Russian Antitrust Enforcement Against Foreign Entities: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Turnover-Based Fines

 

October 6, 2026

BRACE Law Firm©

 

National legislation generally regulates relations connected to the territory of the enacting state. Legal practitioners refer to this as the territorial principle, which exists in many areas of law (civil, criminal, administrative law, etc.), including competition law.

Currently, an increasing number of economic relations transcend national borders, meaning that a company's actions in one country may lead to specific consequences in another country's market. Many countries attempt to apply their domestic legislation extraterritorially to protect their internal markets from the anticompetitive behavior of foreign companies (monopolistic activity and unfair competition).

Russia enacted Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law on Protection of Competition"), which contains a provision on the extraterritorial application of antitrust legislation (Part 2 of Article 3). However, the enforcement mechanism for acts of the antimonopoly authority against foreign entities lacking assets or representative offices in Russia remains imperfectly calibrated, although the practice of the FAS Russia and the courts demonstrates its consistent development.

This article analyzes the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition, the enforcement landscape of the FAS Russia, and judicial practice regarding foreign companies whose actions affect the Russian market, as well as related mechanisms for controlling economic concentration and foreign investments.

Antitrust Regulation Regarding Foreign Entities

Under Part 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition, the law applies to relations related to the protection of competition, including the prevention and suppression of monopolistic activity and unfair competition, involving Russian legal entities and foreign legal entities, organizations, federal executive bodies, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies, other bodies or organizations exercising the functions of the specified bodies, as well as state extra-budgetary funds, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, and individuals, including individual entrepreneurs.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified that the Law on Protection of Competition applies to economic entities, including Russian and foreign legal entities, when they conduct economic activity as market participants. For the purposes of applying antitrust prohibitions, a group of persons is generally treated as a single market participant; however, administrative liability applies to those group members whose culpable actions (or inaction) constitute the offense.[1] This carries practical significance for foreign groups operating in Russia through subsidiary companies: the regulatory authorities may evaluate the behavior of a Russian subsidiary in light of the decisions made by the foreign parent company, while the subject of liability is the specific group member whose actions constitute the violation. Furthermore, the legal regime of a group may not apply to an entity formally included in it if authorities determine that the entity is factually autonomous in determining its behavior on the product market.[2]

Prior to the January 2012 enactment of the amendments introduced by the third antitrust package, the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition applied to agreements reached outside the territory of the Russian Federation between Russian and/or foreign entities or organizations, as well as to actions performed by them, if the parties reached such agreements or performed such actions regarding fixed production assets and/or intangible assets located in the Russian Federation, or regarding shares (participatory interests) in business companies, or rights concerning commercial organizations operating in the Russian Federation or otherwise affecting the state of competition in the Russian Federation.

With the adoption of Federal Law No. 401-FZ dated December 6, 2011, On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, the legislature removed from Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition the provisions tying the law's application to transactions and actions regarding fixed production assets, intangible assets, shares, participatory interests, or rights concerning commercial organizations operating in the Russian Federation, because such criteria are relevant only for determining the scope of state control over economic concentration (Chapter 7 of the Law on Protection of Competition).

The current wording of Part 2 of Article 3 provides that the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition apply to agreements reached outside the Russian Federation between Russian and/or foreign persons or organizations, as well as to actions performed by them, if such agreements or actions affect the state of competition in the Russian Federation.

To correctly delineate the list of transactions and actions executed (performed) outside the territory of the Russian Federation and falling under state control over economic concentration, the legislature supplemented Chapter 7 of the Law on Protection of Competition with Article 26.1, which stipulates that transactions and other actions are subject to state control under the rules of Chapter 7 if they relate to the assets of Russian financial organizations and fixed production assets and/or intangible assets located in the Russian Federation, or to voting shares (participatory interests) or rights concerning Russian commercial and non-commercial organizations, as well as foreign entities and/or organizations supplying goods to the territory of the Russian Federation in an amount exceeding 1 billion rubles during the year preceding the date of the transaction or other action subject to state control.[3]

The mandatory condition for applying the law to agreements and actions executed abroad is their impact on the state of competition in Russia; the registration or physical presence of the foreign company in the Russian Federation is irrelevant. This approach – known as the "effects doctrine" – was first applied in the US in 1945 in the case of United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (ALCOA), where the court stated that "any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its allegiance, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within its borders which the state reprehends".[4]

Legal scholars widely consider the conceptual prerequisite of the effects doctrine to be the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus (France v. Turkey) case, which indicated that "there is no rule of international law prohibiting the State to which the ship on which the effects of the offence have taken place belongs, from regarding the offence as having been committed in its territory and prosecuting, accordingly, the delinquent".[5] In EU law, the European Court of Justice justifies the application of competition rules to foreign companies through the doctrine of the "implementation" of an agreement in the internal market[6] and the test of a "qualified" (foreseeable, immediate, and substantial) effect.[7] In Russian law, the legislature codified the effects doctrine in Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

Part 3 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition establishes an exception to the scope of this law. The provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition do not apply to relations regulated by the uniform competition rules in cross-border markets, the enforcement of which falls within the jurisdiction of the Eurasian Economic Commission in accordance with an international treaty of the Russian Federation. The relevant international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes the criteria for classifying a market as cross-border.[8]

Section XVIII (Articles 74–76) of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union dated May 29, 2014 (the "Treaty on the EAEU") and the Protocol on General Principles and Rules of Competition (Annex No. 19 to the Treaty on the EAEU) define the jurisdiction of the Eurasian Economic Commission (the "EEC") regarding the enforcement of general competition rules in cross-border markets.

Antitrust Prohibitions in the Cross-Border Market within the EAEU Framework

Decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council No. 29 dated December 19, 2012 (as amended by Decision No. 26 dated December 26, 2016; in the current version, the Criteria are based on paragraph 2 of Article 74 of the Treaty on the EAEU) defines the criteria for classifying a market as cross-border.[9] Specifically, a market qualifies as cross-border if the geographical boundaries of the product market encompass the territories of two or more Member States of the EAEU (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan).

Moreover, depending on the type of antitrust prohibition, the specified decision refines the criteria for the cross-border nature of product markets. For example, to suppress the abuse of a dominant position, the EEC requires, among other things, that the dominant entity's share constitute at least 35% of the volume of the product circulating in the territory of each affected Member State, and that the violation lead or potentially lead to a restriction of competition or infringement of the interests of other persons in the territories of two or more Member States (paragraph 5 of the Criteria). The EEC must enforce prohibitions against unfair competition provided that the economic entity whose actions constitute unfair competition and the competing economic entity that has suffered or may suffer damages or reputational harm as a result of such actions are registered in the territories of different Member States of the EAEU.

