2025 was another relatively quiet year for the enforcement of cartel and other anti-competitive conduct by the ACCC, despite such conduct remaining an enduring priority of the ACCC. At the Law Council Annual Competition and Consumer Law Workshop, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb noted that “Protecting competition is also at the heart of our action against cartel conduct” and, referring to the dismissal of appeals in both the Delta Building Automation and BlueScope Steel cases, said “[T]he message from the Court is clear: even the attempt to form a cartel is illegal, and the consequences are severe.” Further, days before the annual workshop on 4 September 2025, the ACCC commenced civil penalty proceedings against suppliers of fresh vegetables to ALDI and four mobile crane hire companies. 

Key enforcement activity

Fresh Produce Suppliers to ALDI

Commenced civil penalty proceedings for alleged price fixing

In September, the ACCC announced that it had commenced civil penalty proceedings against several fresh produce suppliers and senior executives for 28 alleged instances of price fixing between 2018 and 2024. The ACCC brought the proceedings against Perfection Fresh Australia, Hydro Produce (Aust), Veli Velisha Fresh Produce and Velisha National Farms, its Director and Chief Executive Catherine Velisha, Senior Sales Manager Kaushik Vora and M. Fragapane & Sons, and its General Sales Manager Roberto Nave.  In the proceedings, it alleged that these suppliers engaged in, or attempted to engage in, price fixing for the supply of certain vegetables to ALDI stores on the East Coast. The proceedings are being defended, and the trial is not expected until 2027.

“Protecting competition in our fresh food supply chains is extremely important to drive price competition for the benefit of Australian consumer”

Gina Cass-Gottlieb, ACCC Chair (ALDI case)

Mobile Crane Hire

Civil penalty proceedings commenced for alleged cartel conduct

Also, in September, the ACCC announced that it had commenced civil penalty proceedings against four Sydney-based mobile crane hire companies, namely Borger Craine Hire & Rigging Services Pty Ltd, MRC Melrose Pty Ltd, Two Way Cranes Pty Ltd and Ultra-Life Cranes Pty Ltd, and four senior executives. In the proceedings, the ACCC alleged that the parties agreed to control supply and used WhatsApp to identify and then refuse service to certain building sites or customers. The ACCC further alleges that, in 2022, Borger Cranes and Shawn Borger attempted to fix cross-hire rates. The proceedings are being defended, and the trial is not expected until 2027.

“When companies collude to limit supply or fix prices, it reduces competition in the market and harms businesses and consumers.”

Gina Cass-Gottlieb, ACCC Chair (Mobile Crane Hire case)

Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd & Ventia Australia Pty Ltd

Alleged price fixing arrangements for Department of Defence contracts 

On 12 December 2024, the ACCC commenced proceedings against two companies, Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd (Spotless) and Ventia Australia Pty Ltd (Ventia), and four senior executives for the alleged price fixing relating to facilities management services and sustainable energy solutions for estates owned by the Department of Defence (DOD). The ACCC is alleging that, on three occasions between 30 April 2019 and 1 May 2019, Spotless and Ventia made arrangements or reached an understanding that they would each apply, or assert to the DOD that they would apply, a mark-up on the value of their work done for the DOD, having the likely effect of fixing the price for these services. The proceeding has been set down for a 30 day trial commencing on 30 May 2027.

“The conduct in this case undermined competitive public procurement processes. It occurred without Defence’s knowledge and was engaged in by EMOS providers who were trusted suppliers of services to Defence. The Spotless EMOS Contract and the Ventia EMOS Contract are ongoing and the value of those contracts over their duration are approximately $4 billion and $5.8 billion respectively.”

Gina Cass-Gottlieb, ACCC Chair

Google

Google Fined $55 Million for Anti‑Competitive Search Agreements

As outlined in our chapter on Customer Data & Digital Platforms Inquiry, on 18 August 2025, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Google Asia Pacific for alleged anti-competitive agreements between December 2019 and March 2021, requiring telco providers to pre-install Google Search on Android phones sold to consumers and not to install any other search engine. In return, it is alleged that major telcos received a share of the revenue Google generated from ads on Google Search. Later that year, in June, the ACCC agreed to accept Court-enforceable undertakings from the major telco’s not to renew or make new arrangements with Google regarding the pre-installation of, and the default user settings for, search engines. Google admitted to the existence of the agreements, agreed to jointly submit to the Court that it should pay a $55 million penalty, and signed court-enforceable undertakings. The parties settlement agreements were confirmed by the Federal Court on 2 December 2025. 

