Market studies and other market analysis tools for competition authorities

2. Market studies: Legal Frameworks and Practices

This section summarises common legal frameworks and several main practices relating to market studies. Rather than starting from scratch, it builds upon previous OECD work to identify potential best-practices in the design of market study powers and their methodologies. To do so, it considers similarities and differences across jurisdictions regarding several aspects of market studies, including the legal framework, how they are used and common approaches. The section ends with a consideration of the limitations and challenges of market studies. Market investigations, as a tool significantly extended beyond market studies, are considered in the next section and therefore not included within this analysis.

The OECD conducted an in-depth review of market study practices over a decade ago. Nonetheless, this remains a comprehensive source of market study practices and many of the findings from the 2015 survey are likely to still be relevant today. Where possible, changes in practice since 2015 are highlighted.

2.1. Legal and institutional frameworks for market studies

2.1.1. Most jurisdictions have the power to conduct market studies

For market studies to be relevant in a jurisdiction, there must be the ability for the competition authority to conduct them.1 This could be through a specific legal instrument that provides for it, or simply a general ability of an agency to do so absent any impediment.2

In 2015, only three out of 51 jurisdictions responding to the OECD survey on market studies noted that they did not possess powers to conduct market studies (OECD, 2015[7]). Since then, these countries appear to have now gained the power, suggesting that the power to conduct market studies is now very common amongst jurisdictions.3 Broadly speaking then, the ability to conduct some form of market analysis tool appears nearly ubiquitous. That market studies can be conducted is, however, only part of the story. Another key aspect is the conditions under which one can be launched.

For many competition authorities, the market studies they conduct are self-initiated as part of a holistic assessment of their priorities and their potential benefits. However, in some jurisdictions, market studies can also be initiated by central government, for example by the relevant ministry responsible for competition policy. In such circumstances, the government might direct an authority to consider specific issues within a sector or simply ask for an assessment of a market in general.

The ability of a government to mandate the initiation of a market study appears less common than for them to be able to simply ask for a competition authority to conduct one.4 Even this is not widespread however, with governments unable to formally request that competition authorities conduct market studies in many other jurisdictions.

Even in jurisdictions where governments can mandate the completion of a market study, it is generally also the case that the competition authority could initiate studies too if it wished. For example, since getting the tool in 2018, all of New Zealand’s market studies have been initiated by government, but the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) can also self-initiate.5

2.1.2. During market studies most authorities can compel the provision of information

An important part of the market study toolkit is the legal power to compel the provision of information from relevant firms. While there are divergences in the exact scope of powers between jurisdictions, many authorities can compel the provision of information from a range of entities, both governmental and private, during a market study.6 For some, this can extend to the ability to compel an individual to attend an interview to provide evidence. Legal powers to compel information are likely to carry some checks and balances to ensure that requests are proportionate and reasonable, for example relating to the purposes of the study.

The proportion of authorities that have this power appears to have increased recently. For example, in 2023 Canada saw the inclusion of information gathering powers for market studies as part of broader reforms for competition law.7 Similarly, a recent Supreme Court decision in Chile upheld the Fiscalia Nacional Economica’s (FNE) right to request information during market studies.8

There are potential nuances to the ability to compel information. For example, as noted in the 2015 survey, some authorities may be limited to make requests to private entities and be unable to compel information from public bodies, or vice versa. In other cases, the power to provide information may depend upon how the study has been initiated, with different powers applying to different cases.9 In other jurisdictions, approval from government may be required before a study can access information gathering powers.10

An important aspect of compelling information is whether penalties apply in the event of non-compliance. Absent penalties, the ability to compel the provision of information is significantly diminished. In the OECD 2015 survey, eight respondents noted that they were unable to sanction stakeholders that did not comply with information requests. Although some of those now appear to possess this power, this suggests there may still be divergence between jurisdictions in this regard.11 Some competition authorities may need to apply to courts to impose a sanction for failing to respond to a mandatory information request (OECD, 2018[4]).

Another interesting question regarding information requests is whether the competition authority is free to use the information gathered in market studies for other purposes, including for enforcement actions. While many, but not all, authorities have the ability to do so, some choose not to in some circumstances, particularly if it may prejudice future information collection or if it is not crucial for the other action (OECD, 2015[7]). It is worth noting that in most cases, the authority will have compulsory information gathering powers for subsequent investigations if needed.

