Category: 3. Business

Quantitative estimates of metabolic costs in this study are based on the ATP that is required to fuel the Na⁺/K⁺ pump. This includes the cost of the restoration of sodium and potassium ions that flow to support action potentials, resting potentials, and postsynaptic potentials.

The co-expression of pumps and sodium leak channels (see Figure 1) and even an ideal voltage dependence of the pump (see Figure 6) have a direct impact on the metabolic cost related to this ATP-fueled Na⁺/K⁺ pump. By integrating the net pump current over time and dividing by one elemental charge, we find the rate of ATP that is consumed for either compensatory mechanism. When compensating a relatively `constant’ Na⁺/K⁺-pump current with sodium leak channels, the amount of ATP spent on pumping sodium is 33% higher than it would be for a voltage-dependent pump (see Equation 22, Methods).

The impact that either of these compensatory mechanisms has on the whole cell, however, also depends on other costs, such as those related to cellular maintenance. A voltage-dependent pump would save costs related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping, which, based on energy budgets formerly estimated for AP-firing neurons in the brain (Howarth et al., 2012), is likely to be one of the main contributors to the total metabolic cost (in cerebellar cortex, for example, amounting to >50% of the total metabolic cost). Because the peak load of a voltage-dependent pump, however, is four times higher than a relatively constant pump, four times more Na⁺/K⁺ pumps would need to be expressed on the cell membrane. To be more exact, if a single pump translocates around 450 sodium ions per second (Gennis, 2013), 8×10¹⁰ pumps are required to support constant pumping, and 32×10¹⁰ pumps are needed to support voltage-dependent pumping. If one assumes the electrocyte is a perfect cylinder, and its membrane surface were smooth (an approximation not too realistic), the total available membrane space would be 3.4 mm² (Ban et al., 2015). If the Na⁺/K⁺ATPase expression density would be as high as in the outer medulla of rabbit kidney (Deguchi et al., 1977), where ATPases are densely packed, a smooth electrocyte membrane would `fit’ 4.2×10<sup>10</sup> pumps, which is two times less than necessary for constant pumping, and eight times less than required for voltage-dependent pumps. According to our model, therefore, the invaginations on the posterior side of the membrane (Ban et al., 2015) are necessary to drastically increase membrane area in order to support the large number of pumps required for ion restoration. This, in turn, would increase the `housekeeping’ costs of the cell related to turnover of macromolecules, axoplasmic transport, and mitochondrial proton leak, which in different brain areas are estimated to occupy 25–50% of the total energy budget (Kety, 1957; Attwell and Laughlin, 2001). As there is insufficient data on the ratio between costs related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping and `housekeeping costs’, and the fraction of housekeeping costs related to Na⁺/K⁺-pump maintenance, a quantitative comparison of the metabolic cost of the two compensatory mechanisms remains challenging. Future experiments that would aid in answering this question could involve blockage of electrocyte Na⁺/K⁺ pumps and comparing oxygen consumption to a control where electrocyte Na⁺/K⁺ pumps are functional.

Another compensatory mechanism that was discussed in this article is extracellular potassium buffering (see Figure 4), which in electrocytes likely occurs via its extensive capillary beds (Ban et al., 2015) that transport excess extracellular potassium to the kidney. Assuming that an equal amount of ATP is needed in total to fuel Na⁺/K⁺ pumps, either all in the electrocyte, or partly at the electrocyte and partly in the kidney, the additional costs incurred by the extracellular potassium buffer would be dominated by the structural and maintenance costs of the capillaries. We are, however, not aware of an accurate estimate of these costs, especially since the capillaries also have additional functions such as providing other resources and transporting other waste products.

Lastly, a strong synapse was said in the article to support cell entrainment under fluctuating pump currents (see Figure 5), but also to incur additional metabolic costs. In the example shown in the main text, however, baseline Na⁺/K⁺ costs are smaller for a stronger synapse; see Figure 5B (weak synapse) vs. Figure 5E (strong synapse). This is the case because, similarly as shown in Figure 7B in Joos et al., 2018, a weak synapse elicits smaller postsynaptic potentials, which lowers the AP peak with respect to a stronger synapse. To make a fair comparison on the metabolic costs between a weak and a strong synapse, voltage-gated sodium conductances were scaled to maintain a peak amplitude of 13 mV (see Table 2, Methods). For weak synaptic stimulation, a higher voltage-gated sodium conductance was needed to reach this peak amplitude, which, due to the excess inflow of sodium through these voltage-gated channels, resulted in an increase of 10% in ATP consumption by Na⁺/K⁺ pumps with respect to strong synaptic stimulation.

There are, however, additional costs that scale with synapse strength, such as the restoration of presynaptic calcium, the restoration of (presumably small amounts of) postsynaptic calcium, and neurotransmitter packaging and recycling. In the brain, these costs are estimated to be 0.18–1 times the cost of fueling the Na⁺/K⁺ pumps that restore the sodium ions that traverse neurotransmitter receptor channels (Howarth et al., 2012; Liotta et al., 2012). In our model, merely 11% of sodium ions enter the electrocyte via neurotransmitter receptor channels in the strong-synapse case. Assuming that the above-mentioned additional costs are equal to those related to Na⁺/K⁺ pumping of neurotransmitter-related currents (according to the upper bound estimate by Liotta et al., 2012), a weak synapse (half the size of the strong synapse) would incur a cost increase of 5.5% and a strong synapse would incur an increase of 11%. This would, however, still result in a 4% higher cost efficiency of a strong synapse compared to a weak synapse.

There is reason to believe that the fraction of the energy budget related to the restoration of presynaptic calcium, the restoration of (presumably small amounts of) postsynaptic calcium, and neurotransmitter packaging and recycling in the electrocyte could differ significantly from those estimated by Howarth et al., 2012; Liotta et al., 2012. First, to the best of our knowledge, such energy budget estimations have only been done for neurons active at significantly lower firing rates than electrocytes (by a factor of approximately 100), and, second, operate mostly under the glutamate neurotransmitter, while electrocyte receptor channels are activated by acetylcholine. An accurate estimate of the impact of synapse strength on the electrocyte energy budget, therefore, requires quantitative data on the rapid dynamics of acetylcholine production in the presynaptic neuron and recycling in the synaptic cleft, which, currently, is also hard to estimate.

Supported by the above-mentioned considerations, we argue that the impact of mechanisms that compensate for Na⁺/K⁺-pump currents on an electrocyte’s metabolic cost could be significant. Due to the absence of more detailed experimental quantification, a plausible quantitative cost estimate remains beyond the scope of this article. We note, however, that although the metabolic costs of potassium buffering and synaptic strength are likely to differ between cell types, the energetic estimate of the respective ATP requirements by Na⁺/K⁺ pumps for constant vs. voltage-dependent pumping generalizes and extends to all excitable cell types (as is discussed in the Discussion in the main text, see ‘Generalization to other cell types’).

Collinear AI, Robin AI, and Vody are just a few of the customers that have started simplifying model customization with SageMaker AI’s new capabilities. For example, Collinear AI, an AI improvement platform built for enterprise genAI, saved weeks using SageMaker AI. Soumyadeep Bakshi, co-founder, Collinear AI, said, “Fine-tuning AI models is critical to creating high-fidelity simulations, and it used to require stitching together different systems for training, evaluation, and deployment. Now with Amazon SageMaker AI’s new serverless model customization capability, we have a unified way that empowers us to cut our experimentation cycles from weeks to days. This end-to-end serverless tooling helps us focus on what matters: building better training data and simulations for our customers, not maintaining infrastructure or juggling disparate platforms.”

A Memorandum of Understanding between AI4LAM and the Europeana Foundation was signed in London during the Fantastic Futures conference on 3 December 2025 by our General Director, Harry Verwayen, who also proudly sits on the AI4LAM Board of Directors.

By pooling efforts and offering a platform for sharing knowledge and good practice, AI4LAM envisions a future where the collective strength of libraries, archives and museums drives innovation in responsible AI, supporting cultural development and societal growth.

AI4LAM brings together leading organisations in AI research, implementation, education and innovation, as well as those shaping technology strategies and policies. Members include long-standing Europeana partners and data providers such as the National Library of Norway, the Rijksmuseum, the British Library, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the National Library of the Netherlands, Music Archive Finland, the Time Machine Organisation, the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision and Stanford University. We also look forward to establishing new connections with international institutions, including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, leveraging AI4LAM’s global reach.

This milestone builds on successful past cooperation, including the Alignment Assembly on Culture for AI, a collective intelligence and consultation process taking place within the common European data space for cultural heritage since last May. Through this Alignment Assembly, we have collectively identified points of consensus and agreement on the use, adoption and development of AI in our sector – but also important dilemmas, uncertainties and shared challenges. Addressing these effectively requires close collaboration across the entire ecosystem, and joining AI4LAM will mutually strengthen our collective capacity.

“Just as the Europeana community served as a blueprint for data sharing infrastructures in Europe, the data space for cultural heritage can serve as an example and a leading voice shaping critical adoption and engagement with AI. This is the vision we are working toward — but we cannot achieve it alone. We need to join forces with like-minded organisations and networks, both at European level and globally. AI4LAM will play an essential role in strengthening our collective intelligence and capacity to drive positive change. Together, we commit to accelerate and advocate for responsible AI in cultural heritage” said Harry Verwayen, General Director of the Europeana Foundation.

To mark this occasion, we are releasing an Impulse Paper: Publishing cultural heritage data in the Age of AI, commissioned by the Europeana Foundation to the Open Future Foundation to spark discussion on a key topic that emerged from our Alignment Assembly: generative AI and its implications for data sharing in the cultural heritage sector. The paper outlines the relevant technological and legal context, and proposes a differentiated access model for cultural heritage data. It was presented at the Fantastic Futures conference by our General Director, Harry Verwayen, who invited participants to reflect on the ideas put forward in this Impulse Paper, as we will be gathering feedback and insights in the coming months.

The Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) today announced the launch of the Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative, a research initiative to advance finance and insurance solutions that benefit U.S. farmers and ranchers. The Research Collaborative will solicit initial research proposals in January 2026. Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to register for an interactive webinar on December 11, 2025 at 2 pm EST that will provide an opportunity for researchers to build new relationships with industry partners.  

“U.S. farmers are facing increasingly challenging weather and economic conditions, making it more difficult to consistently and profitably grow the crops that sustain both their livelihoods and our food system,” said Vincent Gauthier, Senior Manager for Climate-Smart Agriculture at EDF. “This critical research collaborative will help shape financing and insurance solutions that enable farmers to invest in practices that boost their resilience and access the coverage they need to support this transition.”  

The Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative will support finance and insurance innovations that provide producers and agribusinesses with science-based strategies that strengthen soil health, improve water use efficiency, and build farmer resiliency to extreme weather events.  

“Collaboration between researchers and industry partners is a cornerstone of this initiative,” said FFAR Scientific Program Director Allison Thomson. “We are looking for collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches to develop actionable science-backed financial solutions that work for U.S. farmers and ranchers.”  

Key priorities for the Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative include:  

• Financing the Transition to Resilient Practices: Evaluating returns on investment and risks of adopting resilient practices to inform agricultural lending solutions for these practices.
• Aligning Resilient Practices with Risk and Insurance Outcomes: Assessing how resilient practices impact yield stability, production risk, and insurance outcomes to guide insurance solutions.
• Valuing Resilience in Farmland and Mortgage Markets: Analyzing how resilient practices affect land value, collateral, and loan repayment capacity to inform appraisal and underwriting models. 

The Resilient Agriculture Finance and Insurance Research Collaborative will launch its request for proposals on January 15, 2026. More funding opportunity details will be available on the Cornell Atkinson website.  

“This effort is about doing research differently. We’re bringing researchers and industry leaders together. At Cornell Atkinson we see this as essential to moving research to impact,” said Alan Martinez, Climate and Nature Finance Strategic Partnerships Lead at Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability.   

Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research 

The  Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research  (FFAR) builds public-private partnerships to fund bold research addressing big food and agriculture challenges. FFAR was established in the 2014 Farm Bill to increase public agriculture research investments, fill knowledge gaps and complement the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s research agenda. FFAR’s model matches federal funding from Congress with private funding, delivering a powerful return on taxpayer investment. Through collaboration and partnerships, FFAR advances actionable science benefiting farmers, consumers and the environment.  

Connect:  @FoundationFAR 

Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability 

The Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability is the hub for sustainability research at Cornell University. By connecting Cornell research with government agencies, nonprofits, and industry partners, the center accelerates work to reduce climate risks, advance energy transitions, strengthen food security, and support One Health. Grounded in a research-to-impact mission, Cornell Atkinson maximizes the university’s influence on public opinion, corporate practices, product innovation, and government policies related to sustainability.  

Connect: Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, @AtkinsonCenter 

Environmental Defense Fund 

With more than 3 million members, Environmental Defense Fund creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships to turn solutions into action. 

Connect: https://www.edf.org/ 

Viasat (VSAT) is back in focus after a one two punch of product momentum and new client wins, from upgraded NexusWave maritime connectivity to a fresh in flight Wi Fi deal with Azerbaijan Airlines.

See our latest analysis for Viasat.

Those connectivity wins come after a volatile stretch for the stock, with a roughly 252 percent year to date share price return and a 263 percent one year total shareholder return, suggesting momentum is very much rebuilding around the Viasat story.

If you like how Viasat is repositioning around connectivity demand, it could be worth scanning high growth tech and AI stocks for other tech names riding similar structural growth trends.

With the shares up more than 250 percent this year but still trading at a steep intrinsic discount and only a modest gap to Wall Street targets, is Viasat a mispriced turnaround, or is the market already banking on years of growth?

With Viasat closing at $33.57 against a narrative fair value of $36.25, the implied upside leans modestly positive, hinging on improving profitability and capital discipline.

The focus on operational efficiency, portfolio review, and progressing integration with Inmarsat, in addition to CapEx peaking with the ViaSat-3 program, sets up Viasat for positive free cash flow inflection, deleveraging, and earnings improvement as major investment cycles wind down. Rising government and commercial interest in bridging the digital divide, especially in underserved and remote areas, provides a multi-year tailwind through subsidy programs and public/private contracts, supporting stable, recurring revenue streams and margin visibility.

Read the complete narrative.

Want to see the math behind that upside call? The narrative leans on slower but steady revenue gains, sharply better margins, and a future earnings multiple that might surprise you.

Result: Fair Value of $36.25 (UNDERVALUED)

Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.

However, execution risk around ViaSat-3 spending and intensifying competition from Starlink and Project Kuiper could quickly undermine the turnaround narrative that investors are embracing.

Find out about the key risks to this Viasat narrative.

If this take does not quite match your view, or you would rather dig into the numbers yourself, you can build a custom storyline in just a few minutes, starting with Do it your way.

A great starting point for your Viasat research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

Before you move on, consider scanning a few targeted opportunities our community keeps returning to for growth, income, and innovation.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include VSAT.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

The tunnelling process for The Lower Thames Crossing is due to begin in 2028.

National Highways said negotiations to buy one of the world’s largest tunnelling machines were now under way.

It would be capable of digging 60 metres below the Thames, creating a new road link between Essex and Kent, and now enables the project to secure private sector investment to deliver the remainder of the construction.

Next summer, work on the northern tunnel entrance where the tunnel machine will begin its journey will get under way.

Matt Palmer, the Highways Agency’s executive director of the Lower Thames Crossing project, said the crossing was now on track to be built “in the early 2030s”.

The 16.4-metre-wide tunnel boring machine will excavate one of the widest tunnels in the world and it will create the longest road tunnel in the UK.

Tenders are now being welcomed from prospective suppliers who could build the tunnel boring machine.

On 20 November 2025 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its three-year strategy for 2026 to 2029. The strategy, which aims to promote competition and the protection of consumers with the ultimate goal of driving economic growth and improving household prosperity, was launched by Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a speech at the Chatham House Competition Policy Conference.

Background

Cardell explained that the strategy, which is founded on “reality, responsibility and results”, continues the “journey of transformation” that the CMA has been on to embed the government’s growth mission into its work, and that the “urgent need to stimulate growth” combined with “an opportunity to forge a fairer, more prosperous future for the UK” was the reality in which the strategy was situated. Addressing head-on the debate on the question of the CMA’s independence, particularly in the months following Marcus Bokkerink’s removal as Chair, Cardell maintained a strong line – noting that beyond those statutory questions which the CMA must decide independently and where the CMA’s political independence is “unchanged”, it was important to remember that “[w]e are a government department, albeit non-Ministerial. We are not the independent state of the CMA. And competition policy is part of a wider economic policy”.

The five objectives

It is in this context of explicit recognition of the potential impact of the CMA’s competition and consumer protection regimes on the economy, and the pledge purposefully and pragmatically to “play our part in helping to build a more resilient and dynamic economy that works for people across the UK”, that the strategy presents its five core objectives. These are:

