The UAE has progressively strengthened its competition and consumer protection enforcement apparatus. As the country continues to attract foreign investment and consolidate its position as a preeminent global commercial hub, regulators have intensified their focus on actual market conduct—rather than formal compliance structures alone. For businesses, this evolution signals that competition compliance can no longer be treated as a dormant policy document. For consumers, it portends heightened regulatory scrutiny of pricing anomalies and supply disruptions affecting essential goods.

The legislative cornerstone of this regime is Federal Decree-Law No. (36) of 2023 Regulating Competition (the “Competition Law”), now supplemented by its Executive Regulations issued under Cabinet Resolution No. (59) of 2026 (the “Executive Regulations”), which operates in tandem with the consumer protection framework established under Federal Law No. (15) of 2020 Concerning Consumer Protection, as amended by Federal Decree by Law No. (5) of 2023, and its Executive Regulation (Cabinet Resolution No. 66 of 2023). The issuance of the Executive Regulations marks a significant milestone: for the first time, the Competition Law’s substantive provisions are accompanied by detailed procedural and substantive rules governing dominance assessments, excessively low pricing, exemption notifications, economic concentration filings, complaints, investigations, and settlement procedures. Collectively, these instruments are designed to ensure the proper functioning of markets, with particular emphasis on conduct in sectors that directly affect household welfare.

What Are Anti-Competitive Practices in the UAE?

Anti-competitive practices comprise conduct that restricts, distorts, or otherwise undermines the competitive process. While such conduct may not always be immediately apparent, its effects typically manifest in observable market phenomena: parallel pricing movements, anomalous supply constraints, or diminished consumer choice. Over time, these distortions translate into tangible consumer harm—elevated prices, degraded quality, suppressed innovation, and reduced market options.

This explains why competition enforcement is not merely a theoretical exercise. When staple commodities experience price increases that cannot be attributed to demonstrable cost pressures or supply constraints, regulators will invariably investigate whether such movements reflect genuine market forces—or whether coordination, exclusionary conduct, or the exploitation of market power has distorted competitive outcomes.

Under the Competition Law, enforcement attention centers on four principal categories of concern: (i) restrictive agreements, including horizontal collusion among competitors; (ii) abuse of dominance by undertakings possessing substantial market power; (iii) abuse of economic dependence, where an undertaking exploits a position in which a customer has no alternative solutions for marketing or supply; and (iv) economic concentrations—mergers, acquisitions, and similar transactions—that may substantially lessen competition absent appropriate regulatory assessment.

Key Prohibited Conduct Under the Competition Law

Enforcement activity under the Competition Law typically concentrates on several principal areas of concern.

The first is restrictive agreements—whether through explicit agreement or tacit understanding—that have the object or effect of distorting, lessening, preventing, or restricting competition. Article (5) of the Competition Law prohibits agreements that lead to: setting selling or purchasing prices directly or indirectly, contrary to market prices; determining conditions of sale, purchase, or service performance; collusive tendering or bidding in auctions and tenders; freezing or limiting production, development, distribution, or marketing operations; collusive refusal to deal with specific undertakings; and restricting the free flow of goods and services, including unlawful concealment or storage of goods. The Competition Law also prohibits agreements intended to share markets or segment customers on the basis of geographical areas, distribution centers, type of customers, or any other basis that negatively affects competition, as well as actions to obstruct market entry, exclude undertakings from the market, or obstruct accession to existing agreements or business alliances.

The second is abuse of dominance, wherein an undertaking holding a dominant market position leverages that position to foreclose competitors, erect barriers to entry, or otherwise engage in conduct that impairs the ability of rivals to compete on the merits. The Competition Law enumerates specific prohibited acts, including: directly or indirectly imposing prices or resale conditions; selling below actual cost to hinder or exclude competitors; unjustified discrimination between customers in identical contracts; obliging customers not to deal with competitors; unjustified refusal to transact on usual commercial terms; making transactions conditional on acceptance of unrelated supplementary obligations; intentionally publishing incorrect information about products or prices; and controlling or limiting production, markets, or technological development. The Executive Regulations now provide detailed criteria for establishing a dominant position under Article (2), including factors such as the significance of the undertaking’s market share, its economic or market power, the extent of actual or potential competition, the availability and substitutability of alternative products or services, barriers to entry or exit, and the existence of exclusive or long-term relationships with customers or suppliers. Importantly, the Executive Regulations clarify that the mere benefit derived by undertakings from technological superiority resulting from innovation, investment, or research and development does not in itself constitute a dominant position—unless accompanied by the ability to influence the market in a manner that harms competition, restricts market entry, or limits consumer choice.