While compulsory information gathering powers are undeniably valuable, market studies can still be successful without them.12 Competition Authorities can use several techniques to ensure that they gather sufficient information for a study, such as early engagement with stakeholders and providing transparency on the process. Co‑operating with a market study is also likely to be in the best interest of firms that may be affected by the outcome. Providing assurances that there are processes in place to protect confidential information and that the information is used only for the purposes for which it is collected, unless there is consent, may also be important. With such steps, many stakeholders will provide information voluntarily.13 In addition, there may be alternative data sources that can enrich a study.

2.2. How are market studies used?

This section considers how market studies are used, identifying the objectives they can pursue and their typical outcomes.

2.2.1. Market studies can have multiple purposes but generally seek to promote competition in a sector

Market studies and market analysis tools can fulfil a range of purposes and studies may be launched with more than one objective in mind. The 2015 OECD survey provided helpful insights into how authorities seek to use market studies. It asked authorities the primary reasons for conducting studies, allowing multiple to be selected. Table 1 illustrates the main finding from that work.

Table 1. 2015 Survey reasons for conducting market studies

Reasons to conduct market studies	Authorities using as a reason
Advocacy: when a market/sector is not functioning well for consumers but there is no suspicion of a violation of competition law	79%
Pre-enforcement: when a market/sector is not functioning well for consumers, but more investigation needed to deciding whether to initiate enforcement action	71%
Information gathering: to assess the state of competition in a market/sector, even if no specific competition problem has been identified	71%
Advocacy: to support and provide evidence for competition advocacy initiatives	65%
Advocacy: in preparation for intervention in the legislative process (i.e., modify or abolish laws or regulations that affect competition)	63%
Ex-post assessment: for an ex-post assessment on the impact of the introduction, modification or elimination of a governmental policy, law or regulation on a market	63%
Information gathering: to enhance knowledge of a sector or market	54%
Pre-enforcement: to support or provide evidence for enforcement action	46%
Other	13%

Source: Adaptation of Figure 1, page 6, (OECD, 2015[7])

While there may have been changes in practice since the 2015 survey, it demonstrates that market studies are viewed as a versatile tool by competition authorities, capable of fulfilling a range of functions. Despite this range, the most common objective of a market study is to gain a detailed understanding of the state of competition within a sector (OECD, 2018[4]). Often this is with a view to use that understanding to promote more effective competition, in a variety of ways, even if the information itself does not lead to immediate and direct action from the authority.

Effective competition is crucial for ensuring markets work well for consumers, delivering lower prices, better quality and more innovation. Competition also drives better outcomes at the macro level, increasing productivity and helping to reduce inequality (OECD, 2014[1]). Traditional competition law enforcement investigations focus on firm conduct, for example if firms enter into anticompetitive agreements, abuse a dominant position or attempt anticompetitive mergers. However, there may be impediments to effective competition that do not directly result from illegal firm conduct, such as regulations and other state-made barriers, market structure, or other factors affecting customer demand or creating barriers to entry. Absent a tool to consider these issues then, pervasive competition issues could remain, worsening outcomes for consumers and the broader economy. In this sense, many competition authorities use market studies to close this “gap” between traditional enforcement and the promotion of effective competition.

However, clearly this is not the sole motivation for all market studies or other market analysis tools. Authorities may use market studies primarily to gather information, perhaps with a view to inform future enforcement or even to understand the effect of past actions. Market studies can also act as signals that the sector is under consideration, seeking to act as a deterrent for firms to engage in anti-competitive conduct. In some circumstances, they may even be useful to rule out competition problems in a sector, allowing other policy areas to better understand what may be driving perceived issues.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of market studies considering competition issues in emerging sectors, such as digital markets (OECD, 2021[8]). Figure 1 illustrates the number of market studies by sector for 2023 as highlighted by the 2025 OECD Competition Trends report (OECD, 2025[9]). The second most popular sector where market studies were conducted according to the report was the Information sector, which includes digital markets.

Figure 1. Number of market studies by industry, 2023

Note: Industry classifications are based on two-digit NAICS codes. For more information, see: https://www.census.gov/naics/

Source: OECD (2025), OECD Competition Trends 2025, Figure 2.32, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8c4bd00b-en. 

This trend is likely to have been accelerated by developments in artificial intelligence (AI) which has spurred interest from several competition authorities keen to better understand the sector but perhaps reluctant to initiate enforcement action absent more information or knowledge.14 Market studies and other market analysis tools have been used in a range of different ways in digital and AI markets. Box 2 highlights some selected examples to illustrate this range.

