1. Introduction

Competition law reform in Kuwait concerns the development of a legal and institutional framework that protects competitive markets, prevents monopolistic conduct, promotes consumer welfare, and encourages private-sector investment and innovation.

The principal legislation is Kuwait Law No. 72 of 2020 on the Protection of Competition, which established the modern framework for competition regulation and the role of the Competition Protection Agency (CPA). Future reforms should build on this framework while responding to changing market conditions, including digital platforms, artificial intelligence (AI), data-driven pricing, concentrated supply chains, mergers, and state-linked commercial activity.

Kuwait's reform agenda can be examined in the context of its economic diversification objectives, the development of digital services, public procurement, and the relationship between competition enforcement and sector-specific regulation.

Central proposition: Future reform should combine clear substantive rules, independent and technically capable enforcement, predictable procedures for businesses, and remedies that restore competition without unnecessarily discouraging investment.

This is an analytical discussion of possible reforms, not a claim that every proposal below has already been adopted in Kuwait.

2. Existing legal and institutional framework

The principal elements of Kuwait's competition framework include:

Law No. 72 of 2020: The statutory foundation for protecting competition.

Competition Protection Agency: The specialist institution responsible for implementing competition protections and addressing prohibited conduct within its statutory mandate.

Merger control: Review of qualifying economic concentrations, subject to applicable legal requirements.

Restrictive agreements: Scrutiny of arrangements that restrict competition, including price coordination and market allocation.

Abuse of dominance: Control of exclusionary or exploitative conduct by businesses possessing market power.

Competition advocacy: Promoting competitive neutrality and identifying regulatory barriers that unnecessarily restrict entry or expansion.

A future reform programme should clarify procedural rules, improve transparency, strengthen economic analysis, and coordinate competition enforcement with public procurement, consumer protection, telecommunications, banking, energy, and digital-market regulation.

3. Priority areas for future reform

A. Reform of financial penalties and constitutional safeguards

A major recent development is the Constitutional Court's 2025 decision concerning the constitutionality of a revenue-based penalty provision in Article 34 of Law No. 72 of 2020. Reporting indicates that the Court invalidated Article 34(5), which permitted a penalty of up to 1% of previous-year revenue, on proportionality and constitutional-property grounds. The exact scope of the operative judgment should be checked against the official judgment text.

Times Kuwait

+1

Future legislation should establish a penalty framework that is both effective and constitutionally proportionate.

Reform should include:

A graduated scale distinguishing minor procedural breaches, serious restrictive agreements, abuse of dominance, and deliberate merger-control violations.

Clear criteria addressing the duration of the infringement, economic harm, intent, cooperation, and recidivism.

A reasoned decision explaining how the penalty was calculated.

Effective rights to challenge findings and penalties before an independent court.

Clear rules preventing double punishment for the same conduct under overlapping legal regimes.

Revenue-based penalties can be useful in competition law, but the law should define their calculation and ensure that the resulting sanction bears a rational relationship to the infringement. Fixed maximums alone may be too weak for large firms, while indiscriminate percentage-based fines can be disproportionate for smaller businesses.

B. Modernising merger control

Merger control is central to preventing excessive concentration in Kuwait's relatively small domestic economy.

The CPA's Resolution No. 32 of 2026 revised economic-concentration notification thresholds. Resolution No. 33 of 2026 introduced a formal framework for handling confidential information, while Resolution No. 40 of 2026 concerns fees for CPA services. These measures demonstrate that reform is already progressing through regulatory decisions, not merely through future legislative proposals.

cpa.gov.kw

+2

Further reforms should focus on the following.

Transaction-value screening: Consider whether acquisitions of innovative firms with limited local turnover but valuable data, technology, or intellectual property warrant review.

Clear jurisdictional thresholds: Publish accessible guidance on turnover, assets, control, joint ventures, and the treatment of transactions involving foreign businesses.

Predictable review periods: Establish clear rules for completeness checks, requests for information, extensions, and final decisions.

Substantive assessment: Examine likely effects on prices, quality, innovation, access to essential inputs, and the ability of smaller rivals to compete.

Remedies: Permit proportionate structural or behavioural remedies where legally authorised and supported by evidence.

The CPA's published merger-control framework provides for an initial assessment period of up to 90 days, with a possible extension of up to another 90 days in the circumstances specified by the implementing rules.

cpa.gov.kw

+1

C. Stronger regulation of digital markets and AI

Traditional competition law may not fully capture the effects of digital ecosystems, where a platform can control access to customers, data, cloud infrastructure, advertising, payment systems, or AI models.