In case No. A40-163226/2022, a Russian company petitioned the Arbitration Court to invalidate the decision of the FAS Russia terminating the case proceedings against a company from the Republic of Armenia. When issuing the warning and initiating the antitrust case, the FAS Russia relied on information indicating that the manufactured perfumery and cosmetic products were sold exclusively under foreign trade contracts to Russian companies. However, during the antitrust proceedings, regarding the argument concerning the authority of the FAS Russia, the agency requested information on the sale of perfumery and cosmetic products manufactured by the Armenian company within the Russian Federation and other Member States of the EAEU. The parties submitted a letter to the FAS Russia confirming the supply and sale of the goods in the Republic of Armenia. Additionally, the case file included tax invoices for product supplies to pharmacy organizations in the Republic of Armenia, data on the offer of goods for sale in Yerevan pharmacies, and a decision by the Armenian antimonopoly authority to initiate a case based on similar circumstances.

The FAS Russia terminated the proceedings because the disputed actions occurred in a cross-border market and fell outside the jurisdiction of the national antimonopoly authority of the Russian Federation.[10] Courts across three instances upheld the antimonopoly authority's position. Notably, during the prior challenge to the warning issued by the FAS Russia, the courts presumed that the disputed product was sold exclusively in Russia and found no grounds to classify the market as cross-border.[11] The authorities concluded that the market was cross-border only after the parties submitted evidence of sales in Armenia, which confirms the factual nature of this criterion. The courts noted that the termination of the case did not imply a finding that the defendant's actions lacked signs of unfair competition. The FAS Russia determined that the actions met the general criteria for unfair competition under Article 10bis of the Paris Convention; however, the authority to suppress such actions belongs to the EEC, to which the agency transferred the case materials.

Enforcement of Antimonopoly Authority Directives Against Foreign Companies

The most complex practical issue remains compelling a foreign company to comply with directives to cease antitrust violations. Based on the decision in an antitrust violation case, the commission issues a directive to the defendant (Article 50 of the Law on Protection of Competition).

A directive in an antitrust violation case is subject to execution within the timeframe specified therein. The antimonopoly authority monitors compliance with the issued directives. Failure to timely execute a directive in an antitrust violation case triggers administrative liability (Article 51 of the Law on Protection of Competition). Furthermore, a directive may compel a person whose actions are recognized as monopolistic activity or unfair competition to transfer the income derived from such actions to the federal budget. If the person fails to comply with such a directive, the antimonopoly authority shall recover the income by filing a lawsuit (Part 3 of Article 51 of the Law on Protection of Competition).

In accordance with Article 19.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "CAO RF"), administrative liability may arise for:

• Failure to comply within the established timeframe with a lawful decision or directive of the antimonopoly authority to cease an economic entity's abuse of a dominant position on the product market and to perform actions stipulated by the antitrust legislation of the Russian Federation aimed at ensuring competition (Part 2.2);
• Failure to comply within the established timeframe with a lawful decision or directive of the antimonopoly authority to cease violating the rules of non-discriminatory access to goods, or with a lawful decision or directive issued during state control over economic concentration requiring actions aimed at ensuring competition (Part 2.3);
• Failure to comply within the established timeframe with a lawful decision or directive of the antimonopoly authority to cease unfair competition (Part 2.5);
• Failure to comply within the established timeframe with a lawful decision or directive of the antimonopoly authority to cease violating the antitrust legislation of the Russian Federation or to perform actions stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation, except for the cases provided for in Parts 2.1–2.5 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF (Part 2.6).

The amounts of fines for legal entities are differentiated depending on the type of violation:

• Under Part 2.2 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF: from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles;
• Under Part 2.3 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF: from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles;
• Under Part 2.5 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF: from 100,000 to 300,000 rubles;
• Under Part 2.6 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF: from 100,000 to 500,000 rubles.

Repeated failure to execute a decision or directive by an entity previously subjected to administrative punishment for such failure, if the antimonopoly authority has established new deadlines for compliance, subjects the legal entity to a fine twice the amount previously imposed, but not exceeding one-fiftieth of the offender's total aggregate revenue from the sale of all goods (works, services) for the calendar year preceding the year the offense was detected, and not less than 100,000 rubles (Part 2.8 of Article 19.5 of the CAO RF).

Additionally, failure to pay an administrative fine on time incurs a fine double the unpaid amount (Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the CAO RF).

The primary challenge lies in compelling a foreign company lacking Russian assets to execute a directive and pay a fine. Imposing liability does not relieve the offender of the obligation to comply with the decision and directive of the antimonopoly authority (Part 2 of Article 37 of the Law on Protection of Competition); however, existing international agreements and memoranda of cooperation in the field of competition (within the CIS, EAEU, BRICS, as well as bilateral treaties) primarily provide for information exchange and cooperation during investigations, but lack a mechanism for recognizing and enforcing acts of the FAS Russia, including the collection of fines, in a foreign jurisdiction.

In practice, authorities secure enforcement by leveraging the foreign company's assets and business operations in Russia, alongside the regulatory and commercial repercussions for its continuing activities in the Russian market. At the same time, the antimonopoly authority possesses procedural tools. If a group of persons commits the violation, the authority may also direct the order to those group members who participated in the case and possess the legal and factual capacity to ensure the remediation of the violation (for example, a Russian company belonging to the same group as the foreign company).[12] Furthermore, in the event of an entity's inaction in curing the violation, the FAS Russia has the right to file a claim in the Arbitration Court to compel compliance with the measures specified in the directive; the court adjudicates such a claim under the rules of Chapter 22 of the APC RF.[13] Nevertheless, the practical efficacy of such a judicial act against a foreign entity fundamentally depends on the presence of its assets and business operations within Russia.

Applicable Law in Antitrust Disputes and Investigations Involving Foreign Entities

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Clause 1 of Article 1222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"), the law of the country whose market is affected or may be affected by such competition applies to obligations arising from unfair competition, unless otherwise dictated by law or the essence of the obligation.

If the unfair competition exclusively affects the interests of an individual entity, the applicable law is determined in accordance with Articles 1219, Law Applicable to Obligations Arising from Tort, and 1223.1, Choice of Law by the Parties to an Obligation Arising from Tort or Unjust Enrichment, (paragraph 2 of Clause 1 of Article 1222 of the Civil Code). In this scenario, the parties may agree on the choice of applicable law after the commission of the act causing the harm (Clause 1 of Article 1223.1 of the Civil Code).

