The Dutch competition authority Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM) has once again urged lawmakers to give it greater powers to intervene in smaller mergers and acquisitions, warning that growing market concentration is undermining competition in the Netherlands.
In its latest annual report State of the Market, the ACM points to several worrying trends: large companies are tightening their grip on markets, smaller players find it harder to challenge incumbents, and dominant firms are better able to raise margins than their smaller rivals.
According to the authority, these developments risk reducing innovation and ultimately pushing prices higher for consumers.
At the heart of the debate is the ACM’s long-standing request for a so-called “call-in power” that would allow it to review acquisitions that fall below the current notification thresholds. Deals worth less than 30 million euros typically escape merger control, even when they form part of a broader roll-up strategy.
ACM chair Martijn Snoep has repeatedly warned against “string-of-pearls” acquisitions, where a series of small takeovers gradually leads to regional monopolies. A legislative proposal granting the ACM such powers is currently before the Dutch parliament.
The Dutch discussion closely mirrors a debate now gaining momentum in Belgium. In a recent interview, Axel Desmedt, President of the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), made the case for introducing a similar call-in mechanism.
Desmedt argues that Belgium’s relatively high merger thresholds allow potentially harmful acquisitions – including roll-ups and so-called killer acquisitions – to slip under the radar.
While Belgian authorities can currently rely on ex post enforcement tools such as the Towercast doctrine, Desmedt stressed in the interview that these are no substitute for a clear, pre-transaction review framework. Recent Belgian cases, including in telecoms and niche industrial markets, illustrate the limits of relying solely on post-closing intervention.
Together, the Dutch and Belgian debates reflect a broader European shift in competition policy thinking. As consolidation increasingly happens through smaller, incremental deals, regulators on both sides of the border are pressing for new tools to ensure that merger control keeps pace with modern acquisition strategies.
