Unfair competition law in Spain is governed by Law 3/1991 on Unfair Competition (Ley de Competencia Desleal, LCD), which prohibits acts contrary to the requirements of good faith in commercial relations — including systematic imitation, misappropriation of trade secrets, denigration, misleading practices, and comparative advertising that does not meet the conditions of Directive 2006/114/EC. Competition law (Derecho de la Competencia) is regulated by Law 15/2007 on Defence of Competition (Ley de Defensa de la Competencia, LDC), prohibiting anticompetitive agreements (Article 1), abuse of dominant position (Article 2), and controlling concentrations above the CNMC thresholds; fines for LDC infringements reach 10% of the total turnover of the economic group. Private enforcement of competition law damages before the commercial courts is available under Article 71 et seq. LDC, transposing EU Directive 2014/104/EU.
Competition law is one of the legal fields with the greatest direct economic impact and the least culture of preventive compliance among mid-sized Spanish businesses. CNMC fines can reach 10% of total group turnover. Private enforcement claims can exceed the administrative sanction in cost. And the reputational damage of being investigated, even without a sanction, can be irreversible. On the other hand, businesses that do not react to competitors’ unfair practices see their market position silently and progressively eroded.
The Unfair Competition Act: what it protects and prohibits
Law 3/1991 on Unfair Competition (LCD) is the legislation governing relationships between market competitors and protecting the proper functioning of competition, consumer interests, and the market in general. It is not administrative sanction law (that role belongs to Law 15/2007): it is civil law, enforced before the commercial courts through actions for cessation, correction, removal of effects and damages.
The most frequent acts in contentious practice are: acts of confusion (creating a risk of association with a competitor’s company, products or activities); acts of imitation (when imitation is systematic and aimed at hindering the competitor); acts of denigration (false or unnecessarily damaging statements about the competitor); misappropriation of reputation (using a competitor’s brand or renown to promote one’s own products); and trade secret violations (appropriation and use of confidential know-how). The general clause of Article 4 LCD operates as a safety net for atypical conduct that proves contrary to objective good faith in the market.
Law 15/2007 on Competition Defence: infringements and sanctions
The Competition Defence Act (LDC) and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibit anticompetitive conduct: collusive agreements between competitors (price cartels, market allocation, bid rigging) and abuse of dominant position (predatory pricing, refusal to supply, price discrimination, tying practices).
The CNMC is the body responsible for investigating and sanctioning these infringements in Spain. Its investigations may be initiated ex officio (based on its own indications), by complaint from an affected third party, or following a leniency application from one of the parties to a collusive agreement. The CNMC’s sanction procedure may last between eighteen months and four years, with significant reputational and operational impact throughout the process.
Sanctions are proportional to the gravity and duration of the infringement, with ceilings of 1% (minor infringements), 5% (serious infringements) and 10% (very serious infringements) of total group turnover, not just that of the infringing company. For international cartels, the fine is coordinated with European Commission sanctions, which apply the same ceilings.
Private enforcement: civil liability after the sanction
Directive 2014/104/EU on damages for competition law infringements (transposed into Spanish law by Royal Decree-Law 9/2017) established the legal framework for those affected by competition infringements to claim damages before the civil courts. A final CNMC or European Commission decision declaring an infringement is binding on the civil court as to the existence and nature of the infringement, greatly simplifying the claimant’s burden of proof. Alleged victims (direct or indirect purchasers who paid overcharged prices due to the cartel, competitors affected by the abuse) can claim full compensation for the damage suffered, including lost profits and interest. The five-year limitation period runs from when the infringement ceased and the claimant had sufficient knowledge.
Unfair competition and competition law advisory coordinates with the litigation and arbitration team for procedural representation before the commercial courts, with the commercial law team for review of distribution and agency contracts, and with the criminal compliance team when competition infringements have criminal implications (for example, public procurement bid rigging may constitute a corruption offence under Spanish criminal law).
Regulatory Framework: LCD, LDC, and the European Dimension
The Spanish unfair competition framework is governed by two distinct statutes that operate in parallel. Law 3/1991 on Unfair Competition (Ley de Competencia Desleal, LCD) is a private law instrument enforced through civil actions before the Mercantile Courts (Juzgados de lo Mercantil). It codifies a closed list of specific unfair acts in Articles 5 through 18, supplemented by the general clause of Article 4 (conduct contrary to good faith) and the consumer-directed prohibition of misleading and aggressive commercial practices transposed from Directive 2005/29/EC. Law 15/2007 on Defence of Competition (Ley de Defensa de la Competencia, LDC) is a public law instrument enforced by the CNMC administratively and supplemented by private enforcement before the Mercantile Courts under Articles 71 to 76 LDC, which transposed EU Directive 2014/104/EU on competition damages.
This dual structure means that many situations require strategy on both tracks simultaneously. A company that discovers a competitor is systematically copying its product packaging and price list may have an LCD action (act of imitation, Art. 11 LCD; act of confusion, Art. 6 LCD) and potentially also an LDC angle if the conduct is linked to exclusionary practices by a dominant player.
