The article considers the main trends of competition law development in modern conditions. Process of transformation of the subject of competition law is analyzed. Dynamics of changing social relations regulated by competition law is investigated. Issue of antimonopoly immunities in competition law is considered as part of the analysis of the scope of competition law. The author proposes, in order to eliminate contradictions and ensure the protection of competition, to exclude antitrust immunities for actions and agreements involving the use of intellectual property from the current legislation on competition protection. The article demonstrates that the qualitative development of competition law and antitrust regulation is essential for the effective development of a market economy, the protection of the rights and economic interests of economic entities, and the well-being of our citizens.

Russian antitrust regulation and practice form legal ways to investigate anticompetitive practice by digital platforms operators. Such platforms are digital software and subject to intellectual property rights. Meanwhile the issues connected with application of unilateral conduct restrictions to the use of intellectual property rights still have not been resolved from antitrust regulation perspective. Artificially created collisions still exist. Author analyses some of the basic backgrounds of this collision. Meaning comparison of the legal status of the intellectual property owner the status of the company with monopolistic position on the market. 

In this article, the author analyzes the features of antitrust regulation in digital markets and with the use of digital technologies. Based on theoretical analysis and law enforcement practice, the author provides detailed examples of economic concentration control and acts of monopolistic activity that affected the commodity markets of the Russian Federation, highlighting the specific features of antitrust analysis of commodity markets by the antitrust authority, as well as the trend towards convergence between antitrust regulation and data regulation.

The article discusses the organization of the publication of fake reviews on marketplaces as a form of unfair competition. The influence of customer reviews on the promotion of goods and sellers on the marketplace is noted, as well as the possibility of manipulating the platform’s algorithms by posting fake reviews in order to gain unfair competitive advantages. The existing difficulties in qualifying the publication of fake reviews, including the organization of such publications, as an act of unfair competition are outlined. The approaches developed by the foreign practice of applying the legal prohibition of unfair competition to the activities of organizing the publication of fake reviews (using the example of the Amazon platform) are analyzed. The trends in the development of self-regulation of the activities of marketplaces in Russia and abroad are identified, and the need for further development of self-regulation as an effective mechanism for suppressing unfair practices in the promotion of goods on marketplaces is substantiated.

The article analyses recent developments in the regulation of digital markets in the Republic of Uzbekistan, introduced by the Law on Competition dated 2023 and subordinate regulations that came into force in August 2024. Uzbekistan is among the first CIS countries to adopt specific rules for digital platforms, establishing quantitative criteria for dominance and an exhaustive list of prohibitions for their operators. A comparative analysis shows that while Uzbekistan’s model formally follows the principles of traditional antitrust regulation, it is substantively close to the ex ante approach embodied in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. In contrast, the Russian model (combining classic antitrust tools with targeted regulation of specific digital markets) appears more flexible and effective in the context of a rapidly evolving digital economy.

The author examines the legal nature of antitrust immunities and their regulation in Russia and abroad. The analysis of doctrinal perspectives presented in the article is supported by high-profile cases of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, which shape enforcement practices and the evolving stance on the preservation or abolition of antitrust immunities in the context of a post-industrial society. The issue of abolishing antitrust immunities in relation to intellectual property rights will undoubtedly become one of the key topics of the «sixth antitrust package.» Preparations for lifting these immunities are already underway, taking into account the prevailing attitudes among practicing lawyers and members of the academic community. One of the central questions raised by experts in the course of studying this topic is the search for a balance between private and public interests within the realities of the digital economy. The article is highly relevant not only for practicing lawyers and consultants but also for experts in the field of antitrust regulation, as well as for anyone studying competition law as an academic discipline.

The article is about the analysis of one of the central concepts of competition law — violations of antimonopoly legislation. As a result of the conducted research, the author comes to the conclusion that in science this concept is often considered as an offense. At the same time, the article criticizes this position as one-sided. The author suggests a broader approach to the category under consideration and substantiates that violation of antimonopoly legislation is the basis for the emergence of a wider range of legal relations. In addition, the article analyzes what exactly is included in the concept of violation of antimonopoly legislation.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the norms of legislation on the protection and development of competition in the context of the principle of economic solidarity, which has not yet been formulated in the science of competition law. The conducted research proves that the constitutional principle of economic solidarity is one of the basic principles of competition law. It is noted that antimonopoly prohibitions and restrictions are aimed at establishing a fair balance of the rights and interests of the state, economic entities and citizens. The rules on the admissibility of certain types of agreements and other actions that restrict competition, as well as the self-regulation tools approved by the antimonopoly authority are manifestations of the unity of beliefs and actions, mutual support and joint responsibility of the state and market participants in order to ensure sustainable growth of the Russian economy and the well-being of citizens. The above circumstances certainly indicate the presence of signs of economic solidarity that permeate the norms of competition law.