Kuwait could develop a digital-markets policy with the following components:

Algorithmic pricing: Investigate whether competitors use algorithms to coordinate prices or facilitate information exchange, while distinguishing unlawful coordination from independent automated pricing.

Platform self-preferencing: Examine whether vertically integrated platforms systematically disadvantage competing merchants or services.

Data portability and interoperability: Promote switching and contestability where restrictions materially impede competition, with appropriate privacy and cybersecurity safeguards.

AI infrastructure access: Assess whether control of essential computing resources, datasets, or distribution channels creates exclusionary bottlenecks.

Digital merger review: Investigate acquisitions of nascent competitors where competitive significance may not be reflected in current revenue.

Transparency and accountability: Require appropriate preservation of pricing records and decision logs during investigations, subject to legal authority and confidentiality protections.

A sector-wide digital-market regime should not be copied mechanically from another jurisdiction. Kuwait should first identify market-specific risks, the capacity of the CPA, and the interaction with existing telecommunications, data-protection, financial-services, and consumer-protection rules.

D. Institutional independence and enforcement capacity

Effective competition law requires the regulator to make evidence-based decisions without inappropriate commercial or political interference.

Possible reforms include:

Statutory safeguards for decision-making independence.

Transparent appointment, qualification, and conflict-of-interest rules.

Stable funding and specialist economic, legal, forensic, and technical personnel.

Published enforcement priorities and annual performance reports.

Documented procedures for complaints, investigations, settlements, and appeals.

Cooperation arrangements with sector regulators and foreign competition authorities.

The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia's Kuwait country profile has previously identified institutional independence, clearer definitions of monopoly and cartels, and reconsideration of certain state-owned enterprise exemptions as areas for improvement. These remain useful subjects for evaluating reform, rather than assumptions that every proposed change is already law.

UNESCWA

E. Public procurement and bid-rigging

Public procurement is a particularly important area because coordinated bidding can increase public expenditure and reduce the quality of infrastructure and services.

Kuwait could strengthen its regime through:

Systematic screening of bids for suspicious pricing patterns, bid rotation, cover bidding, and repeated subcontracting arrangements.

Secure channels for whistleblowers and protections against retaliation.

Competition training for procurement officials.

Standardised procedures for referring suspicious tender patterns to the CPA.

Proportionate exclusion or debarment measures, subject to due process.

Coordination between competition investigators, procurement authorities, and public auditors.

Statistical screening should identify leads rather than establish liability by itself. Similar bids or parallel pricing can arise from common costs or market conditions, so enforcement must establish the relevant agreement or other legally prohibited conduct.

F. State-owned enterprises and competitive neutrality

State ownership does not automatically establish an infringement, nor should public-service obligations be ignored. However, businesses competing in commercial markets should not receive unjustified advantages that foreclose private competitors.

Future reform should clarify:

When state-owned enterprises are subject to ordinary competition rules.

How genuine public-service obligations are defined and financed.

Whether exclusive rights are necessary and proportionate.

How public subsidies, guarantees, and preferential access to infrastructure should be assessed.

How competition concerns can be addressed without undermining legitimate national development objectives.

A transparent system of competitive-neutrality assessment would help distinguish legitimate public-interest interventions from arrangements that unnecessarily restrict market entry.

G. Private enforcement and access to justice

Public enforcement is not always sufficient to compensate businesses or consumers harmed by anti-competitive conduct.

Kuwait could examine reforms concerning:

Civil damages for proven competition-law infringements.

Access to relevant evidence while protecting trade secrets.

Clear limitation periods and rules on causation and loss.

Collective redress where procedurally appropriate.

The evidentiary effect of final CPA infringement decisions in subsequent civil proceedings.

Judicial training in market definition, economic evidence, and complex merger disputes.

These measures should be designed carefully to prevent abusive litigation while making genuine claims realistically enforceable.

H. Transparency, confidentiality, and procedural fairness

Resolution No. 33 of 2026 is an important development in formalising confidentiality protections for information submitted to the CPA.

cpa.gov.kw

+1

Further procedural reform should provide:

Clear standards for identifying trade secrets and commercially sensitive material.

Reasoned decisions on confidentiality requests.

Appropriate access to the evidence needed to answer allegations.

Public summaries of significant decisions that omit protected information.

Published guidance on commitments, settlements, and remedies.

Clear rules for the use of economic experts and digital evidence.

Confidentiality should protect legitimate business secrets without preventing parties from understanding and contesting the case against them.

4. Important case laws supporting future competition-law reform

A critical distinction is necessary: Kuwait-specific judicial precedents are not as extensively reported in accessible English-language materials as those of the EU, UK, and US. The following authorities therefore include a domestic constitutional decision and comparative cases. The foreign cases are persuasive comparative material, not binding Kuwaiti precedents. They illustrate legal principles that Kuwait could consider when designing reforms.

Case 1. Kuwait Constitutional Court — 2025 revenue-based penalty ruling

Subject: Constitutional limits on competition-law fines.

Facts and issue: The constitutional challenge concerned a provision of Article 34 of Law No. 72 of 2020 that authorised a financial penalty calculated as a percentage of an undertaking's annual revenue.

Principle: Contemporary reporting states that the Court invalidated Article 34(5), reasoning that the relevant revenue-based sanction lacked adequate proportionality to the infringement and raised constitutional concerns involving property and fairness.

Times Kuwait

+1

Reform significance: Kuwait should enact a replacement penalty provision with clearly defined ranges, aggravating and mitigating factors, transparent calculations, and effective judicial review.

Caution: The official judgment should be consulted for its precise operative wording, procedural history, and legal effect.

Case 2. United Brands Company v Commission (Case 27/76, 1978)

Court: Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Subject: Market definition and abuse of dominance.

Facts: The dispute concerned United Brands' position in the banana market and allegations involving its commercial conduct toward distributors.

Principle: The Court examined the relevant product market, the undertaking's economic strength, and whether particular conduct constituted an abuse of a dominant position.

Reform significance for Kuwait: The CPA should develop detailed guidance on product and geographic market definition, including demand substitution, supply substitution, market shares, entry barriers, and buyer power. Market dominance should be distinguished from unlawful abuse.

Case 3. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission (Case 85/76, 1979)

Court: Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Subject: Loyalty rebates and exclusionary conduct.

Facts: The case involved loyalty-inducing arrangements used by a dominant vitamin supplier.

Principle: The Court treated certain loyalty arrangements by a dominant undertaking as capable of restricting competition because they could make it harder for rivals to compete for customers.

Reform significance for Kuwait: Guidance on rebates should distinguish ordinary volume discounts and demonstrable efficiencies from arrangements that foreclose equally efficient competitors. The CPA should examine market coverage, duration, switching opportunities, and the economic effects of the scheme.

Case 4. AKZO Chemie BV v Commission (Case C-62/86, 1991)

Court: Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Subject: Predatory pricing.

Facts: The dispute concerned pricing practices in the chemicals sector and allegations that pricing was being used to eliminate a competitor.

Principle: The Court developed an influential cost-based approach to predatory pricing. Prices below average variable cost were treated as strong evidence of abuse in the circumstances considered, while prices between average variable cost and average total cost could also be abusive where part of a plan to eliminate a competitor was established.

Reform significance for Kuwait: The CPA should publish an economically rigorous framework for evaluating below-cost pricing, including relevant cost benchmarks, exclusionary strategy, duration, market conditions, and the likelihood of recouping losses. Pricing below cost should not automatically be unlawful without applying the applicable legal test.

Case 5. United States v Microsoft Corp. (D.C. Circuit, 2001)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Subject: Digital-platform power and exclusionary conduct.

Facts: The case concerned Microsoft's conduct in the operating-system and browser markets, including restrictions affecting rival browser distribution.

Principle: The Court upheld important findings of monopolisation while reversing other aspects of the lower court's judgment, including the breakup remedy. The decision illustrates how conduct by a dominant technology firm can preserve market power by restricting competitive threats.

Reform significance for Kuwait: Digital-market enforcement should examine defaults, tying, technical restrictions, access conditions, and distribution agreements where they materially impede competition. Remedies should be tailored to the proven infringement and assessed for effectiveness and proportionality.

Case 6. United States v Apple Inc. — e-books (Second Circuit, 2015)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Subject: Horizontal coordination and hub-and-spoke arrangements.

Facts: The case involved allegations that Apple facilitated coordination among major publishers concerning e-book prices.

Principle: The Court upheld the finding that Apple had participated in an unlawful conspiracy in violation of US antitrust law. The case illustrates that coordination may occur through an intermediary even when the participants do not all communicate directly with one another.

Reform significance for Kuwait: Enforcement guidance should explain how to distinguish unlawful coordination facilitated by a common intermediary from lawful parallel conduct. This is particularly relevant to digital marketplaces, trade associations, common pricing software, and AI-assisted pricing systems.

Case 7. Google LLC v Competition Commission of India (Supreme Court of India, 2023)

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Subject: Digital dominance, platform restrictions, and competition remedies.

Facts: The dispute concerned the Competition Commission of India's findings regarding Google's Android-related practices and the associated directions and penalties.

Principle: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the challenged National Company Law Appellate Tribunal decision at the interim stage, allowing the principal findings and directions to stand at that stage of proceedings. The decision should not be mischaracterised as a final Supreme Court judgment affirming every substantive finding on its merits.

Reform significance for Kuwait: Digital-platform remedies should address the specific conduct found unlawful, be supported by evidence, and remain open to judicial scrutiny. Regulators should assess whether restrictions on distribution, pre-installation, default settings, or access impede rival services.

Case 8. Google Shopping (Case C-48/22 P, Court of Justice of the European Union, 2024)

Court: Court of Justice of the European Union.

Subject: Self-preferencing and abuse of dominance.

Facts: Google challenged the European Commission's decision concerning the preferential positioning and display of its comparison-shopping service in general search results.

Principle: The Court of Justice dismissed Google's appeal, leaving the Commission's infringement decision in place. The litigation is an important authority on the assessment of self-preferencing by a dominant platform in the circumstances of the case.

Reform significance for Kuwait: The CPA could develop guidance for vertically integrated platforms that control an important gateway and also compete with businesses using it. Any intervention should account for the platform's role, competitive effects, objective justifications, and the risk that a remedy could harm service quality or innovation.

5. Proposed future reform roadmap for Kuwait

A phased approach would help Kuwait modernise its competition framework without creating unnecessary uncertainty for businesses.

Phase I — Legal certainty

Immediate priority

Replace constitutionally defective penalty provisions.

Clarify the applicable fining methodology.

Publish merger-notification guidance and procedural timelines.

Consolidate accessible legislation, regulations, and decisions.

Phase II — Institutional capacity

Medium-term priority

Strengthen the CPA's economic and digital-investigation capabilities.

Introduce transparent investigation and settlement procedures.

Expand procurement-screening and inter-agency cooperation.

Develop specialist judicial expertise in competition disputes.

Phase III — Future-facing regulation

Long-term priority

Develop digital-market and algorithmic-conduct guidance.

Review data access, interoperability, and AI infrastructure bottlenecks.

Evaluate competitive neutrality in state-linked markets.

Measure the effectiveness of remedies and revise policy using market evidence.

This roadmap is a policy proposal rather than an official Kuwaiti government timetable.

6. Key implementation challenges

7. Measuring the success of reform

Kuwait should evaluate reforms through measurable indicators rather than relying only on the number of investigations or fines.

Suitable indicators include:

Average time required to review merger notifications.

Proportion of decisions published with adequate reasoning.

Compliance rates with final decisions and remedies.

Number and quality of cartel and bid-rigging investigations.

Entry and expansion of new competitors in concentrated markets.

Frequency of successful challenges caused by procedural defects.

Consumer outcomes, including price, quality, service choice, and innovation.

Business confidence in the predictability and fairness of enforcement.

These indicators should be interpreted carefully. A higher number of investigations does not necessarily indicate better enforcement, and lower prices alone do not capture every dimension of competition.

8. Conclusion

Future competition-law reform in Kuwait should concentrate on five connected objectives: constitutional and proportionate penalties, effective merger control, stronger institutional capacity, digital-market readiness, and transparent enforcement.

The 2025 constitutional ruling on revenue-based penalties and the CPA's 2026 regulatory developments concerning merger thresholds and confidentiality demonstrate why reform must be continuous rather than limited to replacing legislation.

Times Kuwait

+2

The eight judicial authorities discussed above provide comparative guidance on penalty proportionality, market definition, exclusionary rebates, predatory pricing, digital-platform restrictions, intermediary-facilitated coordination, and self-preferencing. They must be applied with due regard to the differences between Kuwaiti law and the legal systems from which they originate.

Ultimately, the aim should be to create a competition regime that protects consumers and market access, supports legitimate investment, preserves procedural fairness, and responds effectively to new forms of economic power. Kuwait can pursue these objectives through carefully designed legislation, evidence-based enforcement, judicial oversight, and regular evaluation of regulatory outcomes.