Competition Commission Publishes ‘Public Interest Guidelines Relating To Merger Control’

By: Gina Lodolo, Joshua Eveleigh & Nicola Taljaard (African Antitrust)
South Africa has been striving to strike a nuanced equilibrium between advancing public interest initiatives, enticing foreign investments, and bolstering competitiveness within its markets. In recent times, the South African Competition Commission (“Commission”) seems to have adopted a stricter stance, prioritizing the endorsement of public interest initiatives as a consequential aspect of merger control investigations.
It is crucial to emphasize that the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Act”) empowers the Commission to impose stipulations on mergers and acquisitions that are assessed to significantly diminish competition or have adverse implications for the public interest.
In 2019, a significant amendment was made to the Act, particularly concerning its public interest provisions. Aligned with the transformative values outlined in the Act’s preamble, this amendment aimed to ensure that competition authorities consider public interest factors during the assessment of mergers and acquisitions. Notably, section 12A(3)(e) was introduced to promote a broader distribution of ownership, intending to elevate ownership levels among historically disadvantaged persons (HDP) and employees.
While the Commission initially did not strongly emphasize the promotion of HDP and/or employee ownership following the 2019 amendments, it has gradually adopted a more assertive stance in imposing these public interest criteria. This shift is evident, especially after the widely publicized Burger King decision, where a merger that posed no competition concerns was prohibited for the first time based solely on public interest considerations—specifically, the reduction of HDP shareholding from 68% to 0%. Although the decision was settled before reaching the Tribunal, it set a clear trajectory for the Commission’s approach. Subsequently, the Commission has increasingly taken a stringent stance regarding transactions that, from both a competition and public interest standpoint, may appear benign…
Featured News
Attorneys in NCAA Antitrust Case Awarded $475M in Fees
Jun 8, 2025 by
CPI
SEC Grants Elon Musk Additional Six Weeks to Respond in Twitter Stake Disclosure Suit
Jun 8, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Dismisses Key Claims Against Google in Publishers’ Piracy Suit
Jun 8, 2025 by
CPI
Indian Regulator Probes Asian Paints After Complaint by Aditya Birla’s Birla Opus
Jun 8, 2025 by
CPI
The 10-Year Ban on State AI Law Lives, At Least for Now, in Senate Version of Budget Bill
Jun 8, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Industrial Policy
May 21, 2025 by
CPI
Industrial Strategy and the Role of Competition – Taking a Business Lens
May 21, 2025 by
Marcus Bokkerink
Industrial Policy, Antitrust, and Economic Growth: Some Observations
May 21, 2025 by
David S. Evans
Bolder by Design: Crafting Pro-Competitive Industrial Policies For Complex Challenges
May 21, 2025 by
Antonio Capobianco & Beatriz Marques
Competition-Friendly Industrial Policy
May 21, 2025 by
Philippe Aghion, Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros