Car industry settles competition law case

Tuesday, 1 April 2025 16:31

Car manufacturers and industry bodies have reached a settlement with the CMA after admitting to breaking competition law in relation to vehicle recycling, and related advertising claims. Ten manufacturers – BMW, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot Citroen, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen – and 2 trade bodies have been fined a total of £77,688,917 These manufacturers illegally agreed not to compete against one another when advertising what...Request free trial

Car manufacturers and industry bodies have reached a settlement with the CMA after admitting to breaking competition law in relation to vehicle recycling, and related advertising claims.

Ten manufacturers – BMW, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot Citroen, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen – and 2 trade bodies have been fined a total of £77,688,917
These manufacturers illegally agreed not to compete against one another when advertising what percentage of their cars can be recycled
The manufacturers also illegally colluded to avoid paying third parties to recycle their customers' scrap cars

Following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), 10 manufacturers and 2 trade bodies have admitted their involvement in the illegal behaviour and agreed to pay fines totalling over £77 million.

Mercedes-Benz, which was also involved in these agreements, is exempt from paying a financial penalty as it alerted the CMA to its participation via the authority's leniency policy.

The European Commission (EC) launched a parallel probe alongside the CMA in March 2022. The EC has today issued its own decision imposing fines for breaches of EU law.

Advertising claims

Amongst other sustainability information, manufacturers are legally required to include details on recyclability in their advertising materials, so customers can take this into account when considering a vehicle's green credentials before buying.

In this case, the CMA found that all manufacturers illegally agreed that they would not advertise if their vehicles went above the minimum recyclability requirement of 85% (even if the actual percentage was higher). With the exception of Renault, the manufacturers also agreed not to share information with their customers about the percentage of recycled material used in their vehicles.

Failing to compete against one another in this way is illegal. It also meant customers buying a car from one of these manufactures were unable to fully compare the green credentials of vehicles when buying, which could have affected their choice. This kind of behaviour may also lower the incentive for companies to invest in green initiatives.

Most manufacturers took part in this practice from May 2002 to September 2017, with Jaguar Land Rover joining in September 2008. The agreement was set out in a document called the ‘ELV Charta' – sometimes referred to as a “gentleman's agreement” – and sought to “avoid a competitive race” amongst the manufacturers in relation to advertising claims of this kind. This agreement was referenced in emails, internal documents and meeting minutes, and certain manufacturers challenged others when they breached this agreement.

Buyers' cartel

Vehicle manufactures must offer their customers a free service for recycling their old or written-off vehicles having no or negative market value (known in the industry as ‘end-of-life vehicles' or ELVs), and this service is regularly outsourced to third parties.

The CMA's investigation revealed that certain manufacturers were involved in what is known as a ‘buyers' cartel' in relation to this service.

From April 2004 to May 2018, 8 manufacturers – BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot Citroen, Renault, Toyota, Vauxhall and Volkswagen – agreed amongst themselves that they would not pay companies to handle the recycling of their customers' ELVs. This effectively meant the companies providing this service were unable to negotiate a price with manufacturers.

While companies supplying this recycling service can often make money from ELVs, for example, by retrieving and selling the used parts and raw materials, how profitable it is can vary depending on the price of scrap metal at any given time.

Other companies and bodies later joined the unlawful agreement, including the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), Nissan and Mitsubishi in 2006, and Jaguar Land Rover in 2016.

Colluding to agree prices in this manner is illegal. It can impact the incentives for other companies to invest – for example, in better and greener technologies.

Trade association involvement

Two trade associations, ACEA and the SMMT, were involved in both illegal agreements.

The manufacturers used ACEA meetings to facilitate these arrangements, with the association itself chairing meetings and intervening when manufacturers acted outside of the terms.

The SMMT also attended these meetings and likewise became involved by settling a handful of disputes.

Lucilia Falsarella Pereira, Senior Director of Competition Enforcement at the CMA, said:

Agreeing with competitors the prices you'll pay for a service or colluding to restrict competition is illegal and this can extend to how you advertise your products. This kind of collusion can limit consumers' ability to make informed choices and lower the incentive for companies to invest in new initiatives.