The law of the country whose market is affected or may be affected by this restriction of competition applies to obligations arising from the restriction of competition, unless otherwise dictated by law or the essence of the obligation (Clause 2 of Article 1222 of the Civil Code).

The law strictly prohibits the parties from choosing the applicable law governing such obligations (except in cases where unfair competition exclusively affects the interests of an individual entity) (Clause 3 of Article 1222 of the Civil Code).

Due to the ambiguity of the phrasing "of the country whose market is affected or may be affected by such competition", it remains unclear whether courts should interpret this as the law of the state where the effects of the unfair competition manifested, or the law of the state where the actions constituting the violation actually occurred. Based on our data as of the publication of this article, a settled judicial practice regarding the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code to disputes involving foreign companies has not yet emerged.

Practitioners must distinguish the issue of applicable law from the issue of the Russian court's jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may file claims for damages caused by antitrust violations (Part 3 of Article 37 of the Law on Protection of Competition) against a foreign company in a Russian Arbitration Court if grounds exist under Article 247 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the "APC RF") (in particular, if the defendant's property is located within the Russian Federation, or if the disputed legal relationship is closely connected to Russian territory, or if a branch or representative office of the foreign entity is situated in Russia, or if the harm occurred within the Russian Federation[14]), and for persons subject to foreign restrictive measures, accounting for the exclusive jurisdiction rules established by Article 248.1 of the APC RF.

FAS Russia Antitrust Investigations Involving Foreign Companies

According to the FAS Russia, the authority first applied Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition to foreign legal entities in 2014, when the FAS Russia commission found the Uzbek companies JSC JSC Uzbektelecom (represented by the specialized branch Uzmobile) and JV LLC Rubicon Wireless Communication to have violated Clause 4 of Part 1 of Article 11 of the Law on Protection of Competition by entering into an anticompetitive agreement that resulted in the reduction or cessation of mobile communication services.

Based on the FAS Russia report, the parties executed the anticompetitive agreement by forcing the enterprise FE LLC Uzdunrobita – 100% of whose charter capital was owned by the Russian mobile operator OJSC MTS – out of the cellular communications market in the Republic of Uzbekistan, thereby affecting the state of competition in the Russian Federation. The FAS Russia articulated its stance that such enforcement actions would assure Russian investors of protection from unlawful competition, even if such conduct occurs abroad.[15]

In its subsequent practice, the Russian antimonopoly authorities have consistently applied the extraterritoriality of antitrust legislation to the actions of foreign companies committed outside the Russian Federation, provided that these actions affect the state of competition in the Russian market.[16]

A representative matter involves the case against the Dutch company Booking.com B.V. By decision dated December 29, 2020, the FAS Russia[17] found the company to have violated Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition: while holding a dominant position in the Russian market for accommodation aggregator services, the company imposed conditions regarding price parity, room availability, and operational terms across all sales channels on Russian hotels. The FAS Russia ordered the removal of the "wide" and "narrow" parity clauses from the contracts and, by a ruling dated August 27, 2021, levied a turnover-based fine against the company under Part 2 of Article 14.31 of the CAO RF in the amount of 1,305,763,627.57 rubles.[18]

The legally effective decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated September 6, 2021, in case No. A40-19473/2021 validated the legality of the FAS Russia decision, while courts of three instances, including the cassation instance in case No. A40-195672/2021, upheld the legality of the fine resolution.[19] The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declined to transfer the company's cassation appeals for review by the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes.[20] Notably, the company executed the directive (in December 2021, it formally notified the FAS Russia regarding modifications to its General Delivery Terms and the Preferred Partner Program)[21] and paid the fine in April 2022, notwithstanding the suspension of its operations in Russia.[22]

In a decision dated July 29, 2022 (with the operative part announced on July 19, 2022), the FAS Russia found that Apple Inc.'s actions in imposing unfavorable contract terms on iOS application developers – specifically by incorporating disadvantageous provisions into Section 3.1 of the App Store Review Guidelines (including its subsections) and by compelling developers to degrade the functionality of these applications – constituted a violation of Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, namely, imposing contractual conditions on a counterparty that are disadvantageous to it or unrelated to the subject matter of the contract.

The App Store Review Guidelines prohibited iOS application developers from informing customers in-app about the availability of purchasing options outside the App Store, and from using alternative payment methods. The company required developers to remove links to their own web resources and to modify the application's functionality so that the registration form would not route to external websites. Otherwise, the company denied the applications entry into the App Store.[23]

The FAS Russia concluded that these actions by Apple constituted an abuse of a dominant position in the distribution market for iOS applications.

The initiation of the case followed a warning issued by the FAS Russia on August 30, 2021, under No. MSH/72835/21, which the company failed to execute within the designated timeframe. Following the administrative offense proceedings under Part 2 of Article 14.31 of the CAO RF, the FAS Russia levied a turnover-based fine against Apple in January 2023 totaling 1,177,988,700 rubles for violating antitrust legislation.[24] The Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow denied Apple's request to invalidate the fine resolution,[25] and, according to the FAS Russia, the company paid the fine on January 19, 2024, with the funds transferring into the budget of the Russian Federation.[26]

This represents the second enforcement action by the FAS Russia against Apple. Previously, acting on a complaint from JSC Kaspersky Lab, the FAS Russia in 2020 found the company guilty of abusing its dominant position in the distribution market for iOS applications and, in April 2021, levied a turnover-based fine of approximately 906 million rubles. Courts across three instances confirmed the legality of the fine, and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to hear the company's appeal.[27]

The regulatory landscape concerning Apple continues to evolve. On July 1, 2026, the FAS Russia issued a warning to the company requiring it to eliminate discriminatory conditions targeting Russian search engines (as a foreign search engine is installed by default on iOS devices) and to comply with statutory requirements for the pre-installation of domestic software by July 15, 2026.[28] According to the FAS Russia, as of July 27, 2026, Apple provided the technical capability to pre-install a Russian search engine; however, it failed to execute the warning regarding the pre-installation of the national messenger and the domestic application store, prompting the authorities to initiate an antitrust violation case against the company on August 3, 2026.[29] This enforcement action illustrates the intersection of specific sector regulations (mandating software pre-installation) with broader antitrust prohibitions directed at a foreign digital ecosystem owner.