Box 2. Select examples of a range of market studies in digital and artificial intelligence (AI) markets

Australian digital platforms inquiry 2020-2025

In February 2020, the Australian Government directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to undertake a large-scale inquiry into the supply of digital platform services, to be delivered via interim reports every six months. This covered a range of different services, including internet search, social media and online marketplaces. The ACCC published its final report in March 2025, having released a total of nine interim reports. The interim reports typically provided an in-depth focus on a particular sector or sectors. For example, the fourth interim report released in April 2022 focussed on the provision of general online retail marketplaces, while the ninth released in September 2024 revisited general search services, having been previously analysed in the third interim report published in October 2021. Ahead of each interim report, the ACCC released an issues paper to seek views on the upcoming topic from stakeholders. Through the reports, the ACCC made a number of recommendations, including arguing for regulatory reform to address digital related competition and consumer harms.

Japan’s multiple reports on digital markets

The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has published several reports in recent years following studies in different digital markets. This includes 2023 report into mobile operating systems and mobile app distribution, following a study into those markets. The study included surveys of nearly 600 app developers and 2000 consumers, as well as in-depth interviews with relevant businesses and stakeholders. The report highlights potential competition issues in the mobile operating systems and made several recommendations to the companies to ensure future compliance with Japanese competition law. This study following other studies in the preceding years, including a report into competition in Cloud computing services in 2022 and a report into digital advertising in 2021.

UK AI Foundation Model Initial Review

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an initial review of artificial intelligence (AI) Foundation Models in May 2023, aiming to gain a deeper understanding of this emerging market and the potential opportunities and risks it could bring for competition and consumers. As part of the Initial Review, it issued a call for inputs from stakeholders when launching the project and published an initial report in September 2023. This report was following by two additional reports in April 2024, one providing an update on the review and the other providing a more technical update of the CMA’s findings to date.

French Opinion on Generative AI

In February 2024, the Autorité de la Concurrence decided to launch inquiries into the functioning of competition in the generative AI sector. Part of these inquiries involved a public consultation, which received views from 40 parties and 10 stakeholder associations. In June 2024, the Autorité published its opinion on the sector, following its analysis and the responses to the public consultation. The opinion made recommendations, including noting the tools that it had available in the event of harm to competition, but did not recommend the provision of new legislation at that point in time.

Source: ACCC website, Digital Platforms Inquiry 2020-2025, https://www.accc.gov.au/inquiries-and-consultations/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-25; JFTC Press Release, Market Study Report on Mobile OS and Mobile App Distribution, February 2023, https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2023/February/230209.html; JFTC Press Release, Report Regarding Cloud Services, June 2022, https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2022/June/220628.html; JFTC Press Release, Final Report Regarding Digital Advertising, February 2021, https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2021/February/210217.html; CMA website, AI Foundation Models: initial review, https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/ai-foundation-models-initial-review; Autorité de la concurrence Press Release, Generative artificial intelligence: the Autorité issues its opinion on the competitive functioning of the sector, June 2024, https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/generative-artificial-intelligence-autorite-issues-its-opinion-competitive

Finally, as seen from Table 1, some studies that seek to understand how a sector is functioning may also wish to understand the impact of previous actions by the authority, for example following previous enforcement or merger decisions in a sector. Ex-post assessments are typically conducted separately from market studies and focus on identifying lessons learnt (OECD, 2016[10]). Nonetheless, gaining ex-post insights can be a supplementary goal of studying a sector in depth if it has been previously considered but appears to warrant ongoing attention.

2.2.2. Market studies can have a variety of outcomes

The outcomes of market studies are typically linked to their objectives. For market studies that seek to consider competition in a market to improve it, they are principally advocacy tools. The main outcomes are therefore proposals, or recommendations, that seek to improve competition. A notable feature of market studies and other market analysis tools is the focus on market outcomes rather than the pursuit of wrongdoing, meaning that firms do not face penalties as an outcome of market studies.

As advocacy tools, competition authorities could make a wide range of proposals, yet ultimately the consequences of market studies may depend upon others taking action, such as government or regulators. As such, authorities may experience delays or challenges in their market study recommendations being taken up. Even if a recommendation is not immediately acted upon, robust competition analysis with recommendations for improvement may be picked up to inform future policy debate.

In some jurisdictions there are requirements on governments or relevant authorities to publicly respond to market study recommendations within a set period of time.15 This does not imply that they will necessarily accept them, but placing an obligation to respond ensures that governments must at least publicly acknowledge the existence of recommendations. This likely increases pressure to explain how and why they will respond to them.

The recommendations that competition authorities make in market studies can fall into several categories. For example, many recommendations are aimed at legislators or other regulators, perhaps with a view to amending existing regulatory provisions that have an anti-competitive effect, or even to implement additional legislation to promote competition.16 Others may be directed at the competition authority itself, such as future enforcement or further research efforts.17 In some jurisdictions, as discussed below, a market study could lead to a more in-depth market investigation.18

In addition to allowing competition authorities to make recommendations, market studies also provide a better understanding of the market in question and its potential competition issues. As described above, depending on the objectives of the study, this may be the main objective from the outset, particularly if market studies of emerging sectors or those that have recently changed significantly. In other cases, the market study may not uncover significant competition issues and thus the main outcome will be this finding.19

2.3. Considerations for market studies

This section identifies some of the main issues when approaching market studies, including how they are conducted, how long they take, as well as the relevant processes and how to select them. It also considers the value of ex-post assessments of market studies in improving practices. However, it does not seek to exhaustively cover all issues relevant to market studies or provide a practical guide for conducting them, leaving that role to the OECD’s market studies guide (OECD, 2018[4]). Instead, the idea is to identify some of the main trends and focus on core issues, including similarities and differences between jurisdictions.

2.3.1. Market studies often require careful selection

A market study in a particular sector typically requires two decisions: first that the sector involved requires attention; and second, that a market study is the most appropriate tool. Many authorities will then also need to consider if such a use of resources is worth prioritising given the various other competing demands upon them.

Market studies are best suited to situations where there are suspicions that competition is not working well, but there is no clear sign that this relates to a breach of competition law. Several factors can be considered when identifying which sectors to study, and qualitative and quantitative tools may be used (OECD, 2018[4]). Information gathered from intelligence, or even previous enforcement action, could also help inform this assessment.

Markets may be selected due to their importance and therefore the value of promoting competition in them, for example due to their size, their economic importance as critical goods or services, or their general importance to consumers. There is likely to be a suspicion of underlying competition issues, which may be market-wide or relate to factors unconnected with conduct or other breaches of competition law, such as structural or regulatory factors, or other features of the market.20 There may also be an additional motivation on shining a light on the issues in a sector, including to understand if perceived problems are indeed driven by competition issues. As noted above, there is also likely to be an expectation that other enforcement tools are unlikely to be effective, at least at present. A holistic assessment across different factors is necessary. For example, in some cases where there are limited suspicions of competitive harm, a motivation could be that a sector is relatively unknown and warrants greater understanding due to its importance, for example in emerging new markets like AI, as discussed above.

When studies are initiated by government, the factors above are likely to still be relevant, although broader considerations may also arise. Consultation between governments and competition authorities before launching a study is good practice, as it reduces the risk of studies duplicating ongoing investigations. It also allows decisions to be made based on the expertise of dedicated competition professionals, which can ensure decisions are taken with the best available information and with a robust understanding of likely outcomes.

In any event, market studies should be initiated with a clear purpose and launched transparently (OECD, 2018[4]). For example, it is generally considered to be good practice to publicly state the reasons for conducting the study, the expected scope and the timeframe at the beginning.

2.3.2. Sufficient time should be allowed for market studies

As noted, there can be significant variation in the scope and depth of market studies. Inevitably this affects the amount of time that market studies take to complete, and market studies can vary significantly in length and detail, usually depending on the goal of the study.

Some market studies are open ended, while others have deadlines imposed. These deadlines can be self-imposed on a case-by-case basis or be set externally, for example by statute.21 The OECD Market Studies Guide recommends providing information to stakeholders on the timelines for market studies at their launch (OECD, 2018[4]). The ICN Market Studies Good Practice Handbook concurs, noting that it may be worthwhile tailoring timeframes to the scope of each individual study and that some flexibility may be needed to revise the timeframe if necessary (ICN, 2016[5]). In any event, sufficient time should be allowed to ensure the completion of a market study.

Market studies typically require at least six months, and often longer, sometimes up to 24 months, with most in-depth inquiries taking at least a year (ICN, 2016[5]). As noted, sufficient time is required to ensure a thorough analysis, as well as adequate consultation with external stakeholders, particularly those likely to be affected by the outcomes of the study. As discussed further below, as information from external stakeholders is usually a crucial part of a study, ensuring sufficient time for them to collect and provide relevant information without unnecessary burden is an important part of market study processes.

In some circumstances, authorities are able to conduct focussed and narrower studies in a shorter space of time, in order to fulfil specific objectives. For example, the Hungarian competition authority undertakes accelerated sector inquiries, with a draft required within 30 days, although this is not the norm.22 Longer inquiries are also possible, as are extended series. For example, as described in Box 2, between 2020 and 2025, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) undertook its digital platforms inquiry, which required an interim report to be published every six months.