Third, the Competition Law separately prohibits abuse of economic dependence under Article (7), addressing situations where a customer has no alternative solutions for marketing or supply. Prohibited acts mirror many of those applicable to abuse of dominance, including imposing prices or resale conditions, unjustified discrimination, obliging customers not to deal with competitors, unjustified refusal to transact, tying arrangements, and controlling production or technological development. This provision extends competition protection to situations of dependency even where the undertaking may not meet the threshold for formal market dominance.

Additionally, the Competition Law prohibits predatory pricing under Article (8), and the Executive Regulations introduce specific criteria for assessing excessively low pricing under Article (3). Prices below the average variable cost or marginal cost are considered excessively low unless justified by legitimate economic reasons unrelated to eliminating, restricting, or preventing competition. Prices above the average variable cost but below the average total cost may also be prohibited if there is clear evidence of an anti-competitive plan or intent aimed at eliminating or restricting the entry of a competitor. The Ministry or the relevant authority is empowered to assess excessively low prices on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the undertaking’s dominant position, comparison of prices with similar products or production costs, the potential future impact on consumers including the risk of monopolization and subsequent price increases, and any legitimate commercial justifications such as promotional offers, seasonal sales, or inventory clearance.

The Competition Law also addresses structural competition concerns through the regulation of “economic concentrations” under Articles (12) through (15). Transactions meeting applicable jurisdictional thresholds require notification to, and clearance from, the competent authority at least ninety days prior to completion. The relevant thresholds—based on total annual sales value or market share percentage—are set forth in Cabinet Resolution No. (3) of 2025. The Executive Regulations now establish comprehensive procedural requirements for economic concentration filings under Articles (10) through (18). These include detailed application requirements—such as financial statements for the preceding three fiscal years, market studies, competitor identification, and an assessment of the transaction’s impact on consumer welfare—as well as formal and substantive review timelines. The Ministry must conduct a formal examination within ten business days, followed by a substantive review assessing the transaction’s impact on market balance, concentration levels, and consumer choice. The Minister must issue a decision within ninety days (extendable by forty-five days), and failure to issue a decision constitutes rejection of the economic concentration. Notably, the Executive Regulations confirm that failure to file a required notification does not preclude the Ministry from examining and verifying the economic concentration transaction, whether before or after its completion, and that administrative penalties may be imposed for non-notification.

It is important to note that the Competition Law contains significant exclusions under Article (4). The law does not apply to: (i) goods or services where another law charges a Sectoral Regulatory Agency with developing competition rules, unless that agency requests the Ministry to undertake the matter; (ii) undertakings owned by the Federal Government, as determined by Cabinet resolution; and (iii) undertakings owned by an emirate government that carry out their activities within that emirate, as determined by local government resolution. Market participants should carefully assess whether these exclusions apply to their operations.

Consumer Protection Overlay: Price Increases and Market Stability Measures

Competition enforcement represents one dimension of market oversight. Consumer protection constitutes the complementary dimension, assuming particular salience when pricing conduct affects everyday essentials and household budgets.

In enforcement practice, suspected cartel activity frequently manifests as “unexplained” price movements: increases that appear coordinated across competitors, bear no demonstrable relationship to underlying costs, or are timed to coincide with periods of heightened consumer vulnerability. Such patterns may constitute circumstantial evidence of collusion warranting further investigation.

The consumer protection framework established under Federal Law No. (15) of 2020, as amended by Federal Decree by Law No. (5) of 2023, reinforces competition enforcement through provisions governing pricing oversight and market stability. Article 22 of the Consumer Protection Law, as amended, specifically tasks the Ministry with “controlling the movement of prices and limiting their increase” and “workings towards realizing the principle of competition and combating misleading advertising and monopolization.” When read in conjunction with the Competition Law, these provisions create a dual-track enforcement architecture: structural competition oversight operating alongside targeted consumer-facing controls designed to address immediate market dysfunction.

