Italy’s Competition Watchdog Slaps €70 Million Fine on Foundries & Trade Group Over Two-Decade Price Cartel

Key Takeaways

• €70 Million Cartel Fine: Italy’s competition authority fined 16 iron foundries and trade association Assofond a combined €70 million for coordinating prices in the cast-iron market.
• Two-Decade Infringement: The cartel ran from at least February 2004 through June 2024, making it one of the longest-running competition law breaches uncovered in Italy.
• Trade Association as Facilitator: Assofond was found to have actively enabled coordination through meetings, guidance, and shared pricing tools, not merely industry representation.
• Pricing Indexes Crossed Legal Lines: The Assofond Indexes, including the QEMP surcharge, were deemed mechanisms for coordinated price setting rather than neutral cost benchmarks.
• Economic Stress Not a Defense: The authority reduced fines due to sectoral distress but reaffirmed that market shocks and rising input costs do not excuse collusion.

Deep Dive

Italy’s antitrust authority has drawn a hard line under what it describes as one of the most serious competition law breaches ever uncovered in the country’s industrial sector, fining 16 iron foundries and their trade association, Assofond, a combined €70 million for running a covert price-coordination scheme that spanned two decades.

In a decision, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) concluded that the companies and Assofond participated in a single, complex and continuous cartel in violation of Article 101 TFEU, coordinating commercial strategies in the Italian cast-iron market from at least February 5, 2004 through June 30, 2024.

The watchdog said the group worked systematically to support price increase requests, strengthen their collective bargaining power with customers, and shield profit margins, especially during economic downturns and periods of sharp input-cost volatility.

A Cartel Hidden in Plain Sight

At the heart of the case was not a single secret meeting or rogue agreement, but a long-running pattern of coordination carried out through both direct contacts between competitors and regular interactions under the umbrella of the trade association.

According to AGCM, the companies exchanged sensitive commercial information and jointly developed pricing tools known as the “Assofond Indexes.” These mechanisms, presented outwardly as cost-adjustment aids, were found to function as common reference points for aligning price changes across the sector.

The authority stressed that it does not dispute the right of individual foundries to raise prices in response to higher raw-material or energy costs. What crossed the legal line, it said, was that these pricing decisions were taken collectively, following Assofond meetings or bilateral and multilateral contacts, rather than independently.

The Price Indexes That Tied the Market Together

One index in particular drew sharp scrutiny. AGCM found that QEMP (Quota Extra Materia Prima), created by Assofond in 2004, was applied by all foundries involved in the proceedings as a uniform euro-per-ton surcharge, regardless of differences in production processes or raw-material mixes.

The index, which accounts for roughly one-third of the final price of cast-iron products, effectively allowed companies to adjust prices in lockstep, including margins, over time. Two additional tools, IDT and TET, played a similar role in anchoring coordinated price-variation targets.

In the authority’s view, these were not neutral cost measurements. They were designed primarily, if not exclusively, to guide how member foundries set their sales prices.

AGCM noted that none of the companies publicly distanced themselves from the coordinated strategy during the infringement period, despite what it described as extensive and well-documented evidence of collusion.

Serious Breach, Reduced Fine

Given the gravity and duration of the conduct, the statutory fine ceiling for the case stood at around €600 million. The authority ultimately imposed €70 million, citing the prolonged crisis affecting the sector and the economic shocks that hit the industry over the years, including the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020–2021 pandemic period.

Even so, AGCM was clear that difficult market conditions do not excuse collusion. Demand-side market power in the cast-iron sector, it said, did not make the agreement lawful, nor did surging input costs dilute its harmful effects on competition.

Assofond’s Dual Role

While acknowledging that Assofond carries out legitimate activities on behalf of its members, the authority concluded that the association played a dual role in this case: acting both as a forum that enabled frequent discussions of commercial strategy and as an active co-author of the cartel through the design, updating, and promotion of the pricing indexes.

For competition enforcers, the case serves as a pointed reminder that trade associations sit on a legal fault line. When industry coordination drifts from information-sharing into price alignment, even long-standing practices can quickly become illegal.

As AGCM’s decision makes clear, longevity and industry custom offer no shelter when coordination replaces competition.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.