 Following the decision, ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said, 

“[t]his penalty should send a strong message to all businesses that there are serious and costly consequences for engaging in anti-competitive conduct  Today’s outcome... created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers.”

Other important developments

Mastercard 

ACCC pursues Mastercard over alleged use of discounted interchange rates

In our 2024 Review, we considered the likelihood of hotly contested proceedings between the ACCC and Mastercard Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd and Mastercard Asia/Pacific (Australia) Pty Ltd (collectively Mastercard), and it appears this has come to fruition. The ACCC alleges that Mastercard offered certain merchants discounted interchange rates on the condition that they route their dual-network debit transactions through the Mastercard network. On 20 October 2025, Mastercard was granted leave to appeal orders requiring it to disclose communications about its agreements with retailers. The ACCC claims that these communications are central to its case and should be disclosed to it as part of ordinary court processes. The appeal of this issue is expected to be heard on 6 March 2026, while the primary proceeding has been listed for a 53 day trial commencing on 13 April 2026.

BlueScope Steel Ltd

Full Court upholds findings that BlueScope Steel and its executive attempted to induce price fixing

In August of last year, the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down its decision in BlueScope Steel Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2025] FCAFC 118, upholding the Federal Court’s finding that BlueScope Steel and Mr Ellis had breached cartel provisions in attempting to engage seven domestic steel distributors in a price fixing scheme. Significantly, the Full Court of the Federal Court held that, while evidence of an intention to seek a commitment may make a case for attempted inducement of an understanding stronger, it is not an indispensable requirement. This further affirms the balance of authority that commitment is not a necessary requirement for a concluded understanding and therefore cannot be a requisite element of an attempt to induce one. 

Assessment against Priorities

In her speech at the Law Council Annual Competition and Consumer Law Workshop, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb emphasised that the ACCC’s focus is on conduct that results in significant harm and that its priority “is always to manage risk proportionately and achieve the best possible outcome for the community.” Despite this, only two cartel proceedings were commenced in 2025. Time will tell whether any other active investigations result in further civil or criminal proceedings in 2026. 

In addition, the ACCC said it would focus on conduct that causes significant customer and competitor harm; push its updated immunity program; and investigate anti-competitive conduct in digital and traditional markets. The results to date: a handful of new cartel proceedings (ALDI suppliers, crane hire), continued action against digital tie-ins (Google) and follow-on proceedings (MasterCard), but no new criminal cartel proceedings. While appeals decisions (in BlueScope and other matters) clarify the law and vindicate the ACCC’s approach, we aren’t seeing any significant uptick in complex cartel prosecutions. While the ACCC announcements concerning anti-competitive issues in digital markets are welcome, we really haven’t seen this translate into visible outcomes – litigated judgments, finalised settlements, expanded immunity program uptake and robust deterrence across cartel-prone markets. 

Looking forward 

We predict an increase in prosecutions for cartel activity throughout this year as the improved immunity policy further strengthens the ACCC’s ability to identify cartel conduct. Key proceedings to watch this year are those brought by the ACCC against Fresh Produce Suppliers to ALDI, Spotless and Mastercard. This may also be the year we finally see the next criminal cartel prosecution, following the failed action against the major banks several years ago.

In addition, we might see: 

• As the improved Immunity Policy beds down, more whistleblower tip-offs may surface, and the ACCC may commence further proceedings possibly connected to areas that impact cost-of-living, such as in agriculture, transport and other essential goods and services markets.
   
• Fresh ACCC actions that target anti-competitive schemes in the online digital economy beyond Google – including in areas such as (for example) platform search bias, bundling in app stores and advertising auction collusion, addressing concerns identified in the Digital Platforms Inquiry.
   
• Continued active cooperation with overseas competition authorities and networks on cross‑border cartels and digital platform conduct that affects Australian consumers and cost‑of‑living outcomes.