Competition Dawn Raids: A New Era of Enforcement

Introduction

A recent dawn raid on a multinational technology company conducted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) as part of its investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct in the cloud computing sector, serves as a timely reminder that competition authorities worldwide are continuing to adapt their enforcement approach to address digital markets and modern ways of working. This development forms part of a broader global trend requiring all businesses to be prepared for unannounced enforcement action by competition authorities who are increasingly equipped to seize electronic evidence including on personal devices, access cloud-based systems, and interrogate data stored remotely. Enforcement action in one jurisdiction may also trigger follow-on private damages claims in others, amplifying potential exposure.

This Legal Update summarises key recent developments across the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Asia, and outlines key takeaways for businesses navigating this evolving global landscape.

EU Developments: Expanded Powers on the Horizon?

The European Commission’s (“Commission”) investigation processes were designed for a predominantly paper-based world and, as a result, it is reassessing its tools in the light of technological changes. Nowadays, the Commission faces a "data tsunami" including for example cloud storage, ephemeral messaging platforms, remote working, and the professional use of personal devices. Following public consultation during summer 2025, the Commission is set to propose modernisation of its inspection powers along the following lines:

• Document Preservation Orders: The Commission is considering introducing a targeted preservation obligation, similar to those already contained in the EU Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, which would require companies to preserve data relevant to an investigation. This reflects concerns that digitalisation has increased the volume of potentially relevant data, as well as the risk of evidence destruction or alteration, whether through automated data retention policies, ephemeral messaging systems, or deliberate obstruction.
• Remote Inspections and Cloud Data Access: The Commission is likely to assert a right to access any data accessible from inspected premises. In an era of cloud-based storage, this could permit effectively limitless access, resulting in the collection, review, and processing of vast quantities of data. Such an expansive approach risks imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses required to respond to these requests. If the Commission does not – in the end – move forward with fully remote inspection powers that raised many questions in the public consultation, it could still consider obtaining the power to access the data subject to preservation obligations remotely from its premises.
• Compulsory Interview Powers: The Commission is seeking compulsory interview powers, proving the subject of significant debate, particularly how this can be reconciled with the fundamental rights to remain silent and to avoid self-incrimination. These concerns are especially acute when individuals face the risk of prosecution at a national level in a number of Member States.
• Enhanced Use of AI and Data Analytics: Authorities are already increasing their use of AI-enabled tools. For instance, in the ongoing tyres cartel investigation, the Commission used a market monitoring tool to review the content of hundreds of thousands of earnings calls to flag potential coordination signals to justify raids. The General Court raised no objection to this as long as the indicia obtained cover the full time period for which the inspection is ordered. The Commission is expected to continue using these kinds of investigative techniques going forward.

These enhanced investigatory powers come at a time when the Commission and national competition authorities remain very active in the dawn raid space, including in cases where they have acted purely on the basis of their own intelligence and other more informal sources of information (see further US developments on this point below).

UK Developments: New Powers Being Used

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) obtained enhanced inspection powers in 2025 when the Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Act came into force. Key from a competition inspection perspective was the introduction of a new duty to preserve relevant documents, as well as aligning powers for domestic dawn raids with those at business premises i.e. seize and sift. More generally across the UK enforcement landscape, the CMA now has power to impose greater fines on both businesses and individuals for non-compliance with its enquiries. The CMA has not lost any time in putting these new powers to use, for example:

• Case pages of new investigations now remind businesses that they must not delete any potentially relevant material; and
• In December 2025, the CMA imposed a fine of nearly half a million pounds, representing 75% of the legal maximum on the facts, for failing to comply with a statutory information notice, even though no formal investigation has yet been opened.

But the UK courts have kept a check on the CMA’s authority. A recently published judgment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) granting the CMA a dawn raid warrant required the CMA to return devices promptly (SIM cards within two hours, phones within 36 hours) and to prioritize on-site data collection. In a second recent application, the CAT granted a warrant to conduct a dawn raid at the premises of a director of a company under investigation in a cartel matter, but required amendments to the warrant to reduce the risk of execution when school-age children might be present.

US Developments: New Whistleblower Rewards

Though dawn raids are rare in the United States, the Department of Justice is expanding its efforts to obtain information from the public about potential violations of competition law to uncover and prosecute antitrust crimes. In July 2025, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, in partnership with the USPS and its Office of Inspector General, announced the launch of a Whistleblower Rewards Program, aimed primarily at uncovering criminal antitrust violations that harm consumers, taxpayers, and free market competition. This marked a significant shift in the Division’s approach, as it is the first time the Division offered direct financial rewards to individual whistleblowers. The program is designed to incentivize individuals to come forward with original, non-public information about criminal antitrust violations (such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation schemes) and which lead to criminal fines or recoveries of at least $1 million.