Market studies do not have to be one-size fits all, even within the same jurisdiction. Several jurisdictions have different types of market analysis tools depending upon the depth of the inquiry required. This allows them to adjust timeframes to suit requirements. For example, as mentioned above, Hungary can undertake accelerated sector inquiries but also has the option to undertake sector inquiries, which do not have a formal deadline.

Where strict deadlines do apply, many regimes will have an option to extend a deadline in certain circumstances. While indefinitely extending can reduce the transparency and certainty for external stakeholders, a mechanism that allows a market study to respond to unforeseen or exceptional circumstances can be useful.

2.3.3. Stakeholder feedback and other analysis inform market studies

There are significant convergences in investigatory steps within market studies, despite the differences in length and purpose. In particular, as noted above in the discussion of information gathering powers, the majority of market studies engage in information collection from market participants, such as firms operating in the market, their customers and suppliers, as well as relevant regulatory bodies and other stakeholders with relevant knowledge. Encouraging engagement from a wide range of stakeholders throughout a market study can enhance its quality and may increase support for its findings (ICN, 2016[5]). Information requested can be both qualitative and quantitative (OECD, 2018[4]).

Stakeholder input will often be supplemented by desk research of publicly available information, as well as potentially previous knowledge from other investigations in the same sector. In general, competition authorities are likely to consider the proportionality and scale of requested information from third parties, taking into account the costs for the businesses of providing the information, as well as whether similar information might be available publicly.23

The main differences between market study methodologies reflects the amount of detailed analysis and techniques used. Unsurprisingly, this is usually closely related to the scale and scope of the study, although the best analysis tools also depend upon the circumstances, such as the nature of the likely competition issues and the data, and resources, available. (OECD, 2017[11]) describes many of the potential techniques available for market studies and Box 3 provides additional examples. Within the limit of time, data and resources, any analysis that materially furthers the understanding of competition in the sector could be worthwhile considering, although is likely to require careful scoping and planning from the outset (ICN, 2016[6]) (OECD, 2018[4]).

Box 3. Examples of analytical techniques in market studies

Use of customer surveys in cloud service market study in Korea

In 2022, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) conducted a market study into cloud computing services. Building on information collection from major cloud service providers, for the second phase of the market study the KFTC conducted a large survey of customers and firms with business relationships with the cloud service providers. In total, 3,222 businesses were surveyed, including 2,276 customers, 925 distribution partners and 221 solution providers. The results provided the KFTC with an in-depth picture of the cloud services market in Korea, including the factors that might limit competition such as the ability for customers to switch providers and the complexity of the pricing system.

Econometric analysis of the road fuel sector in Sweden

In October 2024, the Swedish Competition Authority published the final report of its market study into the road fuel sector, which it undertook after being asked to consider the sector by the Swedish government. As part of its analysis, the authority collected a large amount of pricing data for individual fuel stations. In total, the dataset comprised over 9 million data points in total. The authority performed a series of econometric analyses on this dataset, seeking to enhance their understanding of competition in the sector and to test specific hypotheses.

Experimental behavioural research into supermarket consumer behaviour in New Zealand

Launched in November 2020, the New Zealand Government asked the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) to carry out a market study in the grocery sector. As part of the study, the NZCC commissioned the University of Waikato to undertake behavioural research into the behaviour of consumers. In particular, using laboratory experiments, the research sought to understand how consumer decision-making was affected by numerous complex discounting schemes. Gathering data from 180 research participants, the analysis demonstrated that additional schemes induced suboptimal decision making by consumers, as measured by their product selections even in the context of a lab setting. The analysis helped informed the NZCC’s findings in relation to supermarket’s promotional practices.

Source: OECD (2025) Competition in the Provision of Cloud Computing Services – Note by Korea, DAF/COMP/WD(2025)23 ; Konkurrensverket (2024), Competition in the road fuel sector – a report commissioned by the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, https://www.konkurrensverket.se/globalassets/dokument/informationsmaterial/rapporter-och-broschyrer/rapportserie/rapport_2024-7_english.pdf ;Tucker, S. and M. Cameron (2021), Consumer Decision-Making Under Complexity, University of Waikato, Prepared for the Commerce Commission, https://www.comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/260375/The-University-of-Waikato-Consumer-decision-making-under-complexity-May-2021.pdf

2.3.4. Fair process and procedures for confidential information are important

Even though market studies do not target specific firms and are not enforcement actions, as important tools that have the potential to impact future policy directions, competition authorities are likely to be mindful of the processes and procedures they employ throughout a market study. In particular, operating transparently and openly, while maintaining confidential information.

