The Swiss Competition Commission (Comco) has launched two separate investigations into the online advertising practices of companies within the travel and online gaming sectors. The watchdog is specifically examining whether firms in these industries entered into unlawful agreements to avoid competing for visibility on major search engines.
According to a press release issued on Thursday, April 30, 2026, the investigations center on the practice of keyword bidding. Comco received information suggesting that several travel companies and numerous online casinos may have agreed to refrain from bidding on keywords linked to their competitors’ brands, effectively reducing the competitive pressure in digital search results.
For the global business community, this move signals Switzerland’s increasing scrutiny of digital marketing strategies that may appear benign on the surface but function as anti-competitive “gentlemen’s agreements.” By coordinating their advertising efforts, these companies may have limited the ability of consumers to easily compare offers, potentially inflating prices or reducing the quality of service.
As an economist, I view this as a classic antitrust issue shifted into the digital realm. When companies agree not to compete for the same “digital real estate”—in this case, the top spots on a search engine results page—they are essentially dividing the market. This removes the incentive to innovate or lower prices to attract a competitor’s customer, which is the very essence of what competition law is designed to prevent.
The Mechanics of Keyword Collusion
To understand why Comco is intervening, one must understand how search engine marketing (SEM) functions. In a competitive market, companies bid on keywords to ensure their website appears at the top of the results when a user searches for a specific term. This includes “brand bidding,” where Company A bids on the name of Company B to capture users who are searching for their rival.
While brand bidding is a standard and aggressive competitive tactic, Comco is investigating claims that companies in the travel and casino sectors did the opposite: they allegedly agreed not to bid on each other’s brand names. By avoiding these bids, companies ensure that a search for a specific brand leads only to that brand’s own site, rather than a list of competing offers.
This “non-aggression pact” in digital advertising can create a sterile environment where the dominant players are protected from poaching. When such agreements occur, the primary victim is the consumer, who no longer sees a diverse array of competing options at the moment of highest intent—the search query.
Travel and Gaming: Two Sectors Under Scrutiny
The current probe is split into two distinct industry investigations, each with a different scope of impact.
The first investigation focuses on the travel sector, specifically targeting three companies that offer package holidays within Switzerland. In the high-margin world of holiday packages, visibility is everything. If the top players agree to stay out of each other’s way in search results, it becomes significantly harder for new entrants to break into the market and for consumers to find the most competitive pricing for their vacations.
The second and broader, investigation involves the online casino industry. According to the official announcement from the Swiss government, this probe involves “almost all online casinos in Switzerland.” Given the highly addictive and competitive nature of the gambling industry, a wide-scale agreement to limit advertising competition could have profound effects on how users are acquired and retained in the Swiss market.
Comco noted that this approach “could constitute an unlawful agreement and have harmful effects on competition and consumers,” particularly by making it more difficult for users to compare competing offers effectively.
Why This Matters for Digital Markets
This investigation is not just about travel and gambling; it is a bellwether for how antitrust regulators globally are viewing “algorithmic” or “digital” collusion. For years, the focus of competition law was on price-fixing in physical boardrooms. Today, the “boardroom” is often a shared understanding of how to manipulate advertising auctions to maintain a status quo.
When companies coordinate their search engine strategies, they create an artificial barrier to entry. A new startup with a better, cheaper product might find it impossible to gain traction if the established incumbents have a tacit agreement to maintain a certain search landscape. This stifles entrepreneurship and slows the pace of economic evolution within the domestic market.
the “presumption of innocence” remains in place for all companies involved. Comco has emphasized that these are investigations, not convictions. The process will now involve a deep dive into internal communications, advertising logs, and potentially leniency applications from companies willing to “blow the whistle” on the agreements in exchange for reduced penalties.
Next Steps and Legal Outlook
The Swiss Competition Commission now enters the evidence-gathering phase. If Comco finds sufficient evidence of a coordinated effort to restrict competition, the companies involved could face significant fines. Under Swiss law, antitrust violations can lead to penalties based on a percentage of the company’s turnover, designed to make the cost of collusion higher than the potential profit gained from it.
The investigation will likely examine whether these agreements were explicit (written contracts or emails) or tacit (a “wink and a nod” understanding among industry leaders). Both can be actionable under competition law if they result in a restricted market.
The next official checkpoint will be the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, after which Comco will decide whether to initiate formal proceedings or close the cases due to a lack of evidence. No specific date for a final ruling has been announced, as these probes typically require extensive data analysis of search engine bid histories.
We will continue to monitor this story as Comco releases further findings. Do you think “brand bidding” agreements should be illegal, or is this simply a way for companies to reduce wasteful advertising spend? Share your thoughts in the comments below.