Federal Administrative Court confirms COMCO sanction in automotive leasing case

In its judgment of 6 October 2025, the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) dismissed the appeal filed by Ford Credit (Switzerland) GmbH against the COMCO decision of May 2021. The court thereby confirmed a fine of nearly CHF 7.8 million for price coordination in the automotive leasing sector. The judgment addresses key issues regarding information exchange and the calculation of sanctions.

Background

Based on a leniency application, COMCO opened proceedings in 2013 against nine leasing companies affiliated with different car manufacturers. According to COMCO, starting in 2006 and continuing for several years, these companies regularly exchanged sensitive data—such as interest rates, residual values, promotions, and fees—at so-called captive meetings, via e-mail, or on a shared team space. While eight companies settled the case through amicable agreements, Ford Credit lodged an appeal.

Reasoning

The FAC confirmed that the information exchange qualified as a concerted practice under Article 4(1) CartA and as a price-fixing agreement by object under Article 5(3)(a) CartA. It considered decisive that the exchange was capable of eliminating market uncertainty and creating artificial transparency. Although, according to the court, information exchanges typically—also in the case at hand—require a complex assessment based on the specific facts, actual evidence of parallel conduct or market effects is not required. The presumptions under Articles 5(3) and (4) CartA are, in principle, abstract endangerment provisions already based on a general harm theory. Finally, the court also rejected the complaints regarding the calculation of the sanction.

Assessment

The judgment confirms the strict practice and broad interpretation of the presumption provisions by the Swiss competition authorities and courts—while at the same time raising new questions about their scope. It illustrates an increasing divergence from EU case law, under which object restrictions must be interpreted narrowly and assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of the overall economic and legal context (see, in addition to the Generics judgment, C-307/18, cited by the FAC, in particular the ECJ’s Super Bock decision, C-211/22).

In our view, treating Articles 5(3) and (4) CartA as abstract endangerment offences unduly shortens the concept of the harm theory. Consistent with EU competition law, the presumption provisions should be interpreted narrowly, and it should be examined in each specific case whether the underlying harm theory has in fact materialised. Whether this would have changed the outcome of the present case cannot be assessed.

Companies active in Switzerland should carefully scrutinise information exchanges, industry meetings, and data-sharing arrangements and ensure they are reviewed from a competition law perspective.

The decision can be found here (in German only).