As well as acting as transparently as possible throughout a study, many authorities publish guidelines to provide information on how they will conduct market studies, giving information on expected procedures and types of analysis. There are numerous examples of market studies guidelines, which vary in length and detail.24

The steps that are necessary for a market study will depend on its scale and the broader institutional context. Nonetheless, in general it is a common, and good, practice to make the final outcomes of a market study public by publishing a final report, even if there are no recommendations. Further, to ensure that affected parties have the opportunity to provide relevant information before finalisation, publishing and consulting on draft reports can be useful. In any event, testing findings with stakeholders before publication is a good practice (ICN, 2016[5]).

As with other actions of competition authorities, ensuring that business secrets or other confidential information does not enter the public domain is often a legal responsibility, but is in any event an essential practice. Making confidential information public risks the reputation of the authority, the willingness of external parties to provide information in the future and, in some cases, can even undermine competition.25 To protect confidential information, most authorities therefore have procedures to ensure that public versions of reports do not contain such information, but nonetheless provide sufficient information to understand and assess the nature of the report’s findings and opinions (OECD, 2015[7]).

2.4. Market study limitations and challenges

Market studies are well-established and important parts of a competition authorities toolkit. Nonetheless, they exist within a suite of other tools and therefore should not be seen as a panacea to solve all problems. In some circumstances, other tools may be more appropriate.

2.4.1. Market studies are a vital tool but not a substitute for enforcement

While market studies can be a useful tool for providing information that can inform future enforcement strategies or actions, it is not likely to be a good substitute for enforcement action in many situations. In particular, where there are suspicions of breaches of competition law, undertaking an enforcement investigation may well be more appropriate.

The most appropriate tool for each issue depends on many considerations and the circumstances, if authorities have the freedom to choose.26 Nonetheless, competition enforcement is likely to hold several substantial benefits compared to a market study in such instances. For example, enforcement may present the best chance of remedying the underlying competition issues in a clear manner. It also likely opens up the potential for sanctions or penalties, an important part of competition policy which provides a deterrence for illegal activity.

Market studies may not be the best choice when competition issues appear to relate to conduct by a firm that holds a strong market position. In these cases, it may be less likely that a market-based approach will shine the light on competition issues in the sector and could risk being overly broad. Enforcement may allow a focussed approach on the key issues, potentially reducing the costs imposed on external parties.

2.4.2. Other tools may also be more appropriate

As noted above, what is the most appropriate tool for a given situation is a complex question that likely involves many factors and a series of judgements by a competition authority. Nonethless, while as a flexible tool, market studies can be used for a range of purposes, in some circumstances, other tools may be more appropriate.

One example could be when it is clear that a potential competition issue is caused by a piece of regulation, expected or implemented, or broader government policy, it may be more appropriate and efficient to utilise advocacy tools rather than a market study. Alternatively, a competition assessment might offer a narrower but more detailed focus on the effects of regulation. In such cases, market studies may provide useful information that assist the advocacy effort, but only after incurring costs to both the authority and stakeholders that participate. A tailored advocacy effort might be the best use of resources in such circumstances.

Similarly, when the questions for the potential market study are more general or research based, rather than relating to a specific market, other tools could be useful. For example, if the motivation is to consider whether competition is working well after a previous intervention or investigation, such as a merger, a targeted ex-post evaluation or assessment may also be worthy of consideration rather than a market study. As noted above, ex-post evaluations can allow the authority to focus on learning lessons from past undertakings, providing the opportunity for general improvement (OECD, 2016[10]). While some of the steps will be similar between market studies and ex-post evaluations, a targeted approach which includes a focus on a particular decision may be beneficial if there are reasons to think a lesson could be learnt from the experience.

2.4.3. Market studies are not without risks or costs

While the flexibility of the tool means that there is scope to adjust the scale of studies to reflect objectives and budgets, in most circumstances, a sufficiently detailed and robust market study requires significant time and resources. This has timing and cost implications for the authority which, like many public bodies, is likely to face constraints on both. Market studies may also require specific expertise to be undertaken effectively, which can increase their cost. For example, sector specific experts can provide useful assistance during inquiries, but may be difficult to find due to concerns about potential conflicts of interest.27

As noted above, market studies also have cost implications for stakeholders, including the costs of responding to information requests or consultations, as well as a potential increase in uncertainty for firms in the market. To avoid unnecessary costs to business, information requests should avoid duplication and relate closely to the purpose of the study.

Finally, market studies may also risk crowding out future actions in a market. While follow-on action can take place after a market study, there is perhaps a risk of fatigue from repeated actions within a sector. This can affect the firms that operate in the sector, including their customers and suppliers, making future actions in the sector more difficult as they become increasingly reluctant to voluntarily participate, mandating the need to use more formal measures. It also poses a risk to the reputation of the authority, should repeated actions within a sector lead to a perception of failure. Given that market studies do not in general provide the ability for competition authorities to instigate changes themselves, this reputational risk may be somewhat out of their control.

2.4.4. Ex-post evaluations of market studies could be more common

Aside from recommendations aimed at the authority itself, such as monitoring or enforcement, whether something happens following a recommendation is often out of the control of competition authorities.28 This has led some jurisdictions to implement market investigation regimes with remedial powers, discussed in more detail below.

As noted above, market studies can be a source of ex-post assessments themselves. More broadly however, as tools that can improve competition, market studies can be reviewed after the fact to understand how effective they were. Ex-post assessments are important tools that allow competition authorities to learn from the past and make improvements to their practices (OECD, 2016[10]).

Ex-post assessments appear most relevant for market studies when the study has made recommendations to improve competition in a sector, as the benefit of time can be used to assess if the recommendations were implemented and, if so, whether they worked. Whether market studies do in fact result in changes that improve competition is an interesting and relevant empirical question in the context of whether market investigation tools are worthwhile. However, ex-post assessment could also be useful more generally, for example to see if the information and analysis conducted has stood the test of time and, if not, why it has not. Another advantage of ex-post evaluations is that they can provide evidence on the impact of the action, for example the effects of improved competition on market outcomes, helping to demonstrate the benefits of competition and market studies.

There are examples of market studies being evaluated ex-post, even if some were undertaken some time ago. For example, competition authorities in the UK conducted several ex-post assessments of past market studies,29 and the Office of Fair Trading, a predecessor body to the current Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), published a separate evaluation strategy for market studies in 2006 (UK Office of Fair Trading, 2006[12]). More recently, Spain announced an ex-post assessment of previous market studies relating to medicines (CNMC, 2025[13]).

Despite the potential value of ex-post evaluations in relation to market studies, they appear to be relatively rare. In some respects, this is not surprising, as competition authorities must prioritise selectively given limitations on their resources. Market studies may also not be the most obvious choice for evaluation, with other tools traditionally being more likely to receive ex-post analysis, in particular mergers. Nonetheless, many competition authorities regularly undertake market studies and see it as an important tool in their inventory. Verifying that they are making an impact and that they are being run robustly and effectively is therefore of clear value for competition policy. Competition authorities may therefore wish to consider if it is possible to undertake more ex-post assessments of market studies in the future.

Given the competing demands for resources, it is worth considering if lower cost ex-post assessments might still add value. This could include considering whether a greater role for academia might be possible for example, even if there will inevitably be challenges with data access. Nonetheless, given that one of the common outcomes of market studies is recommendations, it may be possible to conduct relatively small-scale evaluations that seek to understand if those recommendations were acted upon and the reasons why, or why not.

Notes

← 1.  While this paper focusses on market studies conducted by competition authorities, some of the discussion will also be relevant to market study-style analysis by other bodies.

← 2.  Many jurisdictions have specific market study powers within their competition act, although as explained in the introduction, the name for these tools may vary significantly.

← 3.  For example, Chile obtained the power in 2016 (see Fiscalia Nacional Economica Guidelines on Market Studies, https://www.fne.gob.cl/en/market-studies/guidelines-on-market-studies/) and New Zealand in 2018 (see New Zealand Commerce Commission webpage on market studies, https://comcom.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/competition-studies).

← 4.  The 2015 OECD survey revealed that while only eight respondents did not have the authority to refuse a request from the government to conduct a market study, over half of them had conducted studies as a result of requests from government.

← 5.  As noted below, in some jurisdictions whether a study is initiated by the government or the competition authority can affect the legal powers available.

← 6.  In the 2015 OECD Survey, the vast majority of respondents noted that they had powers to request information, either through a specific legal instrument or through the general powers of the authority.

← 7.  See, for example, Parliament of Canada, C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-56.

← 8.  See Fiscalia Nacional Economica press release, 08/07/2025, https://www.fne.gob.cl/corte-suprema-confirma-rechazo-a-recursos-de-proteccion-presentados-por-tres-universidades-y-reafirma-atribucion-de-la-fne-para-solicitarles-informacion-en-el-marco-de-estudios-de-mercado/.

← 9.  For example, in Australia, market studies can be initiated by the government or self-initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), but the power to compel information is only available if the study is initiated by government. See the ACCC website on Market Studies: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/accc-priorities/compliance-and-enforcement-priorities#toc-market-studies.

← 10.  For example, in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) typically requires approval from the White House Office of Management and Budget if it intends to collect compulsory information from ten or more persons using orders under section 6(b) of the FTC Act. See OECD (2017), Methodologies for Conducting Market Studies - Note by the United States, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/market_studies.pdf.

← 11.  For example, as noted above, there have been changes in the legal framework for market studies in Canada since the previous survey.

← 12.  Competition authorities that possess compulsory information-gathering powers may not always use those formal powers and instead request information on a voluntary basis on some occasions. For some competition authorities, this is how the majority of information requests will be handled.

← 13.  In some circumstances however, even if entities are willing to provide information on a voluntary basis, there can be restrictions on their ability to do so, for example if the relevant information could be considered a subject to a promise of confidence such that providing it voluntarily could risk constituting a contractual obligation.

← 14.  For example, UK, France, EC, Portugal, Hungary, Japan, amongst others, have conducted studies of some form into the sector.

← 15.  For example, in New Zealand, section 51E of the Commerce Act 1986 requires that the relevant Minister must respond to the final report of a market study within a reasonable time after it was made publicly available. See New Zealand Commerce Act 1986, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/LMS114574.html.

← 16.  This could include proposals to enact new laws, for example as discussed in Box 2 regarding the Australian Digital Platforms Inquiry.

← 17.  For example, two recent sector studies by the Slovene Competition Authority found a series of facts that would allow it to act if needed after further investigation. See Slovene Competition Authority Press Release, Agencija zaključila dve raziskavi sektorja, 07/08/2025, https://www.varstvo-konkurence.si/informacije/novica/agencija-zakljucila-dve-raziskavi-sektorja-1/.

← 18.  Typically, market studies do not occur alongside enforcement action, as this can create complications and a blurring of purpose. Nonetheless, in some limited circumstances, it may be necessary to conduct enforcement action alongside more general market analysis tools.

← 19.  While competition authorities should remain open to this finding during a study to reduce the risk of confirmation bias, examples of a completely clean bill of health for a sector after a market study is quite rare. In part, as discussed further below, this is likely to reflect the fact that market studies can be resource intensive endeavours and are therefore likely to be focussed on areas where they are expected to derive the most benefit. This will typically involve assessing sectors where significant market-wide competition issues are suspected.

← 20.  In some cases, previous enforcement action may have been taken but appear to have been ineffective in fully addressing underlying competition issues.

← 21.  For example, in the UK, the CMA has a 12-month period to complete a market study. By contrast, in New Zealand, there is no pre-defined period for a market study, but the deadline for any particular study is to be defined in its terms of reference.

← 22.  A maximum of two monthly extensions are possible. See Hungarian Competition Authority, The Accelerated Sector Inquiry,https://www.gvh.hu/pfile/file?path=/en/resolutions/sectoral_inquiries_market_ analyses/market_analyses/Accelerated_Sector_Inquiry.pdf1&inline=true.

← 23.  In some circumstances, if permitted legally, information collected from firms in previous investigations may reduce the need to request duplicating information in a study. More generally, opening a dialogue with firms when requesting information can help extract the necessary information in the most efficient manner, as well as reducing the risk of unnecessarily onerous requests. It can also open the possibility of gathering more information than envisioned if a firm is invited to discuss the data it holds.

← 24.  For example in Canada (see Competition Bureau Canada, Market Studies Information Bulletin, September 2018, https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/market-studies-information-bulletin) and Chile (Fiscalia Nacional Economica Guidelines on Market Studies, https://www.fne.gob.cl/en/market-studies/guidelines-on-market-studies/).

← 25.  For example, if confidential plans to enter a market being revealed reduce its likelihood of occurring or if sharing of confidential information helps facilitate collusion.

← 26.  In some jurisdictions for example, competition authorities are obliged to investigate potential breaches of the law under some circumstances, such as following a complaint.

← 27.  Further, technical skills may be required for certain kinds of analysis, potentially requiring external consultants.

← 28.  Of course, competition authorities are likely to ensure policy makers are briefed with necessary information to boost the chances that recommendations are accepted.

← 29.  For example, see Office of Fair Trading (2005) Evaluating the impact of the 2005 OFT study into care homes for older people, Prepared for the Office of Fair Trading by GHK, May 2011, https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140402165014mp_/http:/oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/Evaluating-OFTs-work/OFT1322.pdf; or CMA (2015) Independent evaluation of the OFT’s 2006 market study into the Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI), A report by DotEcon for the CMA, March 2015, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5578ed915d74e6229d49/Evaluation _of_CUPI_study.pdf.