Sectors Most Affected
Technology and software: acts of imitation of interfaces and user experience design, misappropriation of trade secrets by departing employees, anticompetitive algorithm pricing, and market foreclosure through interoperability refusals. The Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (EU Regulation 316/2014) governs IP licensing arrangements and must be reviewed for LDC compliance before execution.
Consumer retail and e-commerce: misleading commercial practices (Art. 5 LCD), comparative advertising that fails to comply with Directive 2006/114/EC, and aggressive practices (Art. 8 LCD) in digital consumer environments. The CNMC has intensified scrutiny of major online marketplace operators.
Hospitality and real estate: systematic imitation of trade names, denigration of competitors in review platforms, and exclusivity arrangements that may foreclose independent accommodation or agency businesses.
Manufacturing and distribution: exclusive supply and distribution agreements containing hardcore vertical restrictions (resale price maintenance, passive sales restrictions), which are per se infringements under EU Regulation 2022/720 once the block exemption is lost.
Company Size Segmentation
Autónomos and microenterprises are the most frequent victims of unfair competition acts — imitation of trade names, copying of websites and product descriptions, systematic undercutting — and the least likely to take legal action due to cost concerns. Pre-litigation mediation under Organic Law 1/2025 and the Spanish CNMC’s complaint mechanism for LDC infringements offer accessible entry points. We handle LCD cessation actions and preliminary injunctions for these clients at proportionate cost.
SMEs face a wider range of risks: distribution agreement audits, private enforcement claims from customers affected by supplier cartels, and compliance programme design for public procurement processes where bid rigging exposure exists. The 2017 implementation of Directive 2014/104/EU opened private damages claims that SMEs as indirect purchasers are increasingly pursuing.
Corporate groups require integrated competition compliance programmes covering vertical and horizontal agreements, merger control notifications above CNMC thresholds, and coordination of defence strategies in multi-jurisdictional CNMC/European Commission parallel proceedings.
Worked Example: Injunctive Relief in a Trade Secret Case
A software company based in Madrid (annual revenue: EUR 8 million) discovered that three former employees who had joined a competitor had taken with them a proprietary algorithm used in its client-facing product. The competitor launched a substantially identical product six months after the employees transferred.
Timeline and outcome:
- Week 1: forensic analysis of evidence (email metadata, git commit logs, access records).
- Week 2: LCD claim filed before the Madrid Mercantile Court with simultaneous application for preliminary injunctions (Art. 11 LCD — systematic imitation; Art. 13 LCD — violation of trade secrets).
- Week 3: preliminary injunction granted, ordering immediate suspension of the competing product’s commercialisation pending full proceedings.
- Month 3: settlement agreement reached — competitor withdrew the infringing product, paid EUR 180,000 in damages, and signed a non-compete arrangement for the remaining duration of the former employees’ post-employment non-compete clauses.
The decisive factor was the speed of the preliminary injunction application and the quality of the forensic digital evidence. Courts increasingly accept electronic evidence in LCD cases; a competent digital evidence chain is essential to the strategy.
Common Mistakes We Fix
-
Reacting instead of acting. Most companies wait until a competitor’s conduct has already caused measurable damage before seeking advice. By that point, evidence may be degraded, prescription periods may be running, and the injunctive relief window may have narrowed. The correct approach is to document and quantify the conduct from the moment it is detected and take legal advice before issuing any commercial communication.
-
Treating LCD and LDC as separate matters. The same conduct often triggers liability under both statutes simultaneously. Filing only an LCD claim when there is also a strong LDC angle (for example, abuse of dominant position through predatory pricing) misses the opportunity to create additional leverage through the CNMC complaint track and private enforcement damages.
-
Signing distribution agreements without vertical restraints analysis. Most distribution agreement templates circulating in the Spanish market contain clauses that are per se infringements under EU Regulation 2022/720 — resale price maintenance, online sales restrictions, passive sales bans. These clauses create exposure to CNMC sanctions and void the entire agreement under Art. 1 LDC.
-
Implementing compliance programmes that do not cover competition. Most criminal compliance programmes designed for Art. 31 bis CP do not include adequate coverage of competition law risks (bid rigging, information exchanges, coordinated boycotts). A well-designed integrated compliance programme must address the full spectrum of relevant corporate offences.
-
Not considering the leniency programme early enough. When internal audits reveal that commercial practices may have had a collusive element — even inadvertently — the decision about whether and when to approach the CNMC with a leniency application should be taken with full knowledge of the strategic consequences. Acting before a co-participant does can mean the difference between full immunity and a substantial fine.
Geographic Coverage
Our competition law practice serves clients across Spain from offices in Madrid, Barcelona, Málaga, and Marbella, with coordinators in Las Palmas for Canarian-specific competition matters (ZEC/REF regulatory environment) and Murcia for agri-food and logistics sector cases. For multi-jurisdiction matters involving the European Commission or multiple national competition authorities, we coordinate with our Brussels correspondent network and with local counsel in the relevant Member States.
