Short answer
Four decisions in the indexed Konkurences padome collection give especially useful examples. LV-KP-112 addresses communications among advertising agencies about prices and future conduct. LV-KP-211 concerns detailed sales-data exchange among paper wholesalers, including through an association. LV-KP-793 and LV-KP-799 apply the same independence principle to public procurement, where nominal competitors shared bid-preparation or participation information.
Their common idea is simple: each business must decide its market conduct independently. A prohibited concerted practice does not require a signed cartel agreement. Direct or indirect contact can be enough when it discloses intended conduct, reduces uncertainty about a competitor's future behaviour, or makes supposedly independent bids merely imitate competition.
That does not make every market-information exchange unlawful. The content, age, detail, market coverage, recipient group, reciprocity and practical ability to predict competitors all matter. The four decisions are representative examples from the indexed collection, not an exhaustive list.
The decisive compliance task is therefore to preserve genuine uncertainty between rivals while documenting why any shared dataset cannot expose individual strategy.
The four decisions at a glance
LV-KP-112: future pricing and planned conduct
The , officially numbered E02-41 in file P/05/06/3, began from information suggesting an arrangement among advertising and media agencies to raise service prices.
Its legal discussion is valuable beyond that market. The Council read Section 11 of the Competition Law as covering not only formal bilateral or multilateral contracts but also cooperation reached through informal understanding. It identified price information and the conditions by which prices are formed as especially sensitive.
The decision explains the independence rule in practical terms. A firm may observe market conditions and adapt to them. What it may not do is use contacts whose object or effect is to influence an actual or potential competitor, or reveal intended conduct so that the parties can adapt with reduced uncertainty. Formal commitment is unnecessary. Disclosure can matter where the recipient asks for, or at least accepts, the exchange.
ir aizliegti jebkuri kontakti starp tirgus dalībniekiem, kuru mērķis vai sekas ir ietekmēt esošā vai potenciālā konkurenta rīcību tirgū
—
For compliance teams, the lesson is that a meeting, message or association discussion can be legally significant even if nobody uses the word “agreement.” The useful question is what uncertainty the contact removed and whether the participants could act with knowledge they should have acquired only through independent market observation.
LV-KP-211: granular sales data through an association
The , E02-151 in file P/04/07/3, examined sales-indicator exchange involving paper wholesalers and a trade association. It is particularly useful because it distinguishes aggregate market intelligence from data that becomes revealing in a concentrated or sparsely populated category.
The Council fined MAP Latvia LVL 25,705, Poligrāfijas apgāds LVL 15,847 and Papyrus LVL 7,989. It also imposed a forward-looking obligation: the businesses were not to exchange sales volumes in product categories where only one or two exchange participants made sales. In such a narrow cell, an apparently aggregated statistic may effectively identify an individual rival's performance.
neapmainīties ar pārdošanas apjomiem tajās produktu kategorijās, kurās pārdošanas apjomi ir tikai vienam vai diviem no apmaiņas dalībniekiem
—
The Council reduced the calculated penalties in part because Latvian enforcement practice had not previously clarified the treatment of sales indicators generally, their exchange in an oligopolistic market, exchange through a third-party intermediary, or the permissible level of detail and individualisation. That reasoning makes the decision more nuanced than a rule against all benchmarking.
The operational lesson is to test whether aggregation truly anonymises. A trade association or data intermediary does not cure an exchange if participants can reverse-engineer a rival's sales, customer movement, capacity or strategy. Category size, reporting delay, frequency, sample count and the number of contributors should be assessed together.
LV-KP-793: bids that only imitate competition
The concerned offers submitted in a procurement procedure. The record describes preparation assistance and common inputs between businesses presented to the contracting authority as competitors.
The Council concluded that the customer did not receive genuinely competing offers but offers that merely imitated competition. It found a Section 11 infringement and imposed fines of LVL 2,123.59 on Ocean Wind and LVL 4,991.59 on Jūras vējš.
This example shows why a procurement file must preserve bidder independence from the beginning, not only at the moment a final price is entered. Sharing templates is not automatically unlawful in every context, but assistance that exposes another bidder's offer, assumptions or intended participation can remove the uncertainty on which a competitive tender depends. Shared accountants, consultants, devices or premises require controls that keep rival bids genuinely separate.
LV-KP-799: price is not the only sensitive fact
The gives an even clearer procurement formulation. The same person was involved in preparing two nominally independent offers and had knowledge of both sides' plans.
The Council stressed that the exchanged information need not be the exact price. It can be sufficient that one participant learns information allowing it to predict whether another business will bid and how it is likely to participate. The Council found a Section 11 infringement and imposed LVL 7,613.62 on TORNIS and LVL 500 each on AD Kodols, ARMO plus and Apsardzes dienests ADJ.
This matters for tender controls. Bid/no-bid intentions, preferred lots, proposed subcontractors, cost structure, capacity constraints, timetable and the identity of the person preparing an offer may all reduce strategic uncertainty even before a number is disclosed.
A practical information-exchange screen
Businesses and associations can use five questions before sharing competitor-facing data:
- Is the information genuinely public, historical and equally accessible, or privately supplied by a rival?
- Does it reveal future price, output, capacity, customers, territories, tender participation or another strategic variable?
- Is the aggregation large enough to prevent identification or reverse engineering of an individual contributor?
- Are a neutral intermediary, reporting delay, minimum contributor count and access restrictions meaningful in practice?
- Could a recipient use the information to predict or coordinate conduct rather than compete independently?
For tenders, add a personnel-and-systems check. Separate bid teams, access controls, conflict declarations, consultant instructions and audit logs should make it possible to show that each offer was prepared without access to a competitor's plan.
What these decisions do not establish
The cases do not create a blanket ban on trade statistics, benchmarking, public-price observation or legitimate collaboration. Nor do similar prices alone prove coordination. The decisive question is whether contact or an exchange substitutes practical cooperation for competitive uncertainty in its legal and economic context.
The four records also should not be treated as the complete Latvian decisional history. Production Discovery reports 1,117 rows for LV_COMPETITION_DECISIONS; these examples were selected because source-language Search and exact-record Fetch exposed both the information-exchange reasoning and a usable operative result.
MCP source-quality finding
The production MCP successfully retrieved full-text excerpts for each selected decision and allowed the legal test and operative orders to be verified. Existing already tracks the source's missing structured official numbers, parties, outcomes, fines and finality.
This review found a separate mapping defect. LV-KP-211, LV-KP-793 and LV-KP-799 display Galējā spēkā—a Latvian finality/status label—as their Decision kind, while LV-KP-112 correctly uses COMPETITION_DECISION. The inconsistent field mapping is tracked in .
Conclusion
Latvian Competition Council practice treats competitor information exchange as a problem when it replaces independent judgment with practical cooperation or materially reduces uncertainty about future conduct. LV-KP-112 supplies the general rule for pricing and intended behaviour; LV-KP-211 shows how granular sales data can remain identifying even through an association; and LV-KP-793 and LV-KP-799 show that procurement coordination can arise from shared preparation and bid intentions without an explicit price agreement. The safest compliance design preserves uncertainty between rivals and documents that independence.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.