The FAS Russia advanced similar claims against Google LLC: in July 2022, the FAS Russia determined that the company, operating the Google Play application store, mandated that developers distributing paid applications through the platform exclusively utilize the Google payment system. The company's actions exhibited characteristics of an abuse of a dominant position, prompting the FAS Russia to issue a warning to the company (Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition) with an execution deadline of August 4, 2022. In August 2022, the company reported that it had modified the Google Play Developer Program Policies and removed the prohibition on utilizing third-party payment systems. Following its analysis, the FAS Russia concluded that the company had executed the agency's warning.[30]

In a separate regulatory action against Google LLC, the FAS Russia, through a decision dated February 24, 2022, determined that the company's conduct constituted a violation of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, which prohibits actions (or inaction) by a dominant economic entity that result or may result in the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition and/or the infringement of the interests of other persons (economic entities) in the business sphere or an indefinite circle of consumers.[31] Specifically, the violation involved incorporating vague provisions into the YouTube Terms of Service and Google Terms of Service that allowed the arbitrary and unnotified blocking (or deletion) of any account (content) on the YouTube video hosting platform (the "Service"), compounded by the absence of a structured appeals procedure (with defined timelines, procedures, and outcomes) against the actions (inaction) of the Service administration, both on the Service itself and within the governing documentation.

Thus, the FAS Russia established that "the aggregate of the factual and normative actions (inaction) by Google LLC regarding the arbitrary blocking (deletion) of any account (content) on the Service without warning (notification) leads (may lead) to the infringement of the rights and interests of an indefinite circle of Service users (creators and end consumers of video content) to freely receive and distribute information (content), to the infringement of the interests of economic entities in the content distribution market, and to the restriction of competition in the adjacent advertising distribution market, including on the Internet".[32]

The company appealed the decision, the directive, and the fine resolution to the court (the claims were consolidated into a single proceeding); however, the courts ruled that "the phrasing used in the terms of service allows the company, in the absence of appropriate legal or other grounds, to arbitrarily block (delete) the accounts (content) of any YouTube video hosting users at its own discretion, including users engaged in entrepreneurial activity using the specified service (creation (production) of content, sale of goods, works, services, production and distribution of advertising, etc.)". The courts concurred with the FAS Russia's arguments that the specified circumstances warrant classifying the company's actions as a violation of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition.[33]

The courts also supported the finding regarding Google's dominant position in the video hosting services market (with a share of no less than 60%) and dismissed the argument that the FAS Russia had exceeded its authority, noting that the company's actions were assessed for compliance with Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, rather than information legislation, the enforcement of which falls under the jurisdiction of Roskomnadzor.[34]

For the specified violation, the FAS Russia resolution dated July 25, 2022, levied a turnover-based fine against Google LLC under Part 2 of Article 14.31 of the CAO RF in the amount of 2,002,171,048 rubles.[35] Because the company failed to pay the fine within the statutory deadline, the Magistrate Judge held the company liable under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the CAO RF and imposed a fine double the unpaid amount, exceeding 4 billion rubles.[36]

Consequently, a foreign company's failure to pay a fine does not extinguish the public-law obligation. It triggers separate liability under Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the CAO RF and prompts the transfer of the resolution to a bailiff for compulsory enforcement (Part 5 of Article 32.2 of the CAO RF), which, however, can only be executed against the company's assets situated within Russia.

Nevertheless, the Law on Protection of Competition equally safeguards the rights of foreign companies: pursuant to Part 1 of Article 3, they may participate not only as defendants but also as plaintiffs in antitrust violation proceedings.

In case No. SIP-175/2024, a Russian company contested a decision by the FAS Russia determining its conduct violated Part 1 of Article 14.4 of the Law on Protection of Competition, which prohibits unfair competition associated with the acquisition and utilization of the exclusive right to means of individualization of a legal entity or means of individualization of goods, works, or services.

The FAS Russia reviewed a petition from a foreign company (a Chinese tattoo equipment manufacturer) alleging unfair competition by the Russian company, manifested in the acquisition and use of the exclusive right to the combined trademark "MAST" (Certificate No. 869559), which constitutes the designation the foreign company has used to brand its products since 2019. The antimonopoly authority notably considered that the Russian company, which did not manufacture the products, sent 187 claims alleging infringement of the exclusive right to sellers of the foreign company's products on marketplaces subsequent to registering the trademark.

The Intellectual Property Court, adjudicating the matter as a court of first instance, concurred that the Russian company's actions in acquiring and utilizing the disputed trademark aimed to "secure unjustified advantages over its competitors in the relevant product market and cause losses for competitors due to the impossibility of introducing the [foreign company's] manufactured products into civil circulation without the authorization of the Applicant [the Russian company] and the requirement to pay statutory compensation for the infringement of the Applicant's exclusive right".

The foreign company's counsel asserted that "the company never consented to the registration of the disputed trademark, as doing so contradicts its interests".[37]

The Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court upheld the decision without modifications; notably, the cassation appeal solely contested the refusal to order a forensic examination, the parameters for which, the court held, pertained strictly to legal questions.[38]

The court's legal framework aligns with the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which asserts that classifying actions involving the acquisition and use of an exclusive right to a trademark as unfair competition requires establishing the cumulative conditions defined in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Clause 9 of Article 4 of the Law on Protection of Competition. Practitioners assess bad faith at the moment the application to register the designation as a trademark is filed. Concurrently, courts evaluate the good faith of the foreign right holder itself when the latter asserts claims against Russian market participants, including in disputes concerning parallel imports.[39]

Control of Economic Concentration and Foreign Investments

Beyond behavioral constraints, foreign companies face Russian antitrust scrutiny when executing economic concentration transactions, including deals concluded outside Russia between foreign entities. As previously noted, under the rules of Chapter 7 of the Law on Protection of Competition, transactions subject to state control include those involving foreign entities supplying goods to Russia for an amount exceeding one billion rubles during the year preceding the transaction (Part 1 of Article 26.1).

