By Clarissa Peters
Holistic solutions must be sought out to pre-empt increasing risk posed to fair competition from exposure to underhanded practices.
As technological advances lower the cost and increase the reach of malicious tactics, unethical practices are becoming a growing challenge in global competition. Clarissa Peters, an Edinburgh-based political science researcher and analyst specialising in trade and security, examines how corporate espionage, AI-driven disinformation, and other underhanded methods are exposing regulatory gaps and increasing risks to fair competition. She argues that stronger frameworks and more holistic approaches are needed to protect businesses in an increasingly contested marketplace.
Recent antitrust disputes have reignited debate surrounding the extent to which seemingly unfair competition practices should be allowed in modern markets. In Europe, for example, Trivago recently initiated legal proceedings in German courts against Google, filing an antitrust damages claim accusing the latter of systematically favouring its own hotel metasearch service in its general search results. Such cases have raised broader questions about whether underhanded competitive practices are becoming increasingly common in the global business environment.
The recurring concern raised in such cases identifies a trend which appears to be becoming a “silent norm” of sorts between companies competing for a bigger market share in what is always considered a highly competitive market. Technology has been playing a role in all of these cases, serving as a catalyst ensuring broad accessibility with the help of continuously decreasing costs and more effective remote solutions, all the while increasing the capabilities, impact, and reach of actors around the world.
Why Are Competitive Pressures Driving Unethical Behaviour?
With the help of such tools, even medium-sized players who are greatly outsized by their competitors can increasingly compete more effectively. Often, however, for this to be possible, they may decide to operate outside the traditional rulebook. The discussed vast increase in accessibility has resulted in a widespread deployment of technologies that know no borders. This is especially true as a result of growing market competition, currently driving firms to adopt business transformation models in order to increase their market position in light of the ongoing AI revolution. This is encouraging the use of malign methods, as actors attempt to better position themselves in a rapidly developing business environment.
What Forms Does Unfair Competition Take?
Unfair competition practices in the corporate sector can be categorized into two primary groups, namely human and cyber-backed methods. Traditional forms of unfair competition include corporate espionage, supply chain disruption, and physical sabotage caused by human infiltration. The latter group includes a wider spectrum of choices, including data breaches that exploit information security gaps, disinformation campaigns aimed at causing reputational damage, and digital sabotage based on cyber penetration.
When measuring the risk posed to companies from “malicious insiders”, the Ponemon Institute reports that the average annual cost to an impacted company reached $19.5 million per organization in 2025, a year-on-year increase of more than $2 million. Overall, since 2018, the rise in the cost to an organization from “insider incidents”, as they are defined, skyrocketed by 123%.
The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) reported that espionage-driven breaches increased by 163% last year, with almost 20% of data breaches which companies faced globally categorized as such.
How Is AI Changing Corporate Disinformation?
The ongoing revolution has brought with it rapid, and sometimes unprecedented, changes in terms of scale, impact, and pace. When it comes to underhanded corporate tactics, the field that seems to be most greatly supported by AI development is that of disinformation campaigns between corporate actors and individuals. It is noteworthy that the EU remains exposed without any comprehensive framework yet addressing this challenge.
The occurrence of recent paradigms includes the case of Aerospace Technical Services, a UAE- and Jordan-based company in the aviation field. Aerospace Technical Services and its CEO, Mahdi Suliman Hamed Al Tahaineh, were reportedly targeted by a disinformation campaign which sought to accuse the firm of having violated sanctions on Russia. The complex campaign allegedly included the forging of documents and dissemination of inflammatory and false information by third parties with a vested interest in harming the company.
In this regard, Aerospace Technical Services was also reportedly confused with a separate company which trades under the name ATS Heavy Equipment, with which ATS has no connection other than an unfortunately similar name. The way in which CEO Mahdi Suliman Hamed Al Tahaineh and his company were reportedly targeted by competitors seeking to do the company harm, without having a comprehensive regulatory framework on which they could fall back, showcases the need for such a framework to help victims navigate such a costly and reputationally damaging situation for their brand.
In a further recent case, German dairy company Müller Milch reportedly became embroiled in a similar negative campaign against both the company and its products, in what was later reported to have been a campaign orchestrated by competitors. This included misleading claims regarding Müller Milch’s use of harmful ingredients, including modified starch and citric acid, which subsequently went viral on social media. Despite the fact that these claims were later challenged and denied by Müller Milch, it is difficult to assess the extent to which the company was financially impacted and the extent to which it managed to mitigate the damage.
Why Does Regulation Need to Catch Up?
The role of technology is key, and as usual, the numbers speak for themselves. A report published by PwC showcased how easily accessible the tools required for such a campaign really are. The cost of a disinformation campaign, if done unprofessionally, can run as low as a few hundred dollars a month. AI tools make it possible to do this without a team and in functionally any language. Although AI-generated content can often be identified through careful analysis, the damage which can be done is nevertheless extensive.
Aside from the ethical issues involved, disinformation campaigns leading to unfair competition do not create a positive outlook for global industry. The EU and, particularly, the European Commission and European courts have been increasingly concerned about oligopolies, monopolies, and unfair competition, all as part and parcel of challenges to European markets. The need to intervene in and decide on matters that, if considered collectively, signal a market where the rules of competition have gradually faded due to underhanded practices is equally important, at first on a case-by-case basis, but ideally as part of a broader framework seeking to regulate this. Today’s reality reflects the necessity for the EU to close existing gaps by providing the appropriate framework complemented by sufficient enforcement and oversight.
As unfair competition between firms is only expected to grow, the number of companies exposed to such risks is likely to increase significantly due to low-cost, high-impact tools being available and easily accessible. Those who value their property, either tangible or intangible, must seek out holistic solutions to mitigate the respective risks and decrease ongoing exposure.
Clarissa Peters is a student and analyst based in Edinburgh, where she is focusing on completing her MPhil in political science at the University of Edinburgh. She focuses primarily on trade and security and is actively preparing for a doctoral program she hopes to pursue immediately after. Originally from Glasgow, she received the John Muir Award for her contribution to conservation.
