On August 3, 2026, the Superintendence of Economic Competition (“SCE”) issued Resolution No. SCE-DS-2026-37[1] (the “Resolution”), approving a new version of the “July 2026 Competition Compliance Guide” (the “Guide”).
- WHAT DOES IT INCORPORATE AND DEVELOP FURTHER COMPARED TO THE 2021 GUIDE?
The previous version of the Guide already addressed the basic components of a compliance program, including risk management, training, monitoring, and auditing. The new version develops these elements in greater operational detail, strengthens the effectiveness standard, and incorporates 24 annexes containing matrices, protocols, checklists, and adaptable templates. Its main developments include the following:
- Risk Management. The Guide systematizes a methodology for identifying, assessing, and addressing competition risks. It proposes a five-by-five probability and impact matrix and classifies risks as low, medium, high, or critical, with differentiated responses. For certain risks that the Guide expressly identifies as particularly serious—including cartels, bid rigging, customer or market allocation, exchanges of future strategic information between competitors, destruction of evidence, obstruction of investigations, and retaliation against whistleblowers—it recommends adopting a zero-risk tolerance threshold.
- Unfair Competition. The new Guide aligns the compliance program with the Organic Law Regulating Unfair Competition[2] (“LORCCD”) and distinguishes between simple unfair conduct, aggravated unfair conduct, and potential cases involving the concurrent application of unfair competition and antitrust rules. Accordingly, advertising, commercial comparisons, the use of business information, and other market practices should be subject to preventive controls and supported by evidence documenting the decisions adopted.
- Algorithms, Data, and Artificial Intelligence. The new version addresses risks arising from technological tools involved in pricing, discounts, customer allocation, or the collection of market information. It recommends identifying these tools, documenting how they operate, and maintaining human oversight over sensitive decisions.
- Governance and the Three-Lines Model. Business units apply day-to-day controls; compliance, risk, and legal advisory functions design policies, provide training, and supervise implementation; and internal audit or an independent assessment verifies their effectiveness. The Guide also recommends that the compliance function maintain functional independence and direct access to senior management.
- Proportionality. The new Guide further develops how compliance programs should be adapted to each operator’s actual risk exposure and rejects a one-size-fits-all approach. The structure and depth of the program should be tailored to the organization’s size and structure, its activities, the markets in which it operates, and its specific exposure to competition risks.
The Guide also incorporates protocols for managing complaints and internal investigations, preserving evidence, and responding in an orderly manner to information requests, inspections, and other proceedings conducted by the SCE.
- WHY IS IT RELEVANT?
The Guide reinforces the effectiveness criterion. The effectiveness of a compliance program cannot be demonstrated merely by the existence of policies, training sessions, or designated compliance officers. To be considered effective, the program should be capable of demonstrating that risks were identified, controls were applied, and alerts or incidents were properly addressed.
This does not mean that the mere absence of a compliance program constitutes a sanctionable infringement. However, the Guide does provide a technical benchmark that organizations can use to assess the quality and functioning of the controls they have implemented.
From a practical standpoint, neither the Resolution nor the new Guide establishes a general obligation to update programs developed under the 2021 version, nor do such programs automatically become inadequate. However, it is advisable to review them in order to identify potential gaps relating to unfair competition, digital risks, governance, third parties, and evidence preservation.
In addition, the Resolution allows the Guide to be periodically reviewed and updated without the need to issue a new resolution, subject to prior approval by the competent institutional authorities. Accordingly, companies should verify the current official version before approving or updating their compliance programs.
As its name indicates, the Guide is advisory in nature and therefore does not impose an obligation to implement competition compliance programs. Nevertheless, it constitutes an important tool for identifying and mitigating competition-related risks.
- WHAT SHOULD COMPANIES CONSIDER?
As good-practice measures, the Guide recommends:
- Assessing exposure based on the sector, the size of the organization, the markets in which it operates, contact with competitors, participation in bidding processes, distribution channels, critical third parties, and the use of data.
- Reviewing the current compliance program and updating the risk matrix to incorporate the LORCCD, digital risks, third-party risks, and controls for critical activities.
- Clearly defining responsibilities for the governing body, senior management, business units, and compliance, legal advisory, and audit functions.
- Updating the protocols applicable to bidding processes, trade associations, merger control transactions, advertising, algorithms, and proceedings before the SCE.
- Training teams according to their level of exposure and the decisions for which they are responsible.
- Establishing or maintaining consultation and reporting channels that allow incidents to be reported and escalated.
- Documenting, measuring, and auditing controls; preserving verifiable evidence; implementing improvement plans; and periodically confirming the current official version of the Guide.
The key point is not to produce longer manuals. A program will only be effective if it works in practice and leaves sufficient evidence of how the organization prevented, detected, and corrected its risks. A merely formal program will have limited value in the context of an internal review or an enforcement action by the authority.
- CONTACTS
For further information, please contact us at:
