MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Agustín Aguilar López, Carlos García Cueva and Joana Karime Novia Ibarra, Aziz & Kaye Business Law
2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis As mentioned in 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation, there are no private antitrust claims in Mexico. The statutory basis for a claim for damages for breach of competition regulation is Arti - cle 134 of the FECL. However, as mentioned before, the reformed FECL expressly provides that individuals can bring individual or collective actions for damages in the Judicial Branch before the CNA’s resolution is final and unappealable. 2.2 Courts All cases are heard, without exception, by specialised competition judges and courts. In the event of a recusal or excuse, the case is reas - signed to a different judge or court, specialised in competition matters, through an expedited procedure. It should be noted that there is no possibility nor any legal procedure for a non-specialised court or tribunal to hear a case involving the application of the FECL in relation to damages’ claims. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities Decisions issued by the CNA are non-binding and do not create a precedent for the courts. The role of spe - cialised judges and courts is to review the legality of such decisions and determine whether they infringe upon the fundamental rights of economic agents. In the context of damages claims, the decision of the competition authority must be treated by the courts as conclusive proof of the existence of the unlawful con - duct. Courts cannot disregard the decision or admit evidence intended to disprove it. Moreover, the competition authority is entitled to inter - vene and may legitimately file class actions to claim damages. This power was first exercised in October 2024, when the now-extinct COFECE filed its first-ever class action lawsuit against Casa Saba , Casa Marzam , Farmacos Nacionales and the Asociacion de Distribui- dores de Productos Farmaceuticos de la Republica Mexicana (the Mexican national association of phar - maceutical distributors), alleging that the companies
had colluded for a decade by agreeing not to distrib - ute medicines on certain days of the year, limiting the quantities supplied to pharmacies, and manipulating sale prices and discounts to pharmacies. The COFECE calculated that this conduct reduced availability and increased medicine prices nation - wide, causing harm in excess of MXN2billion. The class action follows a 2021 administrative resolution in which the COFECE fined the companies and 21 individuals MXN903.4 million, the maximum fine per - mitted by law at the time, and disqualified ten com - pany directors. Through the class action, the COFECE seeks MXN2,316 million in compensation, to be allocated to the IMSS-Bienestar programme (the Mexican Social Security Institute’s public healthcare initiative aimed at providing free, universal access to primary and secondary medical services for people without social security coverage), on the basis that the health sector suffered the harm from the conduct. The outcome of this case is still pending. The District Court initially dismissed the class action, arguing that the COFECE’s resolution was not yet final and unappealable. The COFECE challenged this dismissal and requested the Supreme Court to exercise its power of attraction. In Recursos de Apelación 3/2025 and 4/2025, the Supreme Court’s Second Chamber ruled that the COFECE’s resolu - tions become final and unappealable upon issuance, as there is no ordinary appeal available against them under the Mexican legal framework, with only amparo proceedings available as constitutional review. As a result, the Supreme Court revoked the lower court’s decision, allowing the class action to proceed. This criterion aligns with the reformed FECL, which allows the authority to file a class action lawsuit as soon as the CNA’s decision is issued. Building on this precedent, on 23 April 2026 the CNA filed a further class action, this time against 53 liq - uefied petroleum (LP) gas distribution companies, including Grupo Soni, Grupo Simsa, Grupo Nieto and Grupo Tomza, among others, arising from a resolu - tion that found the companies had colluded for over a decade to fix prices and allocate customers across
98 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook