Upon processing the search portal for the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office at https://consultas.oepm.es/, the granular search strategy is to analyse Huawei’s intellectual property portfolio as a potential tool for market foreclosure. I would execute a search for all patents granted in Spain to “Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.” since 2021 within the international patent classification “H04”, which covers telecommunications. The specific objective for each relevant patent found is to check if it has been declared to standards bodies as a “Standard Essential Patent” (SEP) for 5G technology. A strong portfolio of SEPs confers significant market power, and evidence of this can be used to support our cause of action alleging that Huawei is in a position to abuse a dominant market position.
Upon reviewing the Publicador Concursal at https://www.publicadorconcursal.es/, Spain’s official insolvency gazette, its direct relevance is low as Huawei is not insolvent. However, a detailed speculative strategy would be to search for any insolvency or bankruptcy notices filed since 2021 for companies operating in the Spanish cybersecurity or telecommunications software sectors. The objective is to compile a list of smaller, domestic technology firms that have failed during the period of our investigation. While not direct proof of causation, this list of failed companies could serve as a starting point for further investigation into whether their collapse was linked to an inability to compete in a distorted market, potentially identifying more victims for our collective action.
Upon processing the search page for the Spanish Official State Gazette (BOE) at https://www.boe.es/buscar/concursos.php, which also covers insolvency, the more detailed strategy is to leverage the BOE’s universal search function. I would execute a comprehensive search across all sections of the gazette for the exact phrase “Huawei Technologies España S.L.” for the period from January 2021 to the present. The objective is to find any and all official notices that mention the company, moving beyond insolvency. This could uncover administrative sanctions, court summons, tax liens, or regulatory rulings that have been officially published but are not widely publicised, providing direct evidence of legal or regulatory actions against the company in Spain.
Upon processing Spain’s public contracting platform, https://contrataciondelestado.es/, the most detailed strategy is to conduct a comparative historical analysis of tender documents. I will execute two distinct searches: one for telecommunications infrastructure contracts awarded between 2018 and 2020, and a second for similar contracts from 2021 to the present. The specific objective is to download and compare the “Pliego de Prescripciones Técnicas” (Statement of Technical Specifications) from tenders in both periods. I will analyse the documents for any changes in the wording of security, interoperability, or supply chain requirements. Evidence that specifications were tightened post-2021 in a way that disadvantages Huawei would demonstrate a material shift in public procurement policy and risk assessment.
Upon processing Spain’s national subsidies database at https://www.infosubvenciones.es/, the granular search strategy is to trace indirect financial support. I will execute a search for all subsidies and grants awarded since 2021 not directly to Huawei, but to major Spanish universities and public research centres where “Huawei” is listed as a commercial or research partner on the project. The objective is to map how public funds might be indirectly benefiting Huawei’s research, development, and ecosystem-building activities in Spain. This evidence would support our broader claim that the market is distorted by various forms of state-linked support, which disadvantages competitors who do not receive such benefits.
Upon processing the main portal for the Spanish College of Registrars at https://www.registradores.org/, the detailed strategy is to utilise a specific, less-common registry. From this portal, I will navigate to the “Registro de Bienes Muebles” (Registry of Movable Property). I will then execute a search within this specific registry for any registered security interests, charges, or financial leases where “Huawei Technologies España S.L.” is listed as either the debtor or the creditor. The objective is to uncover the company’s financial arrangements, identify its key lenders and financial partners in Spain, and understand its capital structure beyond what is available in the standard commercial registry filings.
Upon reviewing the statistical portal of the Spanish Registrars, the granular search strategy is to use its data to paint a picture of the health of the broader Spanish technology sector. I would query the portal’s time-series data to extract the number of new company registrations and the number of corporate dissolutions per quarter since 2021 for the “Information and Communications” sector. The objective is to create a chart illustrating these trends. A pattern showing a declining rate of new business formation or a rising rate of business failures could be presented as high-level statistical evidence of a sector under stress, which we would argue is symptomatic of the market distortions we are investigating.
Upon processing the Bank of Spain’s RSS feed page at http://app.bde.es/rss_www/, which is not a searchable database itself, the detailed strategy is to navigate from this page to the central bank’s main “Publications” section. Once there, I would search for all “Financial Stability Reports” and “Economic Bulletins” published since 2021. The specific objective is to perform a keyword search within these official reports for phrases like “sector de telecomunicaciones”, “inversión extranjera directa” (foreign direct investment), and “riesgos geopolíticos”. Any formal mention by Spain’s central bank of economic or financial stability risks arising from dependency on a small number of technology suppliers would constitute authoritative evidence from a highly credible source.
Upon processing the European Commission’s trade relationships page, the most detailed strategy is to find records of direct diplomatic engagement on this issue. I will navigate specifically to the “EU-China” trade relationship section. Within that section, I will search for any published agendas, minutes, or summaries of the “EU-China High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue” meetings that have occurred since 2021. The objective is to find official records where EU officials have formally raised the issues of “market access barriers”, “industrial subsidies”, or the need for a “level playing field” with their Chinese counterparts in the context of the technology sector. This would provide direct evidence of the EU’s own diplomatic grievances, supporting our case that these are recognized problems.
Upon processing the link for PACER, the U.S. federal courts database, at https://www.pacer.gov/, the granular strategy acknowledges its US-centric nature and payment-based access. The primary objective would be to find ancillary evidence from parallel US litigation. I would execute a search for any antitrust, intellectual property, or trade secrets lawsuits filed in US District Courts between “Huawei” and its key competitors, “Ericsson”, “Nokia”, or “Samsung”, from 2021 onwards. The goal is to identify these cases and then obtain publicly available discovery documents, such as motions or depositions. These documents from US proceedings could contain admissions or testimony about global competitive strategies, including those in Europe, providing invaluable supporting evidence for our own causes of action.
Upon reviewing the website for U.S. federal spending, https://www.usaspending.gov/, the most detailed analysis confirms this platform is not relevant for our case. The United States has for several years maintained a ban on its federal agencies procuring equipment from Huawei due to national security concerns. Consequently, a search for federal contracts awarded to Huawei would yield no results. Furthermore, the platform exclusively tracks US federal spending and contains no data on public procurement by Spain 1111111111111 or any other European Union member state. Any search on this platform for evidence to support our claims would be futile.
Upon processing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Global Brand Database at https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/, a detailed strategy is to investigate Huawei’s strategic market positioning through its trademark activity. I will execute a search for all trademarks filed by “Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.” with the “European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)” and the “Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas (OEPM)” since 2021. The specific objective is to analyse the “Nice Classification” of goods and services for which protection is sought. Finding applications that go beyond core telecommunications hardware, for instance covering classes related to software as a service, data analytics, or smart city consultancy, would serve as evidence of a broader strategy to embed itself in critical EU infrastructure, supporting our campaign’s narrative of undue influence2222.
Upon processing the Open Ownership register at https://www.openownership.org/en/register/, the granular strategy is to investigate the corporate structures of the lobbying firms allegedly connected to Huawei, acknowledging the limitations of data on Huawei itself. If a specific lobbying firm is named in public reports about the Brussels investigation, I will search for that firm’s name in the register. The objective is to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of these consultancies. Evidence that a key lobbying firm is beneficially owned by individuals with close ties to foreign state apparatuses or political figures would provide a powerful link in the chain of evidence for our claim of a coordinated and undue influence campaign.
Upon processing the Spanish company information database Infocif at https://www.infocif.es/, the most detailed strategy is to create a complete profile of the key personnel of “Huawei Technologies España S.L.”. Beyond obtaining financial accounts, I will use the database to extract a full list of all current and former directors (“administradores”) of the Spanish subsidiary. The next and more granular step would be to conduct separate open-source intelligence searches on each of these named individuals. The specific objective is to map their professional networks and career histories, looking for any previous roles in Spanish government, public administration, or at major state-regulated companies. This is designed to uncover evidence of the “red de contactos” that our case alleges may have been used to influence the Spanish Government3.
Upon processing the link to Spain’s Office of Conflicts of Interest, the granular strategy must work around the likely restrictions on public access to individual declarations. The most effective approach is to search the portal not for individual names, but for any annual reports or official publications issued by the Office itself. I would search for such reports from 2021 onwards using keywords like “lobbying”, “puertas giratorias” (revolving doors), and “transparencia”. The objective is to find any official commentary or analysis from the oversight body that acknowledges weaknesses or challenges in the disclosure system. An admission of systemic flaws would strongly support our allegation of a “falta de supervisión” 444 and regulatory failure.
Upon processing the website for the Spanish Congress of Deputies at https://www.congresodiputados.es/, the detailed strategy is to analyse the official records of parliamentary debates (Diario de Sesiones). I will execute a full-text search of all plenary and committee session transcripts since 2021 for the keywords “Huawei”, “5G”, “ciberseguridad”, and “soberanía tecnológica”. The specific objective is to identify which individual deputies and political parties have spoken on this topic. I will then categorise their statements as either advocating for stricter controls on high-risk vendors or promoting a more open approach. This analysis will map the political landscape surrounding this issue and could reveal voting blocs or political alignments that support our claim of potential political influence on regulatory decisions.
Upon processing the website of Spain’s securities market regulator, the CNMV, at https://www.cnmv.es/, the granular strategy is to scrutinise the public filings of Huawei’s major customers. I will search the CNMV’s public records for the most recent official annual reports (Informe Anual) of listed telecommunications operators like “Telefónica”, “Orange España”, and “Vodafone España”. The specific objective is to perform a keyword search within the “Factores de Riesgo” (Risk Factors) section of these reports. I will look for disclosures related to “dependencia de proveedores” (supplier dependency), “riesgos geopolíticos” (geopolitical risks), or “seguridad de la cadena de suministro” (supply chain security). Any such statement would be a formal admission to the market of the risks associated with their procurement choices.
Upon processing the website of Spain’s competition authority, the CNMC, at https://www.cnmc.es/, the most detailed strategy is to look for pre-investigative documents that reveal the authority’s thinking. I will search the publications repository for any “estudios de mercado” (market studies) or public consultation documents related to the Spanish telecommunications market published since 2021. The objective is to find any official analysis from the CNMC that identifies high barriers to entry, a lack of effective competition between network equipment suppliers, or the existence of a dominant market position held by a single actor. Such a study would provide an official regulatory assessment that corroborates our fundamental claim of a distorted market.
Upon processing the transparency portal for the regional government of Catalonia at https://transparencia.gencat.cat/, the granular strategy is to perform a case study of a specific regional public body. I will focus my search on the public contracts register, filtering for all contracts awarded by the “Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació” (CTTI) since 2021. I will analyse not just the winning bidder but the entire procurement record for each contract, including the initial tender value versus the final award value, and the number of bids received. A pattern of contracts being awarded to Huawei or its known partners, especially in cases with few bidders, would provide a concrete regional example of the procurement irregularities we allege are occurring nationwide
Upon processing the AJ Bell investment trusts webpage at https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts, the most detailed search strategy is to identify specific technology-focused trusts listed in the UK and scrutinise their portfolio commentary. I would first identify relevant trusts such as the “Allianz Technology Trust” and the “Polar Capital Technology Trust”. The next step would be to locate their official websites and download all their annual and semi-annual reports published since 2021. The specific objective is to perform a keyword search within the “Manager’s Commentary” or “Portfolio Review” sections of these reports. I would search for terms like “5G”, “European telecoms”, “Huawei”, and “competitive landscape”. Any commentary discussing the impact of supply chain restrictions or the exclusion of high-risk vendors on the valuation of their portfolio companies would provide expert financial evidence of the market distortions at the heart of our case.
Upon processing the UK Government publications search page at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/, a more granular search strategy is to find a specific statutory report related to national security and investment. I will execute a search for the “National Security and Investment Act Annual Report” for the years 2022, 2023, and 2024. The objective is to download these reports and analyse the anonymised case summaries and sector-specific statistics. I will be looking for any information related to government interventions, such as conditions imposed on transactions or acquisitions being blocked, within the “Communications” sector. Finding evidence of formal state action to mitigate risks from foreign investment in this specific sector would provide official UK government validation of the security concerns central to our case.
Upon reviewing the UK Government organisations list at https.www.gov.uk/government/organisations, the detailed strategy is to use this directory to identify the precise government bodies responsible for telecommunications security advice. From this page, I would identify the “National Cyber Security Centre” (NCSC) and the “Department for Science, Innovation and Technology” (DSIT) as the key UK authorities. The next step is to use these exact organisational names in targeted searches on the main publications portal and the National Archives. This strategy is designed to locate the specific technical guidance reports and risk assessments these bodies have produced on 5G security and high-risk vendors, which would serve as primary evidence of the UK’s official threat assessment.
Upon processing the London Stock Exchange price explorer at https://www.londonstockexchange.com/live-markets/market-data-dashboard/price-explorer, the detailed strategy is to analyse historical trading volume data for Huawei’s key competitors. I would use the tool to retrieve the daily trading volume for the UK-listed instruments of “Ericsson” and “Nokia” for the period from January 2021 to the present. The specific objective is to identify any dates with anomalous spikes in trading volume. I would then cross-reference these dates with a timeline of news announcements regarding the Belgian lobbying investigation or major Spanish 5G contract awards. A significant increase in selling volume immediately following such news could be presented as a data-driven indicator of negative market sentiment and perceived financial risk, supporting our damages model.
Upon processing the UK public procurement data website, Bidstats, at https://www.bidstats.uk/, the granular strategy is to analyse the contract documentation of awarded tenders. I will execute a search for awarded contracts for “telecommunications network services” and “5G infrastructure” issued by UK central government departments since 2021. For each relevant result, I will download any attached documents, specifically the “Invitation to Tender” (ITT) or “Specification of Requirements”. The objective is to scrutinise the security and technical requirements sections of these documents for specific clauses that effectively exclude “high-risk vendors”, providing direct documentary evidence of how UK procurement policy has been implemented in practice.
Upon processing the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement page at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm, the detailed strategy is to search for disputes initiated by China. I would search the database for any formal dispute where the complainant is “China” and the respondent is the “European Union” or a specific member state like Spain, with keywords such as “telecommunications”, “national security”, or “government procurement”. The objective is to locate and download the legal submissions made by China in such a case. These documents would contain China’s official legal arguments defending its companies’ trade practices and could contain admissions or positions that would be invaluable for anticipating and countering their arguments in our own legal proceedings.
Upon reviewing the website for the U.S. Office of Government Ethics at https://www.oge.gov/, I can state with detailed certainty that this platform is not relevant to our investigation. The OGE’s legal mandate is strictly limited to overseeing the ethics and conflicts of interest regulations applicable to officers and employees within the executive branch of the United States federal government. It holds no data and has no jurisdiction over the conduct of officials in Spain, lobbyists in Belgium, Members of the European Parliament, or UK companies. A search on this platform would be technically futile and strategically misdirected.
Upon processing the U.S. Congress website at https://www.congress.gov/, the most detailed strategy is to search for the transcripts of committee hearings. I will search for public hearings held since 2021 by the “House Committee on Foreign Affairs” and the “Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”, using the keywords “Huawei”, “5G security”, and “China competition”. The objective is to locate and review the published transcripts of testimony. This is designed to find citable expert opinions from intelligence officials, competitor executives, or academics on Huawei’s corporate practices and the security risks associated with their technology, which can be used as supporting evidence.
Upon processing the global patent database Espacenet at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/, the granular search strategy is to analyse patent citation networks to demonstrate technological dominance. I will first identify a basket of the most significant 5G-related patents held by “Huawei”. I will then use the database’s analytical tools to perform a citation analysis on these patents. The specific objective is to determine which companies’ prior inventions Huawei’s patents build upon, and, more importantly, which other companies are now frequently citing Huawei’s patents in their own new inventions. This data can be used to create a network graph illustrating Huawei’s central and influential position in the 5G technology ecosystem, supporting our cause of action for abuse of a dominant position.
Upon processing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent search at https://ppubs.uspto.gov/, the detailed strategy is to use patent data to find evidence from related U.S. litigation. I will first identify the US patent numbers for key 5G technologies owned by “Huawei”, “Ericsson”, and “Nokia”. The next step is to use these specific patent numbers as search terms in US federal court databases. The objective is to find any patent infringement lawsuits between these competitors. The public court filings in such cases often contain expert witness reports with detailed technical and financial valuations of the patents and technology involved, which could be repurposed as evidence in our EU competition case.
Upon processing the UK Register of Consultant Lobbyists at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-consultant-lobbyists, a more detailed search strategy is to uncover potential indirect influence. Beyond searching for “Huawei” as a client, I would first search for major telecommunications operators like “BT Group” and “Vodafone” to identify the consultant lobbying firms they retain. Subsequently, I would conduct a new search for those identified lobbying firms as the primary registrant. The objective is to analyse their full client lists to see if they also represent other technology firms with links to China or entities that might benefit from a less stringent national security posture on technology. This cross-referencing strategy is designed to map the lobbying ecosystem and identify any potential conflicts of interest or channels of indirect influence that could impact UK policy.
Upon processing the Scottish Lobbying Register at https://www.lobbying.scot/, the granular strategy acknowledges its limited geographical scope but uses it to establish a pattern of corporate behaviour. I would execute a search for all regulated lobbying communications undertaken by “Huawei Technologies” with Members of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government since 2021. The specific objective is to analyse the topics of this lobbying. Evidence that Huawei’s engagement in Scotland also focused on public sector procurement opportunities in non-devolved areas or areas with security implications would help build a case that the company has a consistent, overarching corporate strategy across different jurisdictions to influence public contracts, mirroring the alleged activities in Brussels and Spain.
Upon processing the UK Ministry of Justice’s Case Tracker at https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/, the detailed search strategy is to find highly relevant legal proceedings that may not name Huawei as a party. I would execute a search for any “judicial review” claims filed since 2021 where the defendant is a government department like the “Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport” or the “Home Office”, and where the claimant is a UK-based telecommunications or cybersecurity company. The keywords for the search would be “high-risk vendor” and “telecommunications security framework”. The goal is to find public court filings from such a case, as they would contain detailed legal arguments and evidence about the fairness, legality, and economic impact of the UK’s regulatory process for network equipment.
Upon reviewing the webpage for the Royal Courts of Justice cause list, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list, it is clear this is an ephemeral daily listing, not a historical database. Therefore, the most detailed and practical strategy is one of daily monitoring. I would institute a daily check of the published lists for the “Commercial Court”, “Technology and Construction Court”, and the “Competition List”. I would scan these lists for the names of “Huawei”, “Ericsson”, “Nokia”, “BT Group”, and “Vodafone”. The objective is not to find past evidence but to create a real-time intelligence system to detect any new litigation related to our case the moment it is listed, allowing our legal team to immediately assess its relevance and potential impact.
Upon processing the UK’s public procurement portal, Find a Tender, at https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/, the granular strategy is to analyse awarded contracts to find evidence of market distortion. I will execute a search for all awarded contracts in the “telecommunications services” and “network equipment” categories published by UK central government bodies since January 2021. For each relevant contract award notice, I will download the full details to scrutinise the list of bidders and the final contract value. The specific objective is to identify high-value contracts that received a very low number of bids. A pattern of such occurrences could be presented as statistical evidence of a “chilled” market, where competition is limited, potentially leading to inflated costs for the public sector.
Upon processing the EU lobbying database at https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/, the most detailed strategy is to focus on the individual actors. I will search for the “Huawei Technologies” entry in the EU Transparency Register and extract the names of all their accredited lobbyists for the 2021-2025 period. Subsequently, I would perform a separate open-source intelligence search on each named individual, examining their professional history on platforms like LinkedIn for prior employment within the European Parliament or Commission, and reviewing their public statements on social media. The objective is to build a detailed profile of the lobbying team, mapping their political connections and identifying any potential conflicts of interest that could support our claims of undue influence1111.
Upon processing the European Commission’s press corner at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en, the granular search strategy is to find official statements that validate the political context of our case. I will execute a search for all press releases and speeches from 2022 onwards issued by the Directorate-General for Justice and the Directorate-General for Competition that contain the keywords “anti-corruption”, “rule of law”, and “malign foreign influence”. The goal is to gather a portfolio of official statements that show the Commission’s own stated commitment to tackling the very types of behaviour we allege. This evidence would be used to argue that our campaign is aligned with the EU’s own enforcement priorities and public interest.
Upon reviewing the EU’s Online Dispute Resolution platform at https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/, I can confirm with detailed analysis that this platform is entirely irrelevant to our case. Its legal basis and technical design are exclusively for resolving low-value, post-sale disputes between an individual consumer and a business trader concerning an online purchase. Our causes of action relate to complex, high-value, business-to-business competition law and state regulatory failure. The ODR platform has no jurisdiction, functionality, or competence to handle such matters. Therefore, no search will be performed as it would be futile.
Upon processing the EU’s Your Europe business portal page on tenders, https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/getting-funding/tenders/index_en.htm, the detailed strategy is to use its gateway to the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) database to find evidence of chilled competition in Spain. I will search the TED database for all contract award notices for “telecommunications network equipment” published by Spanish public authorities since 2021. For each notice, I will download the full documentation. The specific objective is to analyse section IV of the notice, which provides information on the number of tenders received. A consistent pattern of high-value contracts receiving only one or two bids could be presented as strong circumstantial evidence of a distorted market where competitors feel unable to compete, supporting our claim of unfair competition2222.
Upon processing the AJ Bell share screener at https://www.ajbell.co.uk/market-research/screener/shares, the most detailed strategy is to conduct a comparative performance analysis to create circumstantial evidence for our damages model. I will use the screener’s charting tools to map the daily stock price of “Nokia” and “Ericsson” from January 2021 to the present. I will overlay this with the performance of a relevant benchmark, such as the STOXX Europe 600 Technology index. The specific objective is to identify periods where these companies significantly underperformed the index and to cross-reference the dates of that underperformance with the dates of major 5G contract award announcements in Spain. This correlation could be used to argue that the outcomes of biased procurement processes had a material negative impact on the value of Huawei’s main competitors.
Upon processing the EUR-Lex database at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/, the most detailed search strategy is to move beyond final legal acts and examine their legislative history for evidence of intent. I would specifically search for the preparatory documents, known as “travaux préparatoires”, associated with the EU’s Public Procurement Directives and the more recent Foreign Subsidies Regulation. This involves finding the original proposals and impact assessments published by the European Commission. The objective is to search within these documents for keywords like “state-owned enterprise”, “market distortion”, “undue influence”, and “non-EU bidders”. Finding official EU analysis from the time of drafting that explicitly acknowledges the risk of unfair competition from subsidised foreign companies would provide powerful evidence that the legislature was aware of this specific problem, strengthening our cause of action based on a subsequent failure of enforcement.
