Finland Competition & Regulatory newsletter Autumn 2025
This newsletter features a look into developments in Finnish competition and regulatory issues as well as notable recent case law.
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court imposes fines on property management companies for collusion
The Supreme Administrative Court found in June 2025 that property management firms serving housing companies as well as their trade association of these firms had engaged in collusive conduct in 2014–2017.
The breach of competition rules concerned an understanding on fee increases between competitors, and, to a lesser extent, exchange of sensitive information and the pricing model of one specific service. The Supreme Administrative Court imposed fines totaling EUR 6.6 million on the firms and the trade association. The Supreme Administrative Court largely upheld an earlier ruling by the Market Court in December 2022, although the higher court took the view that one part of the infringement had commenced earlier than held by the Market Court.
Both courts rejected many of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority's (FCCA) claims, including an allegation that the firms had reached a broad understanding on separately charging for various services rather than including them in a monthly fee. The Supreme Administrative Court held that there was no evidence of any details of such understanding. The FCCA had proposed penalties totaling approximately EUR 22 million in its infringement fine proposal in 2021.
The matter is one of the most publicized competition cases in Finland over recent years.
The Market Court imposes a first-ever fine for obstructing a surprise inspection
In the first ever Finnish case concerning the obstruction of an inspection, the Market Court fined a care services company EUR 1.5 million in March 2025 for obstructing an unannounced dawn raid inspection by the FCCA. This was significantly less than fine of approximately EUR 4.4 million initially proposed by the FCCA. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
The Market Court found that an employee had deleted work-related WhatsApp conversations and a call log from their mobile telephone during the inspection. Upon discovery, the company cooperated with the FCCA to recover the data.
The Market Court held that the company had obstructed the inspection under the Finnish Competition Act, stating that 'obstructing an inspection' is a broad concept, encompassing various measures intended to prevent the authorities from carrying out their duties. The Court held that once notified of the inspection, the company was required to ensure that its employees did not prevent, hinder, or delay it. Therefore, the company was held responsible for the employee's actions, regardless of whether the company was aware of the actions in advance, whether the employee acted contrary to company guidelines or whether the company could have prevented the deletion.
While the company's cooperation with the FCCA did not eliminate liability, it was considered when determining the fine. The company's staff had been trained and instructed not to destroy documents during the inspection, which was also taken into account.
The FCCA scrutinises exclusivity and price parity clauses in restaurant food order and delivery markets
In May 2025, the FCCA concluded its investigation into food delivery company Wolt’s use of exclusivity and price parity clauses in its contracts with Finnish restaurants.
The FCCA's starting point was that Wolt was active in the product market for restaurant food order-and-delivery platforms, excluding both restaurants' direct channels and order-only platforms. Notably, Foodora (Delivery Hero) emerged as Wolt’s only competitor within this market, leaving Wolt with a very high market share nationally. This constituted grounds for the FCCA to investigate Wolt's practices not only under vertical competition rules but also the prohibition on abuse of a dominant position.
Wolt's exclusivity clauses with Finnish restaurants prohibited the restaurants from concluding certain contracts in exchange for lower commission fees and Wolt's increased investments into marketing co-operation. The risk of market tipping, meaning that the market concentrates to a single company due to network effects, played a central role in the FCCA's assessment. The FCCA found that Wolt's market position and exclusivity clauses brought about a risk that Wolt's competitor would be marginalised or foreclosed, which could lead to price increases or quality decreases.
Wolt's contracts with restaurants also included price parity clauses that prevented Finnish restaurants from offering lower prices in their own sales channels compared to the Wolt platform. The FCCA found that the clause stopped restaurants from passing on Wolt's commission to end-customers. The FCCA did not ultimately conclude whether the possible efficiency gains raised by Wolt, such as preventing freeriding among restaurants, could outweigh the harm to restaurants and consumers.
Although the FCCA did not rule on the lawfulness of Wolt's practices, as Wolt ceased using the scrutinised exclusivity and price parity clauses in Finland during the investigation, the decision highlights that the FCCA is among the ranks of competition authorities that display a keen interest towards digital platforms.
New commitments imposed in the Finnish mobile network market
In May 2025, the FCCA issued a commitments decision KKV/1356/14.00.00/2021 concerning the conduct of major Finnish telecommunications operators DNA Oyj and Telia Finland Oyj in the mobile network and service markets.
The commitments concerned network cooperation in Finland under a non-full function joint venture owned by the two players. The MOCN-type network cooperation practiced under the joint venture requires that the owners cooperate extensively on key competitive factors. Further, DNA Oyj and Telia Finland Oyj are somewhat dependent on the joint venture in its operating area with regard to mobile network infrastructure, as the JV owns and controls the necessary resources. The investigation and commitments imposed by the FCCA concerned an expansion of this operating area.
The FCCA's preliminary view was that the cooperation arrangement constituted an agreement or concerted practice between competitors.
In its investigation the FCCA considered whether network sharing could hinder competition and whether the cooperation could affect the parties' incentives to invest. Among other things, the FCCA focused on how the parties agreed on the construction, development, and maintenance of the shared network owned by the JV. The FCCA paid particular attention to DNA's and Telia Finland's opportunities to implement independent network and base station solutions within the JV's operating area and to the exchange of information between owners.
According to the FCCA's preliminary assessment, the expanded cooperation between the parties was not necessary for providing new services, and could harmonise the parties' competitive behaviour, reducing their ability to compete effectively. Furthermore, the FCCA considered that the cooperation involved a risk of the parties exchanging competitively sensitive information. While the FCCA acknowledged that the cooperation could result in efficiency gains, these were not sufficiently substantiated, nor was is it demonstrated to what extent these gains would ultimately benefit end customers.
The commitments imposed by the FCCA require the parties to restrict the exchange of information within the context of their cooperation. The commitments are also intended to ensure that the parties make independent decisions regarding network solutions within the scope of their cooperation and provide wholesale services to other operators. In addition, the parties have undertaken to publish information on the commitments' content on their websites. According to the decision, the commitments provide additional means for DNA and Telia Finland to compete with each other in the areas where they cooperate as well as opportunities for other players to compete in the operating area of the joint venture.
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court requests the CJEU preliminary ruling on award criteria in tendering process
In June 2025, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court issued an interim decision requesting a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case concerns how precisely award criteria must be defined in a tendering procedure.
The case arises from a 2021 procurement by HUS Group for public procurement management software and related expert services. In the contract notice, price and quality were each given a weighting range of 30–70%. A tenderer challenged this approach, arguing that the broad weighting ranges allowed the contracting authority to effectively determine the final award criteria only after negotiations, potentially favouring a specific tenderer.
The Finnish Market Court acknowledged that precise criteria may not always be feasible in a competitive dialogue and that relative weighting ranges are permitted. However, the Market Court held that the ranges were so broad that they gave the authority excessive discretion after negotiations had concluded and ruled in favour of the appellant. The contracting authority appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that it involved questions of EU law for which there was no established CJEU case law. Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court referred its preliminary questions to the CJEU.
The Supreme Administrative Court will issue its final ruling once the CJEU delivers its preliminary ruling. The outcome is expected to clarify the degree of flexibility contracting authorities have in defining award criteria during competitive dialogue and may set important limits on adjustments made after the publication of the contract notice.