The acquisition of more than 50% of the voting shares (participatory interests) in a legal entity incorporated outside the Russian Federation, or of other rights enabling a party to dictate its business conditions or act as its executive body (Clause 9 of Part 1 of Article 28), requires the preliminary consent of the FAS Russia, provided the asset or revenue thresholds are met, or if the transaction price exceeds seven billion rubles (the transaction price criterion was introduced by Federal Law No. 301-FZ dated July 10, 2023, and applies from September 1, 2023).[40]

The most prominent benchmark is the FAS Russia's 2018 clearance of the global acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer. The authorities cleared the transaction subject to a five-year directive obligating Bayer to execute a technology transfer to Russian recipients concerning molecular breeding tools and germplasm required to create agricultural crop seeds with targeted traits.[41]

When evaluating petitions involving foreign investors, antitrust oversight is inextricably linked with foreign investment control. The FAS Russia holds the authority to extend the petition review period pending the completion of preliminary clearance procedures under Law No. 57-FZ (discussed below) or Article 6 of Federal Law No. 160-FZ dated July 9, 1999, On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation (Clauses 3.1–3.4 of Part 2 of Article 33 of the Law on Protection of Competition).[42] If the applicant operates as a foreign investor, the petition mandates disclosure regarding its beneficiaries, beneficial owners, and controlling persons. Parties must also furnish such data if the target of the economic concentration (or its controlled entities) conducts strategic activities under Law No. 57-FZ, and, effective June 7, 2026, if the target holds licenses (or other documentation) necessary for executing such activities.[43]

A discrete and highly substantial issue concerns the application of Federal Law No. 57-FZ dated April 29, 2008, On the Procedure for Foreign Investments in Business Entities of Strategic Importance for National Defense and State Security (the "Law No. 57-FZ"). This law establishes restrictions for foreign investors and for the group of persons encompassing the foreign investor regarding their participation in the charter capital of strategic companies.

Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ defines the transactions requiring preliminary clearance. These include, for instance, transactions resulting in a foreign investor or group of persons acquiring the right to directly or indirectly control more than 50% of the total voting shares (participatory interests) constituting the charter capital of a strategic company, or the right to appoint its sole executive body (Subclauses "a" and "b" of Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ); for companies engaged in the use of subsoil plots of federal significance and/or fishing, the threshold is 25% (Clause 2 of Part 1 of Article 7). A reduced threshold – exceeding 25% of votes or any other capability to block the decisions of the strategic company's management bodies – applies to transactions by foreign states, international organizations, and foreign investors failing to submit information on their beneficiaries, beneficial owners, and controlling persons (Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 7, Part 3 of Article 2 of Law No. 57-FZ).[44]

A foreign investor intending to execute a transaction specified in Parts 1–4 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ, or that has established control over a strategic business entity in cases governed by Part 5 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ (in particular, through shifting voting ratios resulting from a company repurchasing its own shares), must file the corresponding petition (in the latter scenario, within three months from the date of establishing control) (Part 1 of Article 8 of Law No. 57-FZ).

The applicant must direct the petition for preliminary transaction clearance or the petition for control establishment clearance to the federal executive body authorized to control foreign investments, which is the FAS Russia. The petition must be addressed to the head (deputy head) of the FAS Russia in duplicate via postal dispatch with a shipment inventory or through direct delivery (including courier). The Government Commission on Control over Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation (the "Government Commission") renders the decision on granting preliminary transaction clearance (or refusing clearance), while the FAS Russia, acting as the authorized body, processes the petition and executes the adopted resolution.[45]

The FAS Russia Order No. 1067/21 dated October 4, 2021, ratified the Administrative Regulations of the Federal Antimonopoly Service on the Provision of the State Service to Review Petitions for Preliminary Clearance of Transactions and Petitions for Clearance of the Establishment of Control by Foreign Investors or a Group of Persons Encompassing a Foreign Investor Over Business Entities of Strategic Importance for National Defense and State Security (registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia on November 29, 2021, under Reg. No. 66040). The Regulations stipulate, among other things, that the petition review period shall not exceed 3 months from its receipt by the FAS Russia, and the Government Commission may extend this period by three months under exceptional circumstances.[46]

Transactions consummated in violation of the mandates of Law No. 57-FZ are void ab initio. Actions resulting in a foreign investor acquiring the right to determine the decisions of a strategic business entity's management bodies, including the conditions for executing its business activities, bear no legal consequences from the moment of execution (Part 1 of Article 15 of Law No. 57-FZ).

Matters related to violations of Law No. 57-FZ fall under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Courts (Part 6 of Article 15 of Law No. 57-FZ).

The court applies the consequences of invalidity to a void transaction, which empowers it to recover into the revenue of the Russian Federation the shares (participatory interests) of the strategic company or the property comprising its fixed production assets acquired by parties acting intentionally in executing the void transaction, alongside the income generated by such parties (Part 1.1 of Article 15 of Law No. 57-FZ, introduced by Federal Law No. 139-FZ dated April 28, 2023, effective as of May 9, 2023).

When deciding on the application of consequences of invalidity for a void transaction, the court gauges the presence or absence of risks regarding the persistence or emergence of a threat to national defense and/or state security. The court weighs this factor if it applies the consequences prescribed by Clause 2 of Article 167 of the Civil Code, which mandates each party to return to the other everything received under the transaction or, if restitution in kind is impossible (including when the receipt involves the use of property, work performed, or a service rendered), to reimburse its value (Part 1.2 of Article 15 of Law No. 57-FZ). Courts apply the specified consequences by analogy to other actions resulting in the unapproved establishment of control over a strategic company (Part 1.3 of Article 15). Furthermore, the strategic company maintains the right to recover damages from a foreign investor or group of persons caused by the bad faith exercise of rights acquired through such transactions (actions) (Part 7 of Article 15).[47]

Legal practitioners should account for the substantial amendments introduced into Law No. 57-FZ by Federal Law No. 51-FZ dated March 8, 2026, which took effect (with certain exceptions) on June 7, 2026. Specifically, the legislature expanded the law's scope to encompass non-commercial organizations executing strategic activities, as well as business entities that factually do not conduct such activities but possess a license (or other permit) to do so.

The intra-group exemption from the preliminary clearance requirement functions solely on the condition that the foreign investor submits disclosure regarding its beneficiaries, beneficial owners, and controlling persons to the FAS Russia. The statutory framework broadened the catalog of strategic activities (including the exploitation of specific subsoil plots not designated as federal significance plots, and the manufacturing of fish products subject to specified criteria), and concurrently introduced an obligation for the foreign investor to notify the FAS Russia upon holding the right to control 5% or more of the shares (participatory interests) in a company holding a license (or other permit) to execute a strategic activity.[48]

In case No. A50-17636/2023, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation filed a claim in the interests of the Russian Federation against a joint-stock company, its subsidiary, and a British citizen to apply the consequences of invalidity to a void transaction. The claim sought to address the transaction executed via the board of directors' meeting protocol by forcing the return of movable and immovable property to the joint-stock company, to nullify the limited liability company's ownership right to the movable and immovable property transferred as a charter capital contribution, and to invalidate the pledge right. Previously, in case No. A50-10758/2017, courts invalidated transactions involving the acquisition of this company's shares by entities controlled by the same foreign citizen and ordered the forfeiture of 79% of the strategic company's shares to the revenue of the Russian Federation.

The courts determined that, "accounting for the specifics, character, and volume of the activities executed by the joint-stock company [...], [they] legitimately concluded that this organization [...] falls into the category of strategic companies securing national defense and state security, the share acquisitions of which by foreign investors are governed by the provisions of Law No. 57-FZ".[49] The courts referenced Subclause "g" of Clause 37 and Clause 44 of Article 6 of Law No. 57-FZ.

Given that the pledge transactions encumbering the assets of the joint-stock company and the limited liability company were void from inception and could generate no legal consequences – depriving the original creditor under the loan agreement and the foreign citizen of legal grounds to execute agreements establishing pledges over the fixed production assets of the strategic company vital to national defense and security in their favor – the courts ruled that "the transaction increasing the charter capital of the [limited liability] company, executed pursuant to the resolution of the joint-stock company's board of directors [...], contradicts the mandates of Clause 2 of Article 168 and Article 169 of the Civil Code, because it was executed by parties acting solely in the interests of [the foreign citizen], whose control over the strategic company lacked clearance under the procedure defined by Law No. 57-FZ, thereby engendering the potential for a threat to national defense and state security".[50]

The courts' posture regarding the statute of limitations holds substantial practical significance. Rejecting the defendants' claims that the statutory period had lapsed, the courts reasoned that the plaintiff secured the genuine capacity to ascertain all the facts of the serial alienation of the strategic enterprise's property and to properly file claims only after reinstating control over the enterprise, neutralizing the foreign investors' leverage (in June 2023), and conducting a comprehensive audit.[51] The courts additionally dismissed the argument challenging the prosecutor's standing to sue, invoking Part 1 of Article 52 of the APC RF and articulating that the claim served the interests of the Russian Federation to safeguard the state's and society's stakes in national defense and state security.[52]

In case No. A21-2269/2023, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation similarly petitioned the court in the interests of the Russian Federation to apply the consequences of void transactions by enforcing the forfeiture into the state revenue of shares in a strategic company (a seaport) owned by a UK-incorporated foreign company and an individual belonging to the same group of persons.

The pleadings asserted that "the group of persons incorporating the foreign investor unlawfully acquired shares and secured non-resident control over the Port, which holds strategic importance for the Russian Federation, by concealing the transaction, the controlling persons, the beneficial owners, and the beneficiaries from the authorized bodies of the Russian Federation. The Antimonopoly Service underscored that the sequential acquisition of [...] 46.5% of the Port's shares allows them, under the guise of lawful participation in the company's activities, to extract data on the dynamics of the Russian Federation's cargo turnover and the nomenclature of goods transshipped through the port, directly affecting the food, energy, and military security of the exclave constituent entity of the Russian Federation".[53]

In violation of Law No. 57-FZ mandates, the foreign company bypassed the authorized body and the Government Commission, failing to file a petition for preliminary clearance for the acquisition of shares in the port, which qualified as a strategic company. Assessing the disputed transactions, the courts ruled that they were executed "with a purpose knowingly contrary to the foundations of the legal order, as they sought to secure control over an enterprise possessing strategic importance for a group of persons encompassing a foreign investor, circumventing the requirements of Law No. 57-FZ".[54] The courts further found that the foreign company and the individuals (including its ultimate beneficial owner and his father) constituted a group of persons; thus, the subsequent share acquisition by the individual qualified as a transaction seeking to aggregate the foreign investor's control, requiring clearance (Clause 5 of Part 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ). The court justified the forfeiture of the shares to the state revenue using Article 169 of the Civil Code.[55]

In case No. A42-7217/2021, concerning the FAS Russia's claim to invalidate void transactions involving the assignment of claim rights, a participatory interest purchase agreement, and an accession agreement, and to invoke the consequences of void transactions by stripping voting rights at the JSC's general shareholders' meeting and forfeiting its shares into the state revenue, the courts held that a group of persons involving a foreign investor had secured indirect corporate control over the JSC, a strategic entity, through a cascade of sequential actions.

The transactional chain comprised the acquisition of port shares at a privatization auction by a company financed through loans from a Cyprus company, which were advanced to another group company secured by a pledge of its shares; subsequent assignments of claim rights under these loans to entities established by a group member in Singapore and Hungary; the borrower's acquisition of 100% of the purchaser's participatory interests; and the accession of the purchaser into the borrower.

The courts, determining that the parties failed to obtain the preliminary clearance dictated by Law No. 57-FZ for these actions, utilized Article 15 of the referenced Law to rule "the aggregate of the disputed actions as invalid transactions, applying to them the consequences of invalidity triggered by the status of the JSC [...] as a strategic company and the classification of the defendants as a group of persons involving a foreign investor".[56]

The court sustained the claim regarding the invalidation of the transactions and the forfeiture of all shares in the strategic company into the revenue of the Russian Federation, directing their transfer to the Rosimushchestvo account; however, the courts denied the application of the other requested remedies. The courts rebutted the defendants' argument against the application of Law No. 57-FZ based on Part 9 of Article 2 of that law (an exemption for transactions where the acquirer is an organization controlled by Russian citizens holding Russian tax residency), taking into account, inter alia, intelligence regarding the extended duration one of the defendants resided outside the Russian Federation.[57] Notably, even post-enforcement, the courts maintained the injunctive relief over the strategic company's assets, declaring that restoring corporate control dictates not merely reverting the shares to state ownership but also safeguarding control over the asset pool; concurrently, the courts lifted the measures restricting the defendants' corporate rights regarding the parent company.[58]

In case No. A56-3068/2025, the court sustained the Prosecutor General's Office claims against foreign companies seeking to nullify share purchase agreements of a strategic enterprise and forfeit them to the state revenue. The court of first instance upheld the claim; the appellate court amended the judgment, voiding only a single transaction and confiscating 1,731 shares for the state; the cassation court vacated the appellate court's resolution and reinstated the first instance ruling.

The cassation court aligned with the first instance court's determination that "through the execution of the disputed sequential transactions, lacking the requisite clearance from the FAS Russia and the Government Commission, the participation share of German and French citizens [...] in the strategic enterprise hit 50% of the charter capital, enabling them to directly leverage the company's operations and execute blocking resolutions". Because the parties committed the disputed transactions in breach of the provisions of Subclause "a" of Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ, the circuit court concluded that the first instance court legitimately ruled them void and triggered the consequences of invalidity.[59]

The enforcement action is particularly notable regarding its control-establishment mechanism: the foreign beneficiaries' equity expanded not simply through intra-group share purchase agreements, but additionally via the issuer repurchasing its own shares from an existing shareholder, succeeded by charter capital reduction and share cancellation. Law No. 57-FZ expressly categorizes alterations in voting weight stemming from a company's acquisition (repurchase) of its own shares as a control-establishing event demanding a clearance petition.[60]

Under the sanctions pressure triggered by foreign nations imposing restrictive measures, Russia instituted an exceptional clearance protocol for executing transactions and operations with foreign counterparties and their controlled entities originating from states that levied restrictions against Russia, serving as supplementary temporary economic measures to safeguard financial stability. Agencies issue such clearances outside the framework of Law No. 57-FZ; instead, they follow the protocols delineated by Presidential Decrees (specifically, No. 81 dated March 1, 2022, and No. 618 dated September 8, 2022) – generally via the Government Commission (its subcommittee), or, in specific scenarios, by the President of the Russian Federation directly (Presidential Decree No. 520 dated August 5, 2022). Securing such a clearance does not exempt the parties from the obligation to obtain preliminary transaction clearance from the FAS Russia under Chapter 7 of the Law on Protection of Competition and/or Law No. 57-FZ, should the transaction satisfy the operative criteria.

Consequently, a foreign company devoid of operations in the Russian product market, yet generating actionable impacts within it, can become a target of antitrust prohibitions and inherently faces potential liability for breaching Russian legislation. The dispositive element hinges on whether the entity exerts a restrictive effect on competition in the Russian market.

In antimonopoly enforcement practice, such impact may materialize either through overtly apparent actions (or inaction) or structurally via equity participation in a Russian legal entity. Authorities hold foreign companies accountable for antitrust breaches under Russian law, while the practical viability of enforcing the antimonopoly authority's acts relies strictly on the foreign company holding assets and commercial stakes inside Russia: where present, empirical practice (e.g., Booking.com, Apple) confirms voluntary execution of directives and remittance of fines, whereas the Google LLC precedent demonstrates that defaulting on a fine while lacking targetable assets in Russia severely curtails compulsory enforcement capabilities, causing liabilities to merely snowball (Part 1 of Article 20.25 of the CAO RF).

From a practical standpoint, foreign companies whose operations interface with the Russian market are advised to:

• Appraise transactions, including global mergers, to determine the necessity of securing FAS Russia clearance under Chapter 7 of the Law on Protection of Competition and Law No. 57-FZ;
• Factor in the liability exposure of authorities classifying them as dominant in Russian markets, including digital sectors, and audit contractual terms with Russian counterparties (evaluating parity clauses, payment method restrictions, and access/blocking protocols) against the criteria established by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the imposition of disadvantageous conditions: confirming the dominant entity's legitimate interest and ensuring the proportionality of the constraints imposed on counterparties;[61]
• Incorporate specialized mandates governing owners of digital platforms generating network effects (Article 10.1 of the Law on Protection of Competition), alongside sectoral legislation requirements (e.g., mandates for domestic software pre-installation), the non-compliance of which the FAS Russia assesses through an antitrust framework;[62]
• Mitigate risks under Law No. 57-FZ when structuring the ownership of Russian assets, noting that control can be established indirectly through a group of persons or via corporate mechanics (share repurchases, charter capital reductions), and recognizing that the statute of limitations for claims invoking the consequences of such transactions may toll from the moment foreign control is extinguished;[63]
• Respond promptly to FAS Russia inquiries and warnings, as failing to execute a warning precipitates the initiation of a case, while dodging directives and defaulting on fines yields exponentially compounding administrative liability.