Upon processing the link for the UK Business and Property Courts, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/business-and-property-courts, which is an informational webpage and not a case database, the granular strategy is to use the information provided to formulate a precise query for a dedicated case-tracking system. This page identifies the specific court lists, such as the Competition List and the Technology and Construction Court, that would handle our claims. The detailed action would then be to use a platform like Case Tracker to search for claims filed since 2021 by any UK telecommunications or cybersecurity firm against a government body, such as the Department for Business and Trade, alleging a breach of duty for failing to protect them from unfair competition in EU markets, which would identify parallel legal actions.
Upon processing the advanced search for the UK’s Companies House at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search, a more detailed search strategy is to identify potential victims who are no longer in business. I would use the advanced search filters to find companies with a “dissolved” status, filtering for those dissolved between 2021 and 2025 within the telecommunications and cybersecurity SIC codes. The objective is to create a list of failed UK tech companies from the period of Huawei’s alleged market distortion. Investigating the reasons for their dissolution could provide a powerful body of anecdotal and statistical evidence to support our damages claim of £600 million in lost opportunities for British businesses1.
Upon processing the Companies House SIC code resource page, https://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/, which is a reference tool, the granular strategy is to use it to build a comprehensive search profile. I would identify not only the primary codes for “Wired telecommunications activities” (61100) and “Wireless telecommunications activities” (61200) but also ancillary codes such as “Business and domestic software development” (62012), “Information technology consultancy activities” (62020), and “Other information technology service activities” (62090). This detailed list of SIC codes would then be used on the Companies House advanced search to generate a comprehensive list of all active and dissolved companies in the UK tech sector, creating a definitive database of potential class members for our collective action.
Upon processing the UK Parliament petitions website, https://petition.parliament.uk/, the detailed search strategy is to look for public sentiment and official government responses. I would execute searches using not only the keyword “Huawei” but also broader policy terms like “5G security”, “China public contracts”, and “telecoms supply chain”. The objective is to identify any petition on these topics that has surpassed the threshold for an official government response. The text of these government responses would be scrutinised for any policy statements, admissions of risk, or commitments to ensure a level playing field, which could be used as evidence of the government’s stated position on the issues central to our case.
Upon processing the UK Parliament’s Register of Members’ Financial Interests, a granular search strategy involves looking for both direct and indirect influence. First, I would conduct a direct keyword search for “Huawei” to identify any MP who has registered payments, gifts, or hospitality from the company. Second, and more subtly, I would search for declarations of support from major UK telecom operators to any All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) related to technology, trade, or China. The goal would be to map the financial links between industry and these informal parliamentary groups, cross-referencing their membership with MPs who have advocated for policies favourable to a less stringent approach on high-risk vendors.
Upon processing the TheyWorkForYou interests page, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/interests/, the detailed strategy is to leverage its integrated data to correlate financial interests with political activity. I would identify Members of Parliament who have registered relevant interests, such as consultancy work for telecom firms or accepting hospitality from tech industry bodies. I would then use the platform’s functionality to analyse their complete voting records on key legislation, such as the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 and the National Security and Investment Act 2021. The objective is to identify any statistically significant correlation between declared interests and voting patterns that could suggest a member’s position has been influenced by their connections to the industry.
Upon processing the European Court of Human Rights database at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/, it is clear this platform is not directly relevant to our commercial and competition-based claims. However, the most granular, albeit speculative, search strategy would be to look for cases that could provide a novel legal angle. I would search for any case brought against Spain, Belgium, or France that invokes both Article 1 of Protocol 1 (the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions) and Article 14 (the prohibition of discrimination). The keywords would be “market”, “competition”, and “license”. The long-shot objective would be to find a case where a company has argued that a state’s biased regulatory failure in a market effectively amounted to a discriminatory infringement of its commercial property rights.
Upon processing the European Commission’s “Have Your Say” portal, a more detailed strategy is to mine the public record of past consultations for industry opinion. I would specifically search for the public consultations related to the “Foreign Subsidies Regulation” and the “Digital Markets Act”. The objective is to download and analyse the public submissions made by major telecommunications companies like Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung, as well as trade associations such as DigitalEurope. These documents are likely to contain candid and detailed evidence, including economic data, on the difficulties of competing with highly subsidised, state-backed enterprises, providing direct, citable proof from the industry itself.