Actions under the LCD must be brought within three years of knowledge of the infringing party and circumstances, subject to a maximum absolute period of five years from the act. Private enforcement actions under LDC Article 72 must be brought within five years of cessation of the infringement and the claimant’s sufficient knowledge — with suspension during ongoing CNMC or European Commission proceedings.
Preliminary injunctions can be requested before or simultaneously with the main claim. The Madrid Mercantile Courts typically resolve preliminary injunction applications within one to four weeks where irreparable harm and urgency are properly evidenced. Emergency pre-claim injunctions (medidas cautelares urgentes ante causam) are available in exceptional circumstances and can be obtained within 72 hours where damage would otherwise be irreversible.
Five Questions a Sophisticated Buyer Should Ask Before Engaging a Competition Law Advisor
1. Does your team have experience on both the enforcement side and the defence side of LCD and LDC proceedings?
The most effective enforcement strategy anticipates the defences your opponent will deploy, and the most effective compliance programme is built by lawyers who know exactly how the CNMC tests it. Advisors who have only prosecuted competitors or only defended companies in CNMC investigations carry blind spots. Our team has managed matters on both sides of the table across LCD civil enforcement, CNMC sanction proceedings, private enforcement damages actions, and leniency applications.
2. What is your methodology for quantifying competition law damages in a private enforcement claim, and how do you manage expert evidence?
Damages quantification under Article 74 LDC requires one of three accepted methodologies: comparator-based (prices in markets unaffected by the infringement), time-series (price evolution before, during, and after the infringement), or cost-based (reconstruction of competitive pricing). Each requires different data, different economic modelling, and different expert capacity. We work with forensic economists who have provided expert reports in Spanish commercial courts and coordinated with European Commission damages cases — essential for credibility in complex private enforcement litigation.
3. Can you manage CNMC proceedings in parallel with LCD civil litigation, and how do you avoid creating inconsistencies across the two tracks?
Running administrative and civil proceedings simultaneously creates document discovery, confidentiality, and consistency risks that are not always appreciated by generalist litigators. CNMC proceedings generate documents that are protected from civil discovery under Article 46 of Directive 2014/104/EU. Positions taken before the CNMC can be used to challenge civil claims. Our team has parallel track experience and manages both processes from a single strategic plan, with consistent written positions across all forums.
4. How does the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (2022/720) affect our current distribution agreements, and are there any hardcore restrictions we should be aware of?
The 2022 VBER introduced significant changes to the treatment of dual distribution (now subject to Article 2(6) information exchange restrictions), online platforms (treated as buyers for exemption purposes), and wide Most Favoured Nation clauses (now excluded from the safe harbour). Companies with distribution agreements entered under the 2010 VBER had a transition period to 1 June 2023 to adapt. Any distribution agreement that has not been reviewed against the 2022 VBER since that date may contain clauses that are now outside the block exemption — generating CNMC exposure without the automatic exemption protection.
5. What does a genuinely effective competition compliance programme cost to implement, and what return does it produce?
A competition compliance programme for a mid-size company with significant distribution or procurement activity typically costs EUR 8,000 to EUR 20,000 to design, implement, and certify initially, with annual maintenance costs of EUR 3,000 to EUR 6,000. Against a potential CNMC fine of 5% to 10% of total group turnover for a serious or very serious infringement, the return is substantial. The programme also has a direct impact on the CNMC’s decision to initiate proceedings — a company with a credible, implemented compliance programme is statistically less likely to be investigated and more likely to negotiate commitments rather than sanction decisions if investigated.
Integration with the BMC Ecosystem
Unfair competition and competition law advisory integrates with three primary BMC practice areas. In corporate transactions, competition clearance for transactions meeting CNMC notification thresholds is managed in coordination with our corporate advisory and due diligence teams — the clearance timeline must be planned into the transaction schedule from day one. In intellectual property matters, acts of unfair competition frequently overlap with copyright, design rights, or patent infringement, and we coordinate with our intellectual property team to pursue both LCD cessation actions and IP claims in parallel. In criminal law contexts, when bid-rigging in public procurement constitutes corruption under Article 286 bis CP or when market manipulation carries criminal implications, we coordinate with our criminal compliance team to manage both the administrative and corporate criminal liability exposure simultaneously.
Success Metrics
Our competition law practice measures outcomes on four indicators: provisional injunctive orders granted within thirty days of filing (83% rate over five years), settlement rate in LCD cessation proceedings before first-instance judgment (71% settled pre-judgment), CNMC sanction outcomes relative to maximum exposure (average 31% of maximum sanction across managed proceedings), and annual competition compliance programme audit results (100% of programmes maintained without significant non-conformities). No client operating a BMC-designed compliance programme has received a CNMC very serious infringement classification in the last five years.
Contact our competition law team for a confidential preliminary assessment of your situation and the options available under Spanish law and EU competition law.