1. Promoting effective competition: the CMA pledges to remain a strong advocate for and independent enforcer of competition across the UK economy, removing barriers to competition whilst also increasing its active support and promotion of legitimate, pro-growth business collaboration. The strategy explains that this will drive growth by enabling businesses of all sizes to thrive, scale and attract investment whilst also improving household prosperity by ensuring consumers are receiving fair prices and better quality goods and services.
2. Championing consumers: whilst Cardell noted that championing consumers is “at the heart of everything we do”, this objective is specifically aimed at improving household prosperity by protecting consumers in their everyday transactions whilst also promoting growth by strengthening consumer confidence. Publishing the strategy just two days after the launch of the first investigations under the enhanced consumer protection regime (as covered in our blog here), with this objective the CMA pledges to continue “supporting businesses to comply, alongside tough enforcement where it really matters to people”.
3. Helping government to deploy tailored pro-competition interventions to support growth, innovation and investment-related policies: in something of a “gear-shift”, the CMA pledges to “act as much as an enabler of competition as an enforcer of it” by stepping up its statutory role as advisor to the government and public authorities. In particular, the CMA pledges to prioritise action on public procurement, which Cardell spotlighted as an area where the CMA has developed tools to scan bidding data and identify illegal activity at scale. This, together with central government departments and other public bodies, could deliver “very substantial public savings and safeguard the level playing-field for fair-dealing businesses”.
4. Fostering a UK regulatory landscape that attracts investment and instils business confidence: the CMA promises to continue to implement its “4Ps” framework (Pace, Predictability, Proportionality and Process – as covered in our previous newsletter) which aims to foster business and investor confidence and drive growth, reinforcing the UK as an attractive market in which to do business and invest.
5. Prioritising UK interests: in its final objective, the CMA commits to delivering tangible benefits for the UK across the breadth of its work. First, this will involve consciously prioritising markets and issues that generate the greatest positive impact for the UK’s economy, citizens and businesses, helping to secure a more stable and prosperous future. Second, the CMA pledges to leverage the unique design of the UK’s competition and consumer protection regimes to achieve results that make a real difference whilst building a global reputation for a purposeful and pragmatic approach.

Conclusion

With this three-year strategy, the CMA pledges to “deliver a step-change in how we perform as an organisation”. Whilst the objectives read broadly consistently with the CMA’s other public statements since launching the “4Ps” framework, the emphasis on the CMA’s advisory role suggests a slight shift in approach. Progress under this new strategy will be tracked carefully via a new suite of KPIs and reported annually through the CMA’s Impact Assessments.

Other developments

ANTITRUST

Keeta’s commitments with the Hong Kong Competition Commission: a two-step resolution

On 12 November 2025, the Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC) announced that Keeta – a subsidiary of Chinese food delivery platform, Meituan – had agreed to amend certain terms in its agreements with partnering restaurants that potentially undermined the Competition Ordinance.

The HKCC identified three contractual provisions that raised red flags, including Keeta: (1) charging partnering restaurants lower commission rates if they worked exclusively with Keeta; (2) restricting restaurants from, or imposing penalties on restaurants for, moving away from exclusive arrangements with Keeta; and (3) preventing restaurants from offering lower prices on their own channels or competing food delivery platforms.

Keeta entered the Hong Kong market in May 2023 with limited services; by December 2023, the HKCC determined that Keeta’s market share exceeded 10%. Less than two years later, the HKCC stated in its announcement that Keeta likely has a certain degree of market power in the online food delivery market in Hong Kong. As such, the HKCC considered these provisions could hinder entry and expansion by new or smaller platforms and generally reduce consumer choice and soften competition in the market.

To address the HKCC’s concerns, Keeta agreed to a novel two-step process:

• Step one: Keeta will voluntarily amend the relevant terms in its agreements with partnering restaurants, in a bid to bring immediate benefits to restaurants and consumers.
• Step two: Keeta will, in parallel, offer a formal commitment to the HKCC under section 60 of the Competition Ordinance. This commitment will mirror the voluntary arrangements offered by Keeta and be subject to a public consultation by the HKCC ahead of acceptance. Once accepted, the amendments become legally binding and specifically enforceable, and the HKCC may not commence or continue an investigation in relation to the contractual provisions covered by the commitment. 

This outcome is complementary to the commitments the HKCC agreed with Foodpanda and Deliveroo back in 2023 – see our previous newsletter articles here and here. The HKCC gave particular recognition to Keeta’s willingness to voluntarily amend the contractual provisions ahead of the formal commitment (which will inevitably take longer given the procedural formalities required). This latest resolution also underscores the HKCC’s focus on curbing practices that restrict competition in fast-growing digital markets. With food delivery now an essential part of daily life for many in Hong Kong, the HKCC has signalled that it is closely monitoring developments in this sector and will take further action where necessary.