Today's fines show our commitment to taking action when competition law is broken. In accordance with our leniency policy, we've given discounts to those who came forward with information and co-operated at an early stage, which helps to get the swiftest outcomes.

We recognise that competing businesses may want to work together to help the environment – in those cases our door is open to help them do so.

Settlement and fines

All of the car makers and industry bodies, except for Mercedes-Benz (which has been granted immunity from penalties), have now settled with the CMA – meaning they have admitted to taking part in illegal behaviour and agreed to pay fines totalling £77,688,917.

Following the launch of the CMA's investigation, the SMMT, Stellantis (the current owner of Peugeot Citroen, Vauxhall and Opel) and Mitsubishi approached the CMA for leniency and, as a result, have received a percentage reduction to their fines.

The fines for each company/industry body are:

Car manufacturer / Industry body	Fine for advertising infringement	Fine for buyers' cartel infringement	Total (including any % reductions for leniency and/or settlement)
BMW	£10,660,781	£400,144	£11,060,925 (20% settlement reduction)
Ford	£12,949,433	£5,592,496	£18,541,929 (20% settlement reduction)
Jaguar Land Rover	£4,575,812	£50,592	£4,626,404 (20% settlement reduction)
Peugeot Citroen (and owner Stellantis)	£2,952,867	£2,237,080	£5,189,948 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
Mitsubishi	£746,465	£152,066	£898,531 (25% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
Nissan and Renault (formerly the same business group)	£6,348,132 (shared fine); £2,800,646 (sole liability for Nissan)	£3,631,695 (shared fine)	£9,979,826 (shared total) and £2,800,646 (sole liability for Nissan) (20% settlement reduction)
Toyota	£3,941,996	£560,764	£4,502,760 (20% settlement reduction)
Vauxhall and Opel	£1,510,715	£670,412	£2,181,127 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
Vauxhall and Opel (and former owner General Motors) (GM is fined only as owner of both firms during part of the infringement)	£1,829,904	£1,037,145	£2,867,049 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
Vauxhall and Opel (and owner Stellantis) (Stellantis is fined only as owner of both firms during part of the infringement)	£22,704	£100,369	£123,072 (45% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
Volkswagen	£13,472,404	£1,283,496	£14,755,900 (20% settlement reduction)
ACEA	£91,200	£22,800	£114,000 (20% settlement reduction)
SMMT	£31,200	£15,600	£46,800 (35% leniency reduction and 20% settlement reduction)
		TOTAL	£77,688,917

The manufacturers and industry bodies have until 2 June 2025 to pay their fines.

Notes to editors

In its decision, the CMA has found a single and continuous ‘by object' infringement of section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998 (i.e. that the conduct had, as its object, the restriction or distortion of competition within the UK). The CMA has not made any finding as to whether the conduct at issue had the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition, or any effect on customers.
The CMA's decision concerns the restriction of competition in the UK, whereas the EC's decision is concerned with the restriction of competition in the EU (excluding the UK). The EC's investigation focused on the same parties as the CMA, but did not include the SMMT.
Under the CMA's leniency policy, a business that has been involved in cartel activity may be granted immunity from penalties or a reduction in penalty in return for reporting the cartel activity and assisting the CMA with its investigation.
When deciding the financial penalties, the CMA took into account a number of factors, including the seriousness of the illegal behaviour, its duration and each manufacturer's size and UK turnover in the relevant market. Importantly, differences in fines should not be taken to indicate relative culpability.
A buyers' cartel is where members of a cartel – or companies buying a service or product – agree amongst themselves how they will individually interact with suppliers. In this case, the manufacturers involved mutually agreed the price that they would each individually pay for recycling services (zero), thereby preventing the providers of recycling services from negotiating a higher price.
All trade associations must operate within the law and the CMA created guidance to help them navigate their obligations – more information can be found here: What do trade associations need to know about competition law?
During the period of the agreements, Renault and Nissan formed part of the same business group. Since 8 November 2023, they no longer form part of the same business group. They are therefore jointly and severally liable for part of the fine, with Nissan being solely liable for an additional amount (in relation to the advertising infringement).
The CMA has created guidance on how competing businesses can collaborate within the law, specifically when it comes to green agreements: Green Agreements Guidance.