UK and Italy launch antitrust probes into payments and delivery giants—what’s next for Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Glovo, and Deliveroo?

UK regulators have opened investigations into major card and payments networks after suspected anti-competitive conduct. On May 6, the UK’s competition authorities confirmed they are investigating Mastercard, PayPal, and Visa under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, and separately investigating Mastercard and Visa under Chapter II. The trigger is linked to financial reporting by PayPal Holdings Inc, which appears to have provided new evidence or prompts for scrutiny. The probe signals a more aggressive posture toward market power in consumer payments, where network effects and merchant acceptance terms can shape pricing and access. This matters geopolitically because competition enforcement increasingly functions as industrial policy, not just consumer protection. The UK is targeting firms that sit at the center of cross-border commerce, meaning outcomes can influence how quickly rivals can enter and how merchants negotiate fees and acceptance conditions. In parallel, Italy’s antitrust action against Glovo and Deliveroo over rider-related claims highlights a second front: platform labor practices and the economics of gig work. Together, these cases can shift bargaining power across the payments and delivery value chains, benefiting smaller competitors and potentially raising compliance costs for incumbents. Market and economic implications are likely to concentrate in payments, fintech infrastructure, and last-mile delivery platforms. In the near term, the investigations can pressure sentiment around Visa (V), Mastercard (MA), and PayPal (PYPL) through legal-cost expectations and uncertainty over fee structures or contracting terms, even if no penalties are immediately announced. For delivery platforms, Italy’s probe into Glovo and Deliveroo may affect unit economics by forcing changes in rider classification, dispute handling, or commission models, which can feed into guidance and margins. Broader spillovers could include higher regulatory risk premia for European platform operators and increased scrutiny of merchant discount rates, interchange-like economics, and platform take-rates. What to watch next is whether regulators expand the scope, request additional documents, or move from investigation to formal infringement statements. Key signals include the publication of preliminary findings, the timing of any interim measures, and whether authorities coordinate with other EU or UK competition bodies on evidence sharing. For markets, traders will likely monitor any changes in company disclosures tied to UK and Italian enforcement, including updates to fee practices, contracting terms, and rider operations. Escalation triggers would be evidence of coordinated conduct, repeated non-compliance, or remedies that materially alter revenue models; de-escalation would look like narrow allegations, early settlements, or regulator acceptance of behavioral remedies.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  Competition enforcement is increasingly acting as industrial policy, shaping how global payment and platform firms operate in Europe and influencing market access for challengers.

• 02

  Cross-border commerce infrastructure (card networks and digital payments) is becoming a regulatory battleground, potentially affecting merchant costs and the competitive landscape for fintech entrants.

• 03

  Labor and platform governance scrutiny in Italy may set precedents that propagate across EU gig-economy business models, altering bargaining power between platforms, riders, and regulators.

Key Signals

• —Whether UK authorities issue requests for information that expand the factual record beyond PayPal-linked triggers.
• —Any move from investigation to formal infringement statements or interim measures affecting contracting, fee practices, or platform operations.
• —Company disclosures in upcoming reporting cycles that reference UK/Italian enforcement, including changes to rider operations or payment acceptance terms.
• —Evidence of coordination among regulators across jurisdictions, which would accelerate timelines and increase remedy likelihood.