Blog post by Liana Japaridze, Lecturer in Competition Law, University of Glasgow
The 21st ASCOLA (Academic Society for Competition Law) Annual Conference took place from 1 to 3 July 2026 at the University College London (UCL) and King’s College London (KCL). As always, the conference offered an intense, thought-provoking and entertaining programme to competition scholars who gathered from all corners of the world.
ASCOLA 2026; Photo Credit – Rodrigo Zilio, UCL
Traditionally distinguished by its academic vigour, the conference this year encompassed 28 panels (almost 100 presentations) and 4 plenary sessions, engaging with competition law, economics and policy from multiple perspectives. The underlying theme of the academic discussions was the preservation of the integrity of competition law and policy amid rapid change, while ensuring its adaptability to (and effectiveness in addressing) contemporary economic, social and political challenges.
The reassessment of competition policy approaches to digital environments and AI was at the heart of the conference. However, participating experts also examined multiple other complex issues. Both during and in-between panels, they critically evaluated the existing competition toolbox against contemporary enforcement challenges, deliberated on the optimal alignment between competition and other government policies (ranging from industrial and labour policies to demographic challenges and national security), and debated on the role of competition law at the nexus of politics, capitalism and democracy.
As always, the discussion-and-debate-heavy days were accompanied by enjoyable social activities during the evenings. This year offered an adventurous crawl through some of London’s most famous pubs, a lively dinner at Goodenough College (where conference participants enjoyed listening to Shakespeare reading and tested their vocals during the post-dinner karaoke), an afternoon boat cruise/tea on the River Thames, and a post-conference trip to Cambridge. ASCOLA has always been known for bringing together scholars not only as colleagues intensely debating competition law and policy issues, but also as members of a big, international academic family – this year’s conference excellently delivered on both fronts again!
Shakespeare reading at conference dinner in Goodenough College; Photo Credit – Gonzalo Perez Paez, UCL
In 2026, CREATe continued its tradition of strong representation at ASCOLA. The 21st edition of the conference featured Magali Eben, David Reader and Liana Japaridze.
Magali chaired an exceptionally engaging panel on the DMA and Digital Regulation, where Wolfgang Kerber presented his critical analysis of the EU Commission’s Art. 5(2) DMA Meta decision, Belle Beems and Jasper van den Boom re-assessed the issue of proactivity for the national competition enforcers, and Tingting Song structurally compared SEP licensing to the application of the FRAND principles in data licensing, followed valuable discussant commentaries from Emanuela Lecchi. The challenges accompanying digital regulation and its implementation in practice were intensely discussed throughout the conference, and Magali’s panel distinguished itself with compelling analytical approaches, critical questions, and animated discussion.
David presented his ongoing research project with Magali, titled “Competition enforcement in pursuit of growth: if accountability is the answer, what is the question?” David and Magali’s research was inspired by the UK Government’s recent actions and proposals (alongside similar trends across the globe), which have contributed to significant modifications to the institutional and operational framework of the national competition enforcer – the CMA. Their work elaborated on two broader issues: 1) the (politically led) re-shaping of the vision of national competition policy in pursuit of a growth/industrial policy agenda; 2) the necessity to (re-)clarify the entities to whom competition enforcers are (and should be) accountable.
During the presentation, David explained that the UK’s declared objectives – pursuing a growth agenda through competition enforcement and ensuring greater CMA accountability – feature inherent collision points that challenge the integrity of the national competition regime. First, while the growth agenda is said to be pursued with the interests of those most vulnerable in mind, proposals do not clarify exactly how the regulatory overhaul will achieve this result. Second, the UK seems to have shifted towards favouring a narrower understanding of ‘accountability’ – that is, to businesses. However, questions remain about whether this comes at the expense of a broader (and traditionally legitimate) understanding of this notion – that is, to a wider public – alongside a current lack of detail about how government proposals will increase the CMA’s institutional accountability while maintaining its independence from both political and business influence. Considering this reality, David posed the question regarding a ‘right’ level of institutional independence/accountability of competition enforcers, while also inquiring whether such a level (if it exists) should be subject to time- and jurisdiction-specific modifications.
David Reader presenting his collaborative work with Magali Eben: Photo Credit – Minh Dang, University of East Anglia
Liana presented her work in progress, “Resilience during Transition – Balancing Effects of National and International Influence on Competition Policy”. This work builds on the existing research on legal resilience by scholars such as Andriani Kalintiri and explores how both domestic (political) and international (technical and expert) involvement can affect the long-term resilience of competition regimes. The paper focuses on the 30-year transition history of formerly regulated economies in Central and Eastern Europe, the Western Balkans, and Central Asia, evaluating changes in their declared competition policy goals/aims in response to both domestic and international influences. During the presentation, the key focus was on evaluating whether there is an optimal level of ‘external’ (domestic or international) involvement in the process of competition goal setting, as opposed to handling this process ‘internally’ – i.e. by competition enforcers themselves. The key finding was that while a certain level of ‘external’ involvement can be useful for better embedding of competition enforcers within broader national policymaking frameworks, an extensive level of such involvement might compromise the core of competition policy, blur the boundaries between it and other government policies, and result in its long-term ineffectiveness.
I would like to express my immense gratitude to Björn Lundqvist – a discussant of the above-mentioned work – for his valuable suggestions. I am also thankful to Oliver Budzinski, who chaired the panel at which this work was presented, as well as to the audience members for their insightful questions and comments.
Finally, a ‘thank you’ is more than due to the organising team for this year’s conference – from both UCL and KCL. Their hard work and hospitality made this year’s conference extremely interesting, fun, and memorable. Next year, from 30 June to 2 July 2027, Korea University and Hankuk University of Foreign Studies will pick up the torch of hosting the 22nd ASCOLA Annual Conference in Seoul. We at CREATe are already looking forward to it!