Exemption Framework Under the Executive Regulations

The Executive Regulations establish a detailed framework under Articles (4) through (9) for undertakings seeking to exempt their agreements or practices from the Competition Law’s prohibitions. Under Article (9) of the Competition Law, exemptions may be granted where agreements or practices are necessary for promoting economic development, improving the undertakings’ performance and competitiveness, developing production or distribution systems, or bringing certain benefits to the consumer—provided they do not impose limitations beyond what is necessary to achieve these objectives or completely eliminate competition in the relevant market. Undertakings must submit extensive documentation to the Ministry, the Relevant Authority, or the Sectoral Regulatory Agency, including copies of the relevant agreements, detailed market studies demonstrating positive economic effects, audited financial statements for the preceding three fiscal years, and a detailed report establishing that the practices meet the statutory criteria. The Ministry conducts a formal examination within ten business days, followed by a substantive review within forty business days (extendable by ten days). Exemptions may be granted where agreements or practices clearly and substantially enhance overall economic efficiencies benefiting the broader market ecosystem. The exemption decision specifies conditions, commencement and expiry dates, and geographic scope, and undertakings must notify any proposed amendments to previously exempted practices within thirty days.

Why This Matters Now: A Live Example from the Poultry Market

Recent enforcement activity in the poultry sector illustrates these principles in practice and demonstrates the practical application of the UAE’s competition enforcement framework.

According to public statements and contemporaneous reporting, authorities identified conduct in the poultry market potentially constituting collusion—specifically, alleged coordination in the fixing and manipulation of poultry prices, coupled with unjustified price increases during what were characterized as exceptional market conditions. The matter was subsequently referred for further enforcement action.

The significance of this enforcement activity is readily apparent: poultry constitutes a dietary staple in the UAE. When pricing in such a category is distorted through anti-competitive conduct, the consumer impact is immediate, widespread, and disproportionately borne by lower-income households. Beyond its immediate consumer welfare implications, the case provides instructive insight into regulatory enforcement priorities. Authorities will prioritize outcomes affecting household welfare, and they will subject pricing patterns suggestive of coordination to rigorous scrutiny.

The case also underscores a principle that businesses occasionally underestimate: regulators are increasingly focused on market outcomes rather than formal compliance documentation. Pricing patterns exhibiting characteristics of coordination—even absent direct evidence of explicit agreement—are likely to attract investigative attention.

Complaint, Investigation, and Settlement Procedures Under the Executive Regulations

The Executive Regulations introduce a comprehensive procedural framework for competition complaints and investigations under Articles (19) through (26). Any interested party, including consumers and official authorities, has the right to file complaints regarding anti-competitive practices. The Ministry must conduct a formal examination of complaints within fifteen business days and, upon acceptance, notify the respondent within ten business days, granting up to thirty business days to submit a response. Investigations must be completed within ninety business days (extendable by thirty days), during which the Ministry may request additional data, conduct field investigations at business premises, examine records and electronic files, and engage specialized experts. The Executive Regulations also empower the Ministry to initiate ex officio investigations where it obtains evidence of reasonable grounds suggesting practices that may harm, restrict, or prevent free and fair competition, and to conduct periodic market monitoring.

Significantly, the Executive Regulations establish a settlement (reconciliation) mechanism under Article (27), building upon Article 33 of the Competition Law. Settlements must be in writing, contain an express acknowledgment of the offenses committed, include an obligation to pay the determined amount (not less than double the minimum fine prescribed under the Competition Law) within thirty business days, and require the infringing undertaking to remedy its anti-competitive practice. A settlement terminates criminal proceedings at any stage prior to referral to the criminal court, though it does not exempt the infringer from civil liability for damages caused. If any party fails to comply with the settlement terms, the Minister may request referral of the criminal case for trial. This settlement framework provides an important enforcement tool—offering undertakings a structured pathway to resolve infringement proceedings while ensuring that competitive harm is remediated.

The Executive Regulations further establish a multi-layered enforcement architecture under Articles (29) and (30), delineating the jurisdictional responsibilities of the Ministry, relevant authorities at the emirate level, and sectoral regulatory bodies. Relevant authorities must conduct a preliminary jurisdictional assessment within ten business days upon receipt of a complaint or application, and coordinate with the Ministry on matters that may transcend emirate boundaries. Sectoral regulatory bodies may assume jurisdiction over matters affecting their sectors, subject to Ministry approval. This decentralized framework ensures that enforcement capacity extends across all levels of governance and industry sectors.

