Q&A: Nordic Enforcement Trends Signal a New Era for Digital Evidence and Efficiency

2025 has marked a year of activity in competition enforcement across Europe. In particular, regulators in the Nordic countries are placing increased focus on digital evidence and merger clearance scrutiny. In this Q&A, Managing Director Glenn Barden discusses competition trends in the Nordics and how they mirror what FTI Technology’s experts are seeing in other jurisdictions. 

Glenn, you attended a competition law summit in Stockholm earlier this year. What stood out as most notable in the Nordic enforcement landscape?

It struck me how aligned authorities are in their priorities. Each country faces its own set of challenges, but across the region, there’s a pattern of  convergence around faster investigations. This is taking shape through investments in digital forensics capabilities, updated evidence-handling protocols and increased collaboration with technical experts. Additionally, with  a growing readiness (often supported by discretionary powers or recent legislative updates) to intervene, even in mergers that are below the threshold for automatic review.

Is there a common thread that ties all that activity together?

Absolutely. The thread is digital. We could be talking about dawn raids involving deleted WhatsApp messages, algorithmic fuel pricing or merger reviews in the e-commerce and grocery sectors. It’s all about the data and digital evidence, which have become the backbone of today’s antitrust work globally. Authorities are sharpening their focus here and improving their approaches for requesting and analyzing data, technically and procedurally.

Let’s talk more about all that digital evidence. What are the main challenges regulators face in managing digital evidence in these cases?

The two challenges are volume and integrity and these challenges apply to regulators and the companies that are responding to inquiries. With the sheer scale of modern data, such as encrypted messages, chat threads, cloud collaboration platforms and artificial intelligence-generated logs, there’s so much volume to deal with. It can be overwhelming but the issue isn’t only about volume and variety. It’s also about how to preserve and interpret data in an accurate, defensible, repeatable manner. In Stockholm for example, there was strong consensus that existing disclosure protocols are due for a refresh.

Are the authorities using AI or advanced tools themselves?

Yes, some are starting to explore it, especially in merger screening and cartel detection. But what’s more important is the expectation that the investigated party or its counsel, will use these tools responsibly when applying AI to document review and analysis workflows. This means documented workflows, clear audit trails and human oversight. Whether classifying documents for relevance or tracking capability claims in a contract dispute, the bar is constantly rising. AI literacy is increasingly being seen as a regulatory expectation, particularly in jurisdictions where digital evidence plays a central role, shown by the evolving EU AI Act and the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority guidance, for example. 

Earlier, you mentioned sub-threshold merger scrutiny. Tell us more.

Yes. It appears that across the globe specific regulators are reserving the right to call in deals that would traditionally fly under the revenue or market share thresholds. Locally, this appears to be especially true when those deals raise local concerns such as reduced competition in health care, groceries or transport. The message is that if the impact could be material, expect scrutiny.

Are there any standout enforcement actions from the past year?

There are always landmark cases in the European Union and U.S., and in the Nordics, there were a few this past year. In Finland, there was a €4.4 million fine issued for obstruction of an inspection, which was tied to the deletion of WhatsApp chats between health care competitors. In Norway, a €420 million fine was levied over allegations of real-time price signaling by fuel and grocery retailers. In both cases, digital communications and transparency were central. Nordic countries are also revisiting the use of online tools that may enhance a company’s own performance at the expense of rivals. 

It sounds like companies need to be prepared for inspections.

Exactly. And not merely crossing off a checklist of readiness activities. Regarding competitive behavior, organisations must have a deep understanding of the role of digital platforms, internal messaging and even algorithmic decision making. In addition, they need to preserve evidence of that understanding. This includes tracking system logs, user interactions and, where applicable, AI training — anything that could help reconstruct how a decision was made if it’s challenged later.

Most critically, teams must get ahead of the evidence curve. Early triage of data in potential disputes, clear workflows for AI-enabled tools and rigorous training are all key, so teams understand how their technologies work. It further means preparing for multi-jurisdictional complexities. As in, if a dispute or merger touches the U.K., EU and Nordics, a coordinated, cross-border strategy that accounts for different evidentiary and procedural expectations will be needed.

Is the legal framework changing to keep up?

Yes, but slowly. Many of the EU’s horizontal and non-horizontal merger guidelines date back to 2004 and 2008, respectively. In a digital landscape, that’s a lifetime ago. There’s growing momentum to update frameworks to reflect the realities of modern tech-driven markets. At the same time, there’s pressure on national authorities to harmonize tools and systems. Many are piloting new digital evidence review systems.

Last question. What does this all mean going forward?

We’re entering an era where antitrust enforcement is becoming more digital, dynamic and data driven. Authorities are increasingly moving beyond traditional thresholds and analog methods, leveraging new tools and legal interpretations to address digital market dynamics. This means two things. First, organisations need a defensible digital evidence strategy before regulators knock on the door. Second, AI and analytics should be embraced, but with caution, oversight and documentation of how they are applied.

Ultimately, the Nordics are among the jurisdictions shaping next-generation competition enforcement. Regulators in these countries also appear to be open and willing to make recommendations during an investigation. If the recent conversations in Stockholm provide any guide, the rest of the world is paying attention.

Related topics:

The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.