Market research and market share data for merger control filings worldwide

We can support market-evidence work across merger-control regimes worldwide. The market-facing sections of notification forms ask broadly the same things everywhere: how the relevant market is defined, how big it is in value and volume, what share each named participant holds, and how those figures were derived. We build that evidence for filings before the CCI, the European Commission, the UK CMA, the US FTC and DOJ, China's SAMR, Australia's ACCC, Brazil's CADE, Japan's JFTC, Korea's KFTC, Canada's Competition Bureau, Saudi Arabia's GAC, South Africa's Competition Commission, COMESA and 30-plus other regimes. The practical constraint is usually data availability in the relevant market, not the jurisdiction.

Independent third-party market data is commonly used as supporting evidence in merger control work, and most notification forms expressly ask filers to state the source and basis of every estimate. Three things determine whether a given report is usable: it is independent of the parties, its method is written down and can be defended, and the licence permits you to file and share it. How the evidence should be presented in a specific filing is a question for counsel.

Three years is the common baseline — India's Form I, the EU Form CO and most national regimes work on that window. Long-form filings ask for more: India's Form II requires five years of market size, party and competitor shares, plus HHI and CR4 before and after the transaction. The US HSR form works differently again, asking for sales in the most recent year for each overlapping product together with a five-year look-back on prior acquisitions. If you are filing in more than one place, build to the longest window in the set.

Yes, and this is most of the filing work. The relevant market in a case is rarely the market a commercial report was written about — it is a product, application, customer group or catchment defined by the theory of harm. We build those bottom-up from company disclosures, statutory filings, customs and trade data, official statistics, association figures and primary interviews. Where the evidence base is thin, the assumptions and the confidence range go in the methodology annex rather than getting buried.

Yes, and it is the main reason cross-border deal teams call us. Inconsistent share figures across filings get noticed by case teams who talk to each other. We build one model on one market definition and cut it per jurisdiction — national, regional and EEA-wide views of the same underlying data, with the differences explained rather than accidental.

Yes. Pre-signing screening is a faster, lighter engagement: where the parties overlap product by product and geography by geography, indicative combined shares on each plausible definition, and the likely filing route in each jurisdiction. It is the cheapest point at which to discover a problem, and if the deal proceeds the same model is extended into the filing pack rather than rebuilt.

Form II is generally preferred where the parties' combined share exceeds 15% in a horizontally overlapping market, or 25% in a vertically linked or complementary market. It extends the historical series from three years to five, adds CR4 alongside HHI before and after the transaction, and requires evidence on entrants, exits and the likelihood of future entry. The CCI can also direct the parties to provide Form II information after a Form I has been filed — which is a good reason to build the five-year series up front.

A single-user licence permits internal use by one named individual only. If the report will be annexed to a filing, submitted to an authority, or shared with co-counsel, economists or the counterparty's advisers, you need an enterprise licence built for external distribution. Where a matter runs across firms and jurisdictions, enterprise is effectively the only workable option, and the specific rights are written into the licence at scoping.

Yes, and it is usually the most valuable part of the engagement. Forms require you to set out every plausible alternative product and geographic market and to justify accepting or rejecting each. We size the alternatives so the choice is evidenced rather than asserted, and so you can see in advance where the share position is fragile.

An existing report extended with a longer historical series and additional share splits typically takes three to five working days from confirmation. A market built from scratch on a narrow relevant market takes two to four weeks. If a notification deadline is already running, say so on the first call and we will tell you honestly what is achievable.

No. We are the data layer beneath your economists, not a substitute for them. We supply market size, share and definition evidence, a written methodology annex, a source register and named analyst availability for written clarification of sources and method. Economic modelling, submissions and testimony sit with your competition economists.

Yes. Foreign investment screening, the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, sector regulators, public procurement reviews and trade remedy proceedings all turn on the same underlying evidence: market size, domestic industry structure, import penetration, participant shares and the counterfactual. The framing changes; the research does not.

We sign NDAs on request and do not require the identity of the parties or the transaction to build a market. Before scoping we will confirm whether we hold a current commissioned engagement with a participant in the market concerned, so you can assess independence before you rely on the work. Engagements are not referenced in client-facing material without written consent.