Implications for Businesses Operating in the UAE

For undertakings operating in the UAE, enforcement actions such as the poultry-sector investigation serve as a salient reminder that routine commercial decisions can generate material competition risk—particularly in concentrated markets, during periods of pricing volatility, or where competitors maintain frequent points of contact.

In practice, organizations should integrate competition compliance into routine commercial decision-making processes, with particular attention to: competitor contacts and information exchanges, including informal communications at trade association meetings, industry conferences, or social gatherings; pricing governance frameworks, especially where market conditions create pressure toward price alignment; distribution and exclusivity arrangements that may foreclose competitors or partition markets; dominance-risk assessment protocols for entities holding significant market positions, including awareness of the separate prohibition on abuse of economic dependence; predatory pricing assessments, particularly in light of the detailed criteria now established in the Executive Regulations; and merger and acquisition transactions or corporate restructurings that may qualify as “economic concentrations” triggering mandatory notification at least ninety days prior to completion.

Critically, anti-competitive liability does not require subjective intent. Conduct may attract enforcement attention—and potentially give rise to liability—if it produces outcomes exhibiting the hallmarks of collusion, market foreclosure, or price manipulation, regardless of the parties’ stated intentions.

Protecting Consumers and Market Integrity

Robust competition enforcement serves fundamental market welfare objectives: maintaining competitive pricing, incentivizing quality improvements, and fostering innovation by preserving market contestability. When competition is distorted—whether through horizontal collusion, exclusionary abuse of dominance, abuse of economic dependence, predatory pricing, or anti-competitive concentrations—the resulting consumer detriment materializes rapidly, particularly in essential goods sectors where demand is relatively inelastic.

This explains why enforcement interest in sectors such as poultry carries significance extending well beyond the immediate parties. At its core, competition enforcement in essential goods markets is about protecting household welfare from distorted pricing and ensuring that market dynamics reflect the outcomes of genuine competitive rivalry.

Through the enactment of the Competition Law and the complementary consumer protection regime, the UAE has articulated a clear policy position: fair competition and market transparency constitute enforceable legal standards, not merely aspirational principles. Market participants should expect these standards to be actively enforced.

The Competition Law also establishes important procedural safeguards and timelines. The prescriptive period for complaints about anti-competitive practices is five years from the date of their commission, except for practices proven to continue and whose effects harmful to competition last for more than five years. Competition-related actions are heard summarily, and courts may order stays or suspensions of conduct pending final judgment. These provisions ensure timely enforcement while providing undertakings with certainty regarding exposure periods.

Looking Ahead

The UAE’s regulatory trajectory has moved decisively from framework to implementation. With the issuance of the Executive Regulations under Cabinet Resolution No. (59) of 2026, the Competition Law’s substantive provisions are now supported by a detailed and comprehensive procedural infrastructure. The legal framework provides clearer rules governing dominance assessments, abuse of economic dependence, excessively low pricing, restrictive agreements, exemption notifications, economic concentration review, complaints, investigations, and settlements—with substantive thresholds and procedural requirements that align with international best practice.

For businesses, the practical imperative is to prepare proactively rather than reactively: embed competition awareness into day-to-day commercial operations through regular training and compliance protocols; establish and document legitimate, cost-based pricing rationales, with particular attention to the newly articulated excessively low pricing criteria and permissible justifications such as promotional offers and seasonal sales; monitor relationships where customers or suppliers may have no alternative solutions, given the separate prohibition on abuse of economic dependence; provide specialized guidance to personnel who interface with competitors, whether in sales, procurement, or trade association contexts; ensure that proposed transactions are assessed at an early stage for potential economic concentration filing obligations—bearing in mind the ninety-day advance notification requirement; and consider whether existing agreements or practices may qualify for exemption under the newly established notification framework.

For consumers and the broader economy, intensified enforcement activity—exemplified by the public scrutiny surrounding the poultry market—signals a marketplace that is expected to become progressively more transparent, more accountable, and more genuinely competitive. These developments merit close attention from all market participants.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Authors: Asad Ahmad, Partner and Head of Antitrust & Competition and Khaled Abu Orabi, Senior Associate