Portuguese Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econ\u00f4mica<\/em>) approved a settlement with a developer of algorithmic pricing software<\/em> investigated for allegedly influencing uniform conduct in the fuel market, with potential effects of maintaining elevated prices and reducing discounts.<\/p>\n The investigation, initiated by CADE’s General Superintendence (“GS”, from the Portuguese Superintend\u00eancia-Geral<\/em>, “SG”) in 2024, also covers a sector trade union that allegedly recommended the use of the software<\/em> to affiliated fuel stations. The settlement establishes competition compliance commitments, including governance improvements, data segregation and confidentiality, algorithm auditing, continuous monitoring with CADE access to the company’s premises and systems, market share reporting to CADE, and a prohibition on entering into new contracts until the measures are implemented.<\/p>\n Also in April 2026, the GS initiated administrative proceedings to investigate alleged price parallelism in the airline ticket market, pointing to the use of automated pricing by airlines and the high concentration of the sector as factors capable of generating competition concerns.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At the 260th OJS, CADE’s Tribunal approved settlements with two soccer leagues investigated for gun jumping<\/em> (i.e., consummation of a mandatory-notification merger without prior submission to CADE). The investigations were initiated following an anonymous complaint.<\/p>\n CADE’s Tribunal found that the formation of the leagues \u2014 created by competing clubs to coordinate the collective commercialization of commercial and broadcasting rights for national championships \u2014 constituted a form of associative agreement due to their nature as a contractual joint venture<\/em>, involving the structured combination of resources and activities, profit-sharing, and integrated commercial management among the parties. Accordingly, if the statutory revenue thresholds were met, mandatory notification to CADE would be required.<\/p>\n In this context, one of the leagues, whose economic groups involved met that threshold, acknowledged the practice of gun jumping<\/em> and will pay approx. BRL 500,000 as a pecuniary contribution. The other committed to regularizing future notifications but, since the clubs involved did not meet the revenue threshold, will not pay a pecuniary contribution.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n During the 264th OJS, held in April 2026, CADE’s Tribunal unanimously upheld an infraction notice issued by the GS against a technology company for non-compliance with a preliminary injunction. Issued in March 2026, the injunction prohibited the company from modifying the terms of use of its messaging application in a manner detrimental to AI chatbot<\/em> providers. According to the GS, these chatbots<\/em> could be excluded from a relevant channel of user access, which required that the original access conditions be maintained.<\/p>\n Following the injunction, the company began charging chatbots<\/em> for use of the platform under the same terms applied to commercial users. However, CADE’s Tribunal found that the charge violated the injunction: maintaining the original access conditions would presuppose the absence of additional costs. The Tribunal also found that the new charge could produce exclusionary effects similar to those of the originally suspended clauses. The decision is currently being challenged before the courts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n During the 264th OJS in April 2026, CADE’s Tribunal unanimously recommended the initiation of administrative proceedings against a technology company to investigate possible exploitative abuse in the use and display of journalistic content on its platform without adequate compensation to publishers. The GS, which had initially recommended archiving the case for insufficient evidence, formally initiated the proceedings in May 2026.<\/p>\n In a vote led by Board Member Diogo Thomson, the Tribunal advocated for a more in-depth analysis of the case, particularly in light of the recent technological evolution of the conduct under investigation, considering the use of AI to synthesize news articles directly on the company’s search platform. The Board Member also highlighted the structural dependence of publishers<\/em> on the investigated search platform, which acts as an intermediary of user traffic, which could enable alleged exploitative abuse through the extraction of economic value from third-party content without adequate compensation \u2014 an unprecedented theory that differs from the usual pattern of unilateral conduct, which typically involves the exclusion of competitors rather than the exploitation of dependent parties.<\/p>\n In her vote, Board Member Camila Alves proposed guidelines to direct the GS’s investigation of the case, with emphasis on examining internal studies and experimental tests conducted by the investigated company itself, given the informational asymmetry between the company and the authority, as well as the complexity of the subject matter.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At the 256th OJS in May 2026, CADE’s Tribunal examined four transactions in digital and artificial intelligence markets that, although they did not meet the mandatory notification thresholds based on revenue, were submitted to the agency for preliminary review due to their potential competitive relevance.<\/p>\n The cases involved atypical structures, such as technology licensing, transfer of intangible assets, minority investments, coordinated hiring of teams, and cloud infrastructure arrangements. CADE closed three proceedings due to the absence of competitive effects in Brazil, proportionality and legal certainty considerations, or lack of evidence of competitive harm. Nevertheless, the review led to the opening of two new proceedings involving acquisitions of AI startups by a major search platform.<\/p>\n In the fourth case, which combined technology licensing and the hiring of nearly all employees of an AI startup by a large technology company, CADE found that the arrangement could reproduce, in economic terms, the effects of a conventional acquisition, ordering the notification of the transaction within 30 days.<\/p>\n During the hearing, Acting President Diogo Thomson de Andrade emphasized that transactions in these sectors may involve significant transfers of assets, intellectual property, technological capabilities, and strategic personnel with potential competitive impact, even when the parties do not present substantial revenues in Brazil.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In May 2026, CADE’s Tribunal approved Resolution No. 38\/2026, which governs the management of consensual solutions in litigated cases and the payment and collection procedures for fines relating to violations of the economic order, merger review proceedings, incidental procedural sanctions, and cases of non-compliance with agreements.<\/p>\n Among the key provisions, the Resolution grants a 10% discount to debtors who make timely, lump-sum payment of the fine, upon submission of a debt acknowledgment and express waiver of the right to seek administrative appeal or to challenge CADE’s decision in court.