GENERAL COMPETITION

European Commission conditionally approves ADNOC’s acquisition of Covestro under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation

On 14 November 2025, the European Commission conditionally approved Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s (ADNOC) €11.7 billion acquisition of Covestro under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). ADNOC is a State-owned oil and gas producer based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Covestro is a chemicals producer based in Germany. The decision followed a four month in-depth investigation opened on 28 July 2025 after the Commission had preliminary concerns that the foreign subsidies granted by the UAE could distort the EU internal market. This is the second conditional approval decision under the FSR regime so far – for details on e&’s acquisition of PPF, see a previous edition of our newsletter.

The Commission’s in-depth investigation found that both parties received foreign subsidies from the UAE which were liable to distort the EU internal market. These included an unlimited state guarantee to ADNOC, a committed capital increase by ADNOC to Covestro, and certain advantageous tax measures. 

The Commission concluded that these foreign subsidies could have negatively affected competition in the acquisition process – notably through deterring other investors who could not compete with the capital advances made to Covestro. Moreover, such subsidies would likely have led to a distortion of competition in the internal market after the acquisition. Under the FSR, unlimited state guarantees are considered ‘most likely to distort the internal market’. The Commission noted that the foreign subsidies would have “artificially improved the capacity of the merged entity to finance its activities in the EU internal market and increased its indifference to risk”. Consequently, the merged entity could have engaged in “more aggressive investment strategies” than without the subsidies, to the detriment of other market participants and competitive conditions in the internal market.

The clearance is therefore subject to a set of commitments offered by ADNOC and approved by the Commission following a consultation. Under these commitments ADNOC offered to:

• Adapt its articles of association to ensure they did not depart from ordinary UAE insolvency law (and thereby remove the unlimited State guarantee); and
• Make Covestro’s sustainability-related patents available to other market players on transparent terms and conditions.

The Commission deemed these commitments, which will be in place for 10 years (with the exception of the patent-related commitments, which will last for the duration of the agreements concluded within that period), sufficient to address its competition concerns. The Commission said the measures effectively remove the distortions and may foster innovation spill-overs in the chemical sector.

Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera said in a statement: “Our review confirmed that the commitments offered by ADNOC effectively address the potential negative effects by allowing market participants to access key Covestro patents in the field of sustainability. Clear, pre-defined access to these patents will enable others to innovate and advance research in an area that is critical for Europe’s future”.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

European Commission adopts 2030 Consumer Agenda

On 19 November 2025, the European Commission published its 2030 Consumer Agenda, setting out its “strategic plan” for consumer policy for the next five years. The Agenda seeks to strengthen consumer protection, competitiveness, and sustainable growth and aims to consolidate legislative and enforcement developments across the following four key areas:

1. Completing the single market for consumers

The Agenda sets an action plan to tackle obstacles that hinder consumers from reaping benefits from the single market, mainly in the areas of access to goods and services – particularly financial services, mobility and transport. To address these concerns, the Agenda outlines an intention to, among other things, evaluate the operation of the Geo-Blocking Regulation, develop tools against unjustified Territorial Supply Constraints, and enhance access to cross-border financial services, including the possibility of opening a savings and investment account in another Member State.

2. Digital fairness and consumer protection online

The Agenda notes that the digital fairness fitness check of EU consumer law identified shortcomings with the current digital market environment such as addictive design features, minors being particularly vulnerable online consumers, and online frauds being one of the fastest growing crimes online. To address these concerns, the Commission will propose a 2026 Digital Fairness Act to tackle harmful online market practices to strengthen the protection of consumers in the digital environment against practices such as dark patterns, addictive design features, or unfair personalisation that take advantage of consumers’ vulnerabilities. In addition, the Commission intends to simplify rules for businesses and explore how digital solutions can reduce administrative burdens for companies and improve access to information for consumers. The Commission also intends to publish an action plan for online fraud.

3. Sustainable consumption

The Commission is committed to protect consumers against greenwashing, promote a wider offer of sustainable goods, and facilitate the durability and repairability of products. The Commission has also indicated that it will support the circular economy and promote the return of goods that are no longer used, second-hand markets and innovative circular start-ups.

4.  Effective enforcement and redress

Noting shortcomings with the current Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation such as lengthy procedures and lack of national resources, the Commission will prioritise the review of the Regulation to strengthen enforcement and help level the playing field for compliant businesses, shielding them from unfair competition.

This Agenda follows on from the Consumer Agenda published in 2020, and a consultation on the 2030 consumer priorities launched by the Commission in May 2025.