The author examines the principle of substance over form within the context of the evolving competition law branch. By analyzing specific cross-cutting applications of this principle across various institutions of competition law, the author concludes that further research into this principle is essential. Additionally, the author highlights the critical role of judicial review and interpretive acts issued by the antimonopoly authority in ensuring the effective implementation of this principle in competition law.

In the article, the author explores the system of sources of competition law, focusing on their formal understanding in the theory of law. The author attempts to draw a watershed between the sources of competition law and legal acts, the control over compliance with which is carried out by the antimonopoly authority, demonstrating by example from law enforcement practice the negative effect of incorrect application by analogy of the tools of competition law to legal relations unrelated to the subject of competition law. Based on theoretical research in the field of law, as well as law enforcement practice, the author concludes that the basis for the demarcation of such sources may be the development of a system of principles in the theory of law, which in themselves are also sources of law, regardless of their normative consolidation.

The practice of the antimonopoly authorities in the research years shows that the institution of state and municipal preferences is experiencing a new round of its development, which is accompanied by both — a fairly active improvement of the antimonopoly legislation itself, and an improvement in the practice of applying Chapter 5 of the Law on the Protection of Competition, including through significant explanatory work aimed at strengthening control over the use of the granted preferences. Based on the results of the analysis of law enforcement and judicial practice, the author draws conclusions about the main trends associated with the provision of state and municipal preferences, as well as about the reasons and prerequisites for the more active use of restrictions by the antimonopoly authority when coordinating the provision of preferences.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the legal nature of the regulation on the transfer to the federal budget of income received as a result of violations of antimonopoly legislation, and the procedure for its issuance by antimonopoly authorities in connection with an administrative fine “for turnover”. The author concludes that the type of court order in question is by its nature close to legal liability and cannot be assessed as a compensatory measure. In this regard, the importance of this type of regulation for the commission of anticompetitive practices by business entities operating in commodity markets, as well as those owning digital platforms, is substantiated, including in cases where the antimonopoly authority, guided by the rules provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, cannot determine the amount of a revolving fine and in those cases in cases where a fixed fine does not comply with the principle of proportionality of the administrative penalty.

The acquisition of shares, stakes, fixed assets, the creation of a joint venture, the creation or reorganization of a legal entity almost always entails not only positive consequences for business and the economy, but can also negatively affect competition, up to its complete elimination in certain commodity markets. For this reason, the legislator establishes certain cases when a transaction requires either prior consent or subsequent notification to the antimonopoly authority.

In the last few years, there have been a number of changes that directly affect the procedure for approving transactions, including within the framework of state antimonopoly control over economic concentration.

In this article, the authors propose to consider the most relevant trends in the development of the institute for monitoring economic concentration in recent years.

The article discusses the problems of implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals within the EAEU, which are currently the main political guidelines for the entire global community. The authors focused on the environmental and climate challenges of sustainable development.

By examining the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation, the authors showed that the challenges and threats outlined in the Strategy are essentially challenges and threats not only for Russia, but also for all friendly countries, including those in the EAEU. At the same time, the existing environmental problems in one EAEU member state are often cross-border in nature and cannot but affect the environmental situation in other countries.

The article provides an analysis of the EEC’s most important document, “Strategic Directions for the Development of Eurasian Economic Integration.” Based on scientific analysis and theoretical generalizations, the authors demonstrate that the foundation of integration processes lies in a shared understanding of challenges and threats, as well as the extent to which the EAEU is involved in global processes, particularly in the environmental and climate spheres.

The article analyzes the values and risks of digital democracy. It is emphasized that digital technologies have become firmly established in people’s daily lives, providing them with completely new communication services. The most important value of digital democracy is the rationalization of citizen participation in public and political life and the rapprochement of public authorities with the population by eliminating unnecessary intermediaries in relations between them. Thanks to the introduction of modern technologies, the quality of service to the population is improving and new mechanisms for providing public services are being formed. Digital democracy is also an important driver for the development of other, more traditional types of democracy. This also creates certain risks. Citizens are becoming more and more transparent to the state and various commercial structures as a result of the use of their personal data. There is also a phenomenon called the “digital divide,” which is the inability of individuals to use modern technology properly and on a regular basis. Differences in digital readiness, however, exist not only between specific individuals, but also between individual countries and regions, urban and rural areas.