_______________________

References

1. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021, On Certain Issues Arising in Connection with the Application of Antitrust Legislation by Courts.
2. (paragraph three of Clause 7).
3. Part 1 of Article 26.1 of the Law on Protection of Competition.
4. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945). URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/148/416/1503668/.
5. The Case of the S.S. "Lotus", (France v. Turkey), Judgment No. 9 of 7 September 1927, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 10. URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/international/1927-pcij-series-a-no-10.html.
6. Judgment of the Court of 27 September 1988, A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission (Wood Pulp), Joined Cases 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85, ECLI:EU:C:1988:447. URL: https://admin.lawthek.eu/detail/7703dd43-9437-4020-a3ea-bc15b3f977cf/en/. Official text: EUR-Lex, CELEX 61985CJ0089.
7. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017, Intel Corporation Inc. v European Commission, Case C-413/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62014CJ0413.
8. Part 3 of Article 3 of the Law on Protection of Competition, introduced by Federal Law No. 275-FZ dated October 5, 2015.
9. Decision of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council No. 29 dated December 19, 2012, On Approval of the Criteria for Classifying a Market as Cross-Border, (as amended by Decision No. 26 dated December 26, 2016). For the interpretation of the Criteria, see also the Advisory Opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union No. SE-2-1/2-19-BK dated June 18, 2019.
10. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 19, 2023, in case No. A40-163226/2022.
11. Decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated June 30, 2021, in case No. A40-37693/2021 (upheld without modification by the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated September 22, 2021); cited from the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 19, 2023, in case No. A40-163226/2022.
12. Paragraph one of Clause 48 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021.
13. Subclause "i" of Clause 6 of Part 1 of Article 23 of the Law on Protection of Competition; Clause 59 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021.
14. Clauses 1, 2, 4, and 10 of Part 1 of Article 247 of the APC RF. See also the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 23 dated June 27, 2017, On the Consideration by Arbitration Courts of Cases Concerning Economic Disputes Arising from Relations Complicated by a Foreign Element.
15. The FAS Russia first applied the extraterritoriality rule. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: http://fas.gov.ru/presscenter/news/detail.html?id=33442/.
16. The FAS Russia widely applies the extraterritoriality principle regarding foreign companies. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/23474.
17. Decision of the FAS Russia No. AD/115711-DSP/20 in case No. 11/01/10-41/2019 dated December 29, 2020. Database of decisions and legal acts of the FAS Russia. URL: https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/cdf15018-ef29-40e8-acbd-d39edc8aee39/?query=Booking.
18. Resolution of the FAS Russia dated August 27, 2021, in the administrative offense case No. 11/04/14.31-8/2021 (details cited from the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated May 23, 2022, in case No. A40-195672/2021). On the court's confirmation of the legality of the FAS Russia decision, see: "Court confirmed that the Booking.com service abused its monopoly position". August 31, 2021. Kommersant. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4965993.
19. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated May 23, 2022, in case No. A40-195672/2021.
20. "Supreme Court confirmed that Booking.com illegally imposed price parity on hotels in Russia". June 22, 2022. TASS. URL: https://tass.ru/ekonomika/15002163.
21. RAPSI report dated December 15, 2021, on the execution by Booking.com B.V. of the FAS Russia directive to cease applying price and room parity. URL: https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20211215/307602965.html.
22. "FAS reported Booking.com's payment of the appointed 1.3 billion ruble fine". April 8, 2022. Interfax-Tourism. URL: https://tourism.interfax.ru/ru/news/articles/86758/. See also: "FAS: Booking company reported payment of the 1.3 billion ruble fine". April 8, 2022. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/31891.
23. Decision of the FAS Russia No. PI/71984-DSP/22 in case No. 11/01/10-30/2021 dated July 29, 2022. Database of decisions and legal acts of the FAS Russia. URL: https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/b9ebd434-8004-459a-b84e-92dc82683ce2/.
24. "FAS fined Apple 1.1 billion rubles". January 17, 2023. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/32389.
25. "Court confirmed FAS fine against Apple amounting to 1.17 billion rubles". May 30, 2023. RAPSI. URL: https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20230530/308953789.html.
26. FAS Russia report regarding Apple's payment of the antitrust fine. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/33033.
27. "Appellate court upheld the legality of the FAS fine against Apple in the amount of 906 million rubles". October 18, 2022. ComNews. URL: https://www.comnews.ru/content/222667/2022-10-18/2022-w42/apellyaciya-podderzhala-zakonnost-shtrafa-fas-otnoshenii-apple-razmere-906-mln-rubley; "Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the FAS fine against Apple in the amount of 906 million rubles". June 9, 2023. Retail.ru. URL: https://www.retail.ru/news/verkhovnyy-sud-podtverdil-zakonnost-shtrafa-fas-v-otnoshenii-apple-v-razmere-906-9-iyunya-2023-229569/.
28. "FAS issued a warning to Apple for discriminating against Russian search engines". July 1, 2026. Kommersant. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/8781403. See also: "FAS threatened the American Apple with a 4 billion ruble fine". URL: https://www.interfax.ru/business/1099587.
29. "FAS initiated a case against Apple". August 3, 2026. Vedomosti. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/news/2026/08/03/1218509-delo-protiv-apple. See also: "FAS initiated a case against Apple". August 3, 2026. BFM.ru. URL: https://www.bfm.ru/news/614046.
30. "Google LLC executed the FAS Russia warning". September 6, 2022. Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/32126.
31. Decision of the FAS Russia No. PI/14439/22 in case No. 11/01/10-12/2021 dated February 24, 2022. Database of decisions and legal acts of the FAS Russia. URL: https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/030a28e3-c8d9-4129-b4ba-26c5013d9457/.
32. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated July 13, 2023, in case No. A40-91928/2022.
33. Resolution of the FAS Russia dated July 25, 2022, in the administrative offense case No. 11/04/14.31-5/2022 (details cited from the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated July 13, 2023, in case No. A40-91928/2022). See also: "FAS fined Google 2 billion rubles". July 26, 2022. TASS. URL: https://tass.ru/ekonomika/15312421.
34. "Court fined Google 4 billion rubles for failing to timely pay the turnover-based fine in the FAS case". June 27, 2023. Interfax. URL: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/909172.
35. Decision of the Intellectual Property Court dated July 2, 2024, in case No. SIP-175/2024.
36. Resolution of the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court dated October 24, 2024, in case No. SIP-175/2024.
37. Clauses 11–13 of the Judicial Practice Review for Cases Associated with Assessing the Actions of Trademark Holders (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023).
38. Part 1 of Article 28 of the Law on Protection of Competition (as amended by Federal Law No. 301-FZ dated July 10, 2023).
39. "FAS Russia cleared the merger transaction of Bayer and Monsanto". Website of the FAS Russia. URL: https://fas.gov.ru/news/24815.
40. Clauses 3.1–3.4 of Part 2 of Article 33 of the Law on Protection of Competition (as amended by Federal Law No. 620-FZ dated December 29, 2022, effective as of January 9, 2023).
41. Clause 23 of Part 5 of Article 32 of the Law on Protection of Competition (as amended by Federal Law No. 51-FZ dated March 8, 2026).
42. Articles 2 and 7 of Law No. 57-FZ.
43. Part 1 of Article 8, Part 3 of Article 11 of Law No. 57-FZ; Clause 18 of the Administrative Regulations approved by the FAS Russia Order No. 1067/21 dated October 4, 2021.
44. Clause 14 of the Administrative Regulations approved by the FAS Russia Order No. 1067/21 dated October 4, 2021.
45. Parts 1.1–1.3, 6, and 7 of Article 15 of Law No. 57-FZ (Parts 1.1–1.3 and 7 were introduced by Federal Law No. 139-FZ dated April 28, 2023).
46. Federal Law No. 51-FZ dated March 8, 2026. For a review of the amendments see: "Foreign Investments: Updates in Legislation". March 12, 2026. Stonebridge Legal. URL: https://stonebridgelegal.ru/media/files/SBL_Alert_Changes_in_Foreign_Investment_Rules_RUS.pdf.
47. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-3328/24 dated June 24, 2024, in case No. A50-17636/2023.
48. Part 1 of Article 52 of the APC RF (as amended by Federal Law No. 387-FZ dated October 7, 2022); Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-3328/24 dated June 24, 2024, in case No. A50-17636/2023.
49. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated November 15, 2023, in case No. A21-2269/2023.
50. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-4174/2023 dated June 13, 2023, in case No. A42-7217/2021.
51. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated February 26, 2024, in case No. A42-7217/2021.
52. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated October 17, 2025, in case No. A56-3068/2025.
53. Subclause "a" of Clause 1 of Part 5 of Article 7 of Law No. 57-FZ.
54. Clause 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 4, 2021.
55. Article 10.1 of the Law on Protection of Competition (introduced by Federal Law No. 301-FZ dated July 10, 2023, effective as of September 1, 2023).
56. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-3328/24 dated June 24, 2024, in case No. A50-17636/2023.