On 29 January 2026, the Antitrust Division announced its first-ever whistleblower reward: a $1 million reward to a whistleblower who provided information that led to EBLOCK Corporation, an online auction platform for used vehicles, resolving criminal antitrust and fraud charges through a deferred prosecution agreement, under which it has agreed to pay a $3.28 million criminal fine. After this reward, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi of the Antitrust Division emphasized the importance of the program: “Whistleblowers serve as the Justice System’s greatest disinfectant against criminal antitrust conspiracies.”

This first result, these strong statements by U.S. enforcers, and the powerful incentives now in place to blow the whistle on cartels may portend increasing dawn raid activity in the United States.

Asia-Pacific Developments: Strengthened Whistleblower Protections and Persistent Privilege Gaps

Across the Asia-Pacific (“APAC”) region, jurisdictions are increasingly moving to strengthen their whistleblower protection regimes. South Korea has been a pioneer in this area, having introduced a financial reward system for antitrust whistleblowers as early as 2002.

While Japan does not yet offer direct financial rewards to whistleblowers, as South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States now do, the Japanese legislature has moved decisively to remove barriers that have historically discouraged individuals from reporting corporate misconduct. On 4 June 2025, the National Diet enacted a sweeping amendment to the Whistleblower Protection Act (the "2025 Amendment"), expected to take effect no later than December 2026, which introduces for the first time direct criminal penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act applies to certain antitrust violations, and Japan's leniency programme, which has been the primary driver of cartel detection by the JFTC,  already relies heavily on voluntary self-reporting. The strengthened protections are expected to further enhance these investigative tools going forward.

Notwithstanding these developments, the legal concept of attorney-client privilege remains underdeveloped in both Japan and South Korea. In South Korea, attorney-client privilege is not recognized as a matter of law. In Japan, amendments to the Antimonopoly Act that took effect in 2020 introduced a privilege regime applicable to certain administrative investigations conducted by the JFTC; however, this privilege does not extend to criminal proceedings. Accordingly, multinational companies and those involved in antitrust matters with cross-border dimensions continue to face significant challenges in developing coherent information management approaches that balance domestic requirements in Japan and/or South Korea with their strategies in Europe and the United States.

Key Takeaways

Companies should act now to prepare for the evolving dawn raid landscape:

• Factor in whistleblower and intelligence-led risk: Authorities remain highly active in the dawn raids space, increasingly launching investigations on the basis of their own intelligence and less formal sources. Whistleblower regimes are also becoming more widely available globally, from the DOJ’s new rewards programme in the United States, to South Korea’s longstanding financial incentives, to Japan’s newly strengthened criminal protections against retaliation, meaning companies can no longer assume that the absence of a leniency application equates to an absence of enforcement risk. Internal compliance, including staff awareness, robust reporting channels, and swift escalation protocols, is more critical than ever.
• Get your IT team raid-ready: Cloud storage, remote working and mixed-use devices mean inspectors will expect prompt technical assistance. Ensure IT personnel can be mobilised immediately, know how to preserve data, and understand their role in explaining and granting access to a company’s IT set up.
• Prepare for requests for personal devices: Personal phones or business phones with personal apps often hold sensitive communications yet sit outside company control. Staff should be trained to expect requests for personal devices and receive clear instructions not to delete messages once an inspection starts. At the same time, appropriate protections are to be obtained especially for personal data on phones.
• Be ready to claim protection for privileged documents: In several EU countries, privilege covers external EU-qualified counsel only, not in-house lawyers, and equivalent gaps exist in key APAC jurisdictions: South Korea does not recognise attorney-client privilege as a matter of law and Japan’s privilege regime applies only to certain JFTC administrative investigations, with no protection in criminal proceedings. These gaps are not mirrored across all other jurisdictions. Businesses must rely on a range of legal bases to protect communications with in-house lawyers, including arguments grounded in fundamental rights, and should develop coherent cross-border information management strategies that account for these divergences.
• Plan globally, not locally: With authorities claiming access to foreign data accessible from inspection sites and mutual assistance on the rise, a dawn raid in one jurisdiction can quickly become a multi-jurisdictional event spanning Europe, the UK, the US, and Asia, and may trigger US class actions or follow-on damages claims elsewhere. Dawn raid policies and action plans must be coordinated across all relevant offices and markets.
• Budget for preservation costs and forensic assistance: New powers may rapidly shift the burden of freezing and reviewing data onto the business. Factor in litigation hold capabilities, e-discovery costs, and staffing constraints.

Mayer Brown’s global antitrust and competition team has extensive experience advising clients on dawn raid preparedness and responses across all major jurisdictions. We can assist with all aspects of competition inspections.