On June 24, as part of the XIV Saint Petersburg International Legal Forum 2026, a session titled “Antitrust Regulation in an Era of Global Change: From Adaptation to Proactive Leadership” took place. The director of the BRICS Competition Centre, Alexey Ivanov, spoke at the session. The discussion was moderated by Sergey Puzyrevsky, Secretary of State – Deputy Head, Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS Russia).
Antimonopoly regulation in Russia is evolving alongside the digitalization of the economy and the growth of online commerce, which requires updated approaches to competition policy and regulatory practice, noted the deputy head of FAS. According to him, the volume of e-commerce in Russia reached 11.5 trillion rubles in 2025, and the continued expansion of digital markets makes regulatory issues increasingly relevant. He emphasized the importance of the fifth antimonopoly package, which strengthened oversight of digital platforms, and also pointed to significant changes in judicial practice regarding competition and the powers of antimonopoly authorities. Puzyrevsky also addressed the issue of antimonopoly immunities, noting that an excessive number of exceptions to general regulation can weaken competition and strengthen dominant players.
“If the state does not regulate these relations, they are regulated by the strongest under free-market rules — those with a dominant position begin to use it.”
In the photo: Sergey Puzyrevsky © Roscongress
In his speech, Alexey Ivanov stressed that the introduction of antimonopoly immunities into Russian legislation disrupted the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining competition. In his view, the very concept of “immunity” creates a misleading impression that antimonopoly law is harmful, whereas in practice competition drives innovation, improves business efficiency, and reduces consumer costs.
Excessive protection of intellectual property has led to monopolization in certain sectors of the economy and the emergence of rent-based business models. Instead of encouraging the creation of new products and technologies, the current system often rewards the extraction of income from existing legal privileges. Ivanov noted that this imbalance is not typical for most of Russia’s partners in Eurasian integration: within the legal framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and several member states, including Kazakhstan, similar antimonopoly exemptions do not exist.
As an example of a more balanced approach, Ivanov pointed to China, where both intellectual property protection mechanisms and competition policy tools have been preserved in a more balanced way.
In the photo: Alexey Ivanov © Roscongress
“We urgently need to restore this balance. Right now we have a clear, absolutely anomalous distortion that is not consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which explicitly states that there can be no exemptions from antimonopoly regulation for certain categories of rights. The principle of competition protection, as repeatedly noted by the Constitutional Court, applies to all legal relations. However, we have effectively removed an entire category of economic life from this constitutional principle.”
He added that at the early stages of economic reforms, Chinese authorities refused to introduce special exemptions for IP rights holders despite recommendations from foreign experts. This experience shows that innovation can develop without weakening antimonopoly control, and that competition is not opposed to technological progress.
Ivanov also focused on the challenges of the digital economy, noting that platforms and ecosystems are becoming increasingly complex while regulators often struggle to keep pace. He therefore proposed expanding mechanisms for private enforcement, particularly through the development of class actions. In his view, consumers and businesses are often better positioned to understand the effects of anticompetitive behavior and should have easier and more effective access to judicial protection, complementing traditional antimonopoly enforcement tools.
“We need class actions with a fully functioning opt-out mechanism. By aggregating consumer initiative, we can rebalance the situation. Antimonopoly cases should become real economic disputes between a class of affected parties — consumers or small businesses — and large companies such as digital platforms. Our Chinese colleagues have already implemented this in their financial market.”
In the photo: Maksim Ermalovich © Roscongress
Maksim Ermalovich, Member of the Board (Minister) for Competition and Antimonopoly Regulation, Eurasian Economic Commission, addressed the monopolization of global digital markets and the growing role of states such as the U.S., China, and India in supporting their national tech companies. He noted that leading economies seek to protect domestic players, control strategic sectors, and reduce dependence on foreign platforms. As a response, he proposed developing supranational regulation of the platform economy and addressing the dominance of major tech companies over data.
In the photo: Alexey Dronov © Roscongress
Market economy principles and fair competition are fundamental to the functioning of the EAEU and directly linked to building a common market for goods, services, capital, and labor, recalled Alexey Dronov, Chairman, Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. He noted the Court’s position that violations affecting both cross-border and national markets of member states should be treated as a single infringement in the cross-border market and fall under the jurisdiction of the Eurasian Economic Commission.
Measures to promote innovation and protect competition in China were presented by Quanlong Zhao, Leading Researcher of Competition Policy and Assessment Center, State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). To address violations, the regulator has implemented the “Three Letters and One Notice” system, which includes a risk warning, a requirement to rectify violations, an administrative recommendation, and the possibility of launching an investigation with subsequent enforcement measures. He also emphasized that despite the development of intellectual property protection, Chinese regulators adhere to the principle that “innovation should not serve as a cover for eliminating competition.”
In the photo: Quanlong Zhao and Tadzio Schilling © Roscongress
Chief Executive Officer of the Association of European Businesses (АЕВ)Tadzio Schilling supported maintaining the current balance regarding antimonopoly immunities, stating that further restrictions are unnecessary, as existing regulation and FAS practice already allow for the suppression of unfair practices. He also noted that the draft “Bolar rule” for the Russian pharmaceutical sector does not clearly distinguish between permissible preparatory actions by generic manufacturers before patent expiry and potential infringements, creating legal uncertainty.
Denis Gavrilov, Partner, Denuo Law Firm, noted that antimonopoly immunities in intellectual property may hinder innovation in digital markets.
He explained that when platform technologies are protected by intellectual property rights, they effectively become goods traded through licensing agreements. However, he raised the question of what limits can be imposed on access requirements when a company holds a dominant position. Without such access, innovation may be hindered, as developers of third-party applications that depend on operating systems or related services would be unable to operate.
In the photo: Denis Gavrilov © Roscongress
He also noted that the fifth antimonopoly package requires FAS approval for transactions worth 7 billion rubles (approx. $91 million) or more. However, for digital platforms this threshold should be lowered, since even relatively small transactions can significantly increase market power through control over data and users, requiring earlier regulatory intervention.
The XIV Saint Petersburg International Legal Forum 2026 runs from June 24 to 26 under the motto “Time to Be in the Law.” More than 5,000 participants from over 80 countries are attending.
The Forum serves as a major platform for dialogue among members of the legal, business, and law-enforcement communities. It addresses a wide range of issues focusing on how law can better serve the interests of people and businesses. It also addresses improvements to law-enforcement practices, the promotion of legislative initiatives to strengthen the legal culture, and socioeconomic-related regulation in today’s world.
