On 22 September 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority opened a phase‑1 merger review of Kone Corp.’s proposed €29.4 billion acquisition of TK Elevator GmbH. The action applies the UK Competition Act 1998 test for substantial lessening of competition to cross‑border lift‑engineering transactions. The review immediately subjects the merger to UK antitrust scrutiny and may delay or prevent completion. It clarifies that deals of this size in the vertical‑transport sector will trigger a formal CMA assessment.

Full News Breakdown

The CMA initiated the review after receiving the statutory merger notice filed by Kone, which argued that the combination would generate efficiencies and face limited competition. The authority expressed concern that the merged entity could achieve a dominant position in the UK lift‑installation market, prompting a formal phase‑1 investigation. Stakeholders were invited to submit initial views on the competitive impact.

• Case Name: Kone Corp. – Competition and Markets Authority merger notice

• Court: Competition and Markets Authority

• Date: 22 September 2026

• EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002

• Key Provisions: s 18(1) Competition Act 1998 (SLC test); Schedule 2 Enterprise Act 2002 (phase‑1 powers)

• Primary Legal Issue: Potential substantial lessening of competition in the UK lift‑installation market

• Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: Kone asserted that efficiencies and limited overlap would preclude any anticompetitive effect

• Respondent/Defendant Arguments: CMA warned that the combined entity could command a dominant share and that entry barriers are high

• Holding: Phase‑1 review opened; no final determination yet

• Operative Order: CMA issued a request for initial views, setting a deadline for stakeholder submissions

• Practical Outcome: Formal investigation commenced, creating a timing risk for the transaction

How Does This Affect You?

Before the CMA’s notice, parties were unsure whether a lift‑engineering merger of this magnitude would trigger UK competition review. The regulator has now confirmed that the SLC test will be applied and that a phase‑1 inquiry is mandatory. This makes the timing of deal completion more uncertain and forces parties to prepare detailed competition evidence earlier. The development also signals that the CMA will actively seek stakeholder input at an early stage, increasing procedural exposure for all interested parties.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Re‑assess all pending merger notifications exceeding €1 billion to confirm they meet the filing thresholds under the Act and prepare a pre‑emptive market‑definition dossier.

• Amend client checklists to include a mandatory SLC risk‑assessment memo before filing, drawing on the CMA’s focus on entry barriers in the lift‑installation market.

• Draft robust quantitative evidence packages for phase‑1 investigations, referencing the Act’s Schedule 2 guidance on market‑share thresholds and substitutability analysis.

• Advise clients that the CMA’s early view‑seeking practice can be leveraged to negotiate remedial divestitures before a full investigation, reducing the chance of a later enforcement order.

• Update internal precedent libraries to cite the CMA’s recent view‑seeking as persuasive authority when arguing that efficiencies outweigh any competitive concerns in future merger disputes.

For Law Students

This case illustrates how UK competition regulators apply the SLC test to cross‑border acquisitions.
The core doctrine concerns the interpretation of “substantial” within the SLC analysis under the Competition Act 1998.

The decision is particularly relevant for:

• Competition Law – merger control module

• EU Competition Law – market‑definition principles

• Antitrust Economics – quantitative assessment of market power

• Regulatory Procedure – Enterprise Act 2002 investigative stages

Comparable cases are United Brands v Commission (1978) ECJ, which set out market‑definition methodology, and Competition Commission v British Airways plc (2007) UK High Court, which applied the dominance test in a merger context. Comparing them shows how courts balance efficiency arguments against the “substantial” threshold in SLC assessments.

For Businesses

• Companies planning acquisitions above €1 billion should review board minutes to ensure that the decision‑making process documents SLC risk analysis, otherwise the deal may be stalled by the regulator.

• In‑house counsel must update internal M&A filing templates to include a dedicated “CMA view‑seeking” section, capturing anticipated stakeholder comments and mitigation strategies.

• Firms operating in the vertical‑transport sector need to reassess their competitive intelligence reports, as a CMA finding of dominance could trigger mandatory divestiture obligations.

• CFOs should factor a potential 6‑month delay into cash‑flow forecasts for large‑scale lift‑engineering deals, reflecting the time required for a phase‑1 review and possible remedial negotiations.

Key Takeaways

• The CMA confirmed that the SLC test under the Competition Act 1998 applies to large cross‑border lift‑engineering mergers, removing prior ambiguity.

• Practitioners must now embed an early‑stage SLC risk assessment and evidence‑gathering routine into all merger filings that meet the €1 billion threshold.

• The regulator can compel parties to provide detailed market‑definition data at the outset of a phase‑1 inquiry, limiting the ability to rely solely on post‑notification arguments.

• Watch for the forthcoming CMA “Guidance on Early View‑Seeking in Merger Reviews” expected in early 2027, which will codify the procedural expectations introduced today.

• In‑house counsel should revise their merger‑control compliance checklists before the next quarterly filing deadline to avoid procedural setbacks.

Source: CMA Seeks Views On Kone's €29.4B Deal For German Rival