<\/p>\n In cases where decisions are already subject to court proceedings, the debtor must withdraw the relevant actions. The Resolution also provides for the possibility of installment payment of debts in up to 60 installments and the establishment of a negotiation committee composed of representatives from the Tribunal, the GS, and the Specialized Federal Attorney’s Office (“PFE”, from the Portuguese Procuradoria Federal Especializada<\/em>) for consensual solutions.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n With the approaching expiry date of the safeguard measures applied by the European Union to steel imports (expiring on June 30, 2026), Brussels is working against the clock to have a replacement measure enter into force the following day, without any gaps.<\/p>\n The new measure was negotiated in April among the three main European institutions and formally approved by the European Parliament on May 19, 2026, by a large majority. It now awaits final approval by the European Council. In practice, the restrictions become stricter: the import volumes permitted without tariffs drop by nearly half compared to current quotas, and the tariff on the excess rises from 25% to 50%.<\/p>\n According to information released, the EU is still working on two points that will govern the new measure: (i) the definition of country-by-country quota allocation, which is being negotiated with trading partners, and (ii) the structure of the rules of origin applicable to imported steel, which are expected to take into account melt-and-pour<\/em> requirements.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Opening of Investigations and Reviews: <\/strong>The following investigations and reviews of trade defense measures were initiated by the Foreign Trade Secretariat (“SECEX”, from the Portuguese Secretaria de Com\u00e9rcio Exterior<\/em>).<\/p>\n Investigation requested by domestic producers. Chinese state management of the product’s main input and the high degree of regulatory and political direction of Chinese production are issues that may play an important role in the analysis.<\/p>\n Investigation requested by a domestic producer. The strong growth in Chinese imports during the period under review, along with the loss of market share by the domestic industry, are issues that may play a significant role in the analysis.<\/p>\n Second sunset review. The final determination may take into account factors such as the deterioration of the domestic industry’s profitability and the export performance of the investigated countries of origin, even though some indicators of the domestic industry have shown improvement. The petitioner also argued that trade restrictions in the United States resulting from the application of Section 232 could close the U.S. market to China and redirect the surplus to Brazil.<\/p>\n Initiation of an anti-circumvention review, at the request of a sector company, to investigate possible evasion of the antidumping measure following increased imports of similar products excluded from its scope. In the same context, a request by a Belgian company for an individual antidumping duty was denied, on the grounds that the margin attributed to an investigated company does not automatically extend to a non-investigated entity, even if it belongs to the same economic group.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Preliminary Determinations<\/strong>: SECEX published three preliminary determinations in dumping investigations.<\/p>\n Positive preliminary determination with no recommendation for the application of provisional duties, on the grounds that this is a complex case requiring the analysis of a large volume of information and the participation of other parties.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Negative preliminary determination with no recommendation for the application of provisional duties, on the grounds that no causal link was found between the dumping practice under investigation and injury to the domestic industry.<\/p>\n Positive preliminary determination, with no recommendation for the application of provisional duties given the complexity of the case, which requires the analysis of a large volume of information and maximization of adversarial proceedings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion of Investigations and Reviews:<\/strong> The following definitive antidumping duties were imposed, extended, or amended by the Chamber of Foreign Trade (“CAMEX”, from the Portuguese C\u00e2mara de Com\u00e9rcio Exterior<\/em>).<\/p>\n CAMEX applied definitive antidumping duties to imports at a level lower than recommended in the dumping investigation, taking into account public interest considerations (between USD 199.04\/t and USD 238.49\/t).<\/p>\n CAMEX increased the definitive antidumping duty on imports on the grounds that the effectiveness of the measure had been compromised, raising the rate from USD 1.18\/kg to USD 4.07\/kg.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Public Interest Decisions:<\/strong> CAMEX issued the following decisions in public interest assessments related to antidumping duties:<\/p>\n CAMEX denied a motion for reconsideration filed by a sector association against the revocation, on public interest grounds, of a provisional antidumping duty applied to imports. The reasoning was that provisional measures are precautionary in nature, time-limited, and reversible, and may be reconsidered by the collegiate body in light of the public interest prior to the final determination of the investigation.<\/p>\nCADE’s Tribunal upholds infraction notice in case involving preliminary injunction on AI chatbots<\/strong><\/h3>\n
CADE’s Tribunal upholds preliminary injunction involving AI chatbots<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
CADE opens unprecedented investigation into alleged exploitative abuse in the use of journalistic content<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Acquisitions by “big techs” in digital and AI markets come under CADE’s radar<\/strong><\/h3>\n
CADE approves Resolution on consensual solutions and collection of fines<\/strong><\/h3>\n
INTERNATIONAL TRADE<\/strong><\/h2>\n
European Union still working on the measure to replace steel safeguards<\/h3>\n
Trade Remedy Updates<\/h3>\n
Original dumping investigation into imports of soy proteins from China<\/strong><\/h6>\n
<\/h6>\n
Original dumping investigation into imports of reciprocating compressors for refrigeration from China<\/strong><\/h6>\n
<\/h6>\n
Sunset review of antidumping duty on imports of plastic tubes for vacuum blood collection from China, the United States, and the United Kingdom<\/strong><\/h6>\n
<\/h6>\n
Anti-circumvention review of antidumping measure on imports of frozen potatoes from Germany, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands<\/strong><\/h6>\n
Acrylic acid from China<\/h6>\n
Agricultural tires from India<\/h6>\n
Hot-rolled stainless steel flat products from China<\/h6>\n
Polyethylene resins from Canada and the United States<\/h6>\n
Metallic magnesium from China<\/h6>\n
Textile yarns from China<\/h6>\n
\n