MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Agustín Aguilar López, Carlos García Cueva and Joana Karime Novia Ibarra, Aziz & Kaye Business Law
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
a non-contractual liability, that is, for the violation of the FECL.
11. Funding and Costs 11.1 Litigation Funding
The reform to the FECL brought about tougher enforcement tools, including significantly increased fines, up to 15% of income for cartels and 10% for abuse of dominance, lowered merger control thresh - olds (reduced by approximately 11–17%, depending on the specific threshold), a shorter merger review period (reduced from 60 to 30 business days), and a streamlined process for civil antitrust litigation. Notably, the reformed FECL now facilitates class and individual actions for damages, which can be initiated once an administrative resolution is issued, even if appeals are pending. Building on the precedent set by the COFECE’s first-ever class action in October 2024 against pharmaceutical distributors (MXN2,316 million; see 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities ), the CNA exercised this power for the first time in its own right in April 2026, filing a class action against 53 LP gas companies (approximately MXN13 billion). The reformed FECL also shields leniency applicants from class actions brought by the authority, though not from private claims, to preserve co-operation incentives. The CNA is also empowered to certify compliance programmes, which may serve as mitigating factors in enforcement actions, and the law explicitly excludes public enterprises in strategic sectors from its scope of application. Under the reformed FECL there were no changes to conducts that amount to abuse of dominance. It is worth noting that, in Mexico, there are no specific provisions in competition law that refer to exploitative conduct. However, the new framework includes several chang - es related to abuse of dominance. For example, an additional object or effect related to the alleged offender’s capability to limit competition is included, and additional factors for determining dominance and criteria for joint dominance are elevated to the new Law from regulatory provisions. This context reflects
There is no litigation funding in Mexican law. However, in certain cases, the payment of expenses and costs may be requested from the party who lost the trial for a claim for damages. 11.2 Costs Whether the payment of costs can be awarded is determined in the respective judgment. The need to guarantee expenses and costs is not specifically fore - seen in advance. The amount of costs can be deter - mined based on the fee established by law or based on the fees that the prevailing party has paid to its attorneys during the trial of claim for damages. Challenges to decisions of the competition agency are brought through amparo proceedings before federal specialised judges and courts (review appeal). In contrast, appeals in damages cases are reviewed by appellate courts, which assess whether the lower court analysed the existence of harm properly, the causal link between the antitrust violation and the harm, and whether the amount awarded was deter- mined correctly. 12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal The parties may then challenge this appellate deci - sion through amparo directo proceedings, allowing a higher court to review the constitutionality of the reso - lution. Under certain conditions, an amparo en revisión may be heard by the Supreme Court.
104 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook