It is the summer holiday season across Europe and beyond. Whether commuting to work or setting off for a vacation, drivers are likely to encounter the same familiar sight: construction sites. Many infrastructure projects are deliberately scheduled during the quieter summer months, when traffic volumes are lower, and disruptions can be reduced. For antitrust lawyers, these construction sites serve as a reminder that infrastructure projects are not only an engineering challenge but can also be an antitrust issue.
The German Federal Cartel Office´s (FCO) latest decision in the road maintenance sector appears to be a bit on the nose from a timely perspective. The FCO fined EUR 60.3 million for cartel activities for customer allocation and price-fixing agreements as well as bid-rigging in the “Dünne Asphaltdeckschichten in Kaltbauweise” (DSK) sector, which is a form of cold-applied ultra-thin surfacing for rehabilitating roads and similar surfaces.
Investigations in the construction sector – not an isolated case
In May 2025, the FCO already fined several companies active in the sector of road repair services, also for customer allocation agreements and bid-rigging. But Germany is not alone in this. Many other international regulators investigate(d) cartel activities in the construction sectors, for example, Austria and the UK. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) even posted about “Cartels in construction – CMA message for business leaders” on their CMA blog to give some general guidance and visibility on the matter. The Austrian “construction cartel” became one of the regulator´s largest-ever probes concerning both building construction and civil engineering projects, affecting thousands of projects throughout Austria. It was found that the cartelists participated in fixing prices, dividing markets, exchanging information about future bids and forming illegal service delivery and bidding consortia. The case reached another climax in March 2026, when one company was fined an additional EUR 100.6 million on top of its original EUR 45.4 million fine, after losing its leniency status for being accused of withholding key information during the investigation, making this the highest fine ever imposed by the Austrian regulator.
This raises the broader question: Why do regulators appear to return to the construction sector again and again?
A sector at the heart of public investment
The products and services provided in the construction sector might not be as exciting as digital platforms or artificial intelligence. However, they are closely connected to current political priorities, because infrastructure is considered important for the economy, and therefore, the sector is closely connected to political priorities. Across the world, governments are investing big sums of money into roads, railways, energy and a resilient infrastructure.
Competition in these markets, therefore, has an enormous impact far beyond the companies directly involved. It helps ensure that limited public resources are used efficiently. The DSK case illustrates this point particularly well. As Andreas Mundt, President of the FCO, said in his comment on the DSK case:
“The cartel affected an important part of Germany´s public infrastructure and thus ultimately investments by the federal government, the Länder, and local authorities in their capacity as road authorities.”
Specialised markets and recurring competitors
Another possible explanation for the recurring appearance of construction-related cartel investigations lies in the structure of infrastructure markets. Activities such as road construction are often offered by local but specialized companies. As a result, the number of effective suppliers may be limited, and competitors usually know each other and (voluntarily or not) meet at the same conferences and trade associations. It also leads to regular encounters in procurement procedures and often to a good understanding of each other´s market position. An example for this is a case from the UK, where the CMA investigated and fined two rolled lead companies a total of over GBP 9 million for cartel activities including market sharing and colluding prices. The CMA stated that only a small number of businesses operated in the market and a significant amount of contact took place with them.
Public procurement creates opportunities and risks
Public procurement is a recurring element in the construction sector, as many construction-related activities or projects are awarded through tenders issued by public bodies. The tenders are usually designed to be transparent and competitive. However, transparency can have a downside. Often, all market players know which projects are being tendered, who has won previous contracts and which firms are likely to participate in a particular bidding process.
Bid-rigging has a long history in antitrust conducts and in both the DSK case and the earlier road repair investigation, the FCO identified customer allocation arrangements, cover bids and coordination regarding tender participation. The CMA is also currently investigating suspected anti-competitive conduct in the form of bid-rigging in connection with the supply of roofing and other construction services to schools. The investigation was opened in 2024, and in January 2026, the regulator updated the scope of the investigation to include additional parties.
On top: A particular compliance challenge
Looking at the topic from a compliance point of view, there may be another influencing factor. The construction sector is not exclusively populated by large international companies. Many market participants are medium-sized, family-owned or highly specialised regional businesses. While large corporations often maintain dedicated compliance departments and regular antitrust training programs, smaller firms may not always have access to comparable resources.
More than a “constructed” story
As recent cases show, the sector naturally comes with antitrust challenges like local suppliers, recurring tenders, transparent procurement processes and long-term industry relations, companies need to be aware of to navigate their business adequately.
The characteristics of the construction sector can, of course, also apply to other industries. However, in times where countries worldwide are investing large sums into infrastructure, housing, energy networks and industrial development, protecting competition in this sector appears to be on regulators´ lists.
Photo by Danny Burke on Unsplash
Antitrustpolitics.com 