This article examines the legal basis for the organization of antifraud activities in the financial market. The authors identify two conceptual models of committing fraudulent acts using information and communication technologies: when interacting with a client of a financial institution and without direct contact with him. It is concluded that the accumulation of an array of legal norms in modern Russian legislation make it possible to identify the institutional, organizational and functional foundations of the national antifraud system.

The authors consider the history of the development of anti-fraud legislation, identify the main regulatory legal acts adopted over the past few years in order to combat fraud in the financial market, and substantiate the identification of three main areas of anti-fraud monitoring. The results of the study are presented in the form of a table illustrating the architecture of the financial segment of the national anti-fraud system, including its participants, a list of anti-fraud measures (with a regulatory justification), and public and private information systems involved in the implementation of anti-fraud measures.

The article analyzes the legal institution of orders requiring the transfer of income to the federal budget obtained through violations of antitrust legislation, highlighting its role as a tool combining preventive, suppressive, and restorative functions. The author identifies legal uncertainties stemming from the overlapping application of administrative fines and such orders, as well as challenges linked to the regulator’s subjective discretion. Particular emphasis is placed on the evolution of judicial practice, including positions adopted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Despite the potential of these orders as instruments of socio-economic justice, their effectiveness is constrained by legislative gaps and contradictory enforcement practices. The author proposes solutions, including legislative amendments, and underscores the need for a systemic approach to harmonize coercive measures, ensuring a balance between public and private interests.

The article presents an original comparative legal study of commitment approval models in foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, China, Canada, Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa. The author proposes a classification of these models based on institutional criteria: administrative, judicial, and hybrid. It is demonstrated that the choice of model aff ects the degree of external oversight, the legal consequences of commitments, and their integration into national legal systems. The analysis substantiates the high level of adaptability and institutional fl exibility of the administrative model, which makes it the most promising for potential implementation within the Russian legal framework. The study is of applied nature and contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the legal nature and functional characteristics of commitments in competition law enforcement.

The article examines the challenges in implementing civil law mechanisms for recovering damages caused by antitrust infringements in Russia. Despite constitutional guarantees of competition protection and ongoing legislative and enforcement efforts to develop this institution, its practical effectiveness remains critically low. Through an analysis of statistical data (2015—2024) and expert opinions, the author identifies key factors hindering private antitrust enforcement, including significant economic asymmetry between disputing parties and procedural difficulties in proving the amount of damages and low confidence among affected parties in judicial protection mechanisms. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of existing measures to improve antitrust damages recovery and proposes an integrated model in which the antitrust authority pre-calculates key parameters for damage recovery, followed by judicial enforcement by the injured party.

The study examines the application of prohibition on anti-competitive coordination of economic activity in light of the emergence of a fundamentally new type of coordinator — digital platforms. It demonstrates that digital platforms, even without market dominance, can exert significant control over their participants through network effects, digital algorithms, and data control. The conclusion is drawn that in such cases, prohibition on anti-competitive coordination can serve as an effective tool for curbing anti-competitive practices in the digital environment. Special attention is given to distinguishing between “vertical” agreements and prohibited coordination, as well as the role of digital algorithms in amplifying anti-competitive effects. A comparative legal analysis of Russian and European regulation supports these conclusions, highlighting the need to adapt antitrust norms to the digital landscape.

The article is devoted to the study of antitrust immunities, in which an economic entity is not designated as holding a dominant position in the commodity market. Based on the analysis of regulatory regulation, as well as doctrinal sources, the author proves that the market power of a market participant is not directly related to the amount of revenue of an economic entity. It is argued that when granting immunity to a single participant in the local commodity market if it meets a number of formal criteria stipulated by antitrust legislation, the fact that such an economic entity possesses market power (market force) is not actually taken into account. The article notes the existence of a scientific discussion regarding the existence of other immunities in antimonopoly legislation — from the imputation of abuse of a dominant position to actions to exercise exclusive rights to results of intellectual activity and means of individualization, and provides the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the application of these immunities, which, according to the author, can be applied by analogy and to immunities from the designation of undertaking as holding a dominant position. The author concludes that the application of the immunities discussed in the article may not actually meet the aims of antitrust regulation.