Upon processing the UK National Archives website, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/, the detailed search strategy must account for the fact that most records are sealed for 20 years. I would therefore focus the search on specific, recently declassified record series. I will search the catalogue for files from the “Cabinet Office” and the “National Security Council” for the period 2019 to 2022, using keywords like “5G supply chain review” and “telecommunications security risk”. The objective is to find the specific declassified intelligence assessments and policy papers that underpinned the UK government’s decision to ban Huawei. These documents would contain the government’s own official assessment of the risks posed by Huawei and would be authoritative evidence.
Upon processing the European Commission’s trade website, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/, the most granular search strategy is to focus specifically on formal trade defence measures. I would navigate to the “Trade Defence” section of the site and search the database of ongoing and concluded investigations. The search would be for any anti-dumping or anti-subsidy cases initiated since 2021 concerning “telecommunications equipment” or “5G network infrastructure” originating from “China”. Finding a formal investigation would provide powerful evidence that the European Commission itself has grounds to believe that products from China in this sector are being sold at distorted prices, directly supporting our cause of action for unfair competition.
Upon processing the European Union’s vocabulary portal, https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/, the granular strategy is not to search for case information but to build a multilingual glossary to improve the accuracy of other searches. I would search for the concept “Lobbying”. The objective is to identify its official concept URI and its precise translations in the languages of the countries we are investigating. For example, I would confirm the correct Spanish term is “grupos de presión”. Using this official, localized terminology when searching national databases, such as Spanish procurement portals or court websites, will yield far more accurate and comprehensive results than relying on an English keyword, thus enhancing our evidence-gathering across all jurisdictions.
Upon processing the Eurostat database, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/, the granular search strategy is to construct a specific statistical analysis to support our damages claim. I would use the international trade in goods database to extract data from 2021 to the present. The precise query would compare the value of UK exports under the commodity code for “telecommunications equipment” to Spain, against the value of exports from Sweden and Finland to Spain. A demonstrable statistical anomaly, where UK exports have stagnated or fallen while exports from the home countries of Huawei’s main competitors have grown, would provide quantitative evidence to support our preliminary estimate that British firms have lost opportunities amounting to approximately 600 million pounds1.
Upon processing the UK government’s open data portal, https://data.gov.uk/, the granular strategy is to find official government data acknowledging the trade difficulties our case alleges. I will search for datasets published by the “Department for Business and Trade” with keywords such as “UK-EU TCA monitoring”, “telecoms trade barriers”, and “services exports”. The specific goal is to locate any reports or datasets resulting from the government’s statutory duty to monitor the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Finding an official report that identifies procurement bias or other non-tariff barriers in the EU telecoms sector would be direct evidence from the UK government itself, validating the core premise of our case.
Upon processing the Violation Tracker UK website, https://violationtrackeruk.org/, the granular strategy is to investigate the wider ecosystem for related misconduct. I will execute a search not only for “Huawei” but also for the UK’s largest telecommunications operators, such as “BT Group” and “Vodafone”. For these companies, I will filter for any competition or procurement-related violations since 2021. The objective is to determine if these key customers of network equipment have been investigated or sanctioned for any practices that might be symptomatic of being pressured into anti-competitive agreements or arrangements, which could provide contextual evidence of market distortion.
Upon processing the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal website, https://catribunal.org.uk/, the granular search strategy is to find existing legal arguments and evidence submitted by Huawei’s competitors. I would search the register of cases for any appeals filed by “Ericsson” or “Nokia” against decisions made by UK regulators like Ofcom or the CMA. The primary goal is to obtain the case filings for any such appeal. These documents often contain detailed witness statements, expert economic reports, and evidence concerning market dynamics and competitive harm, which could be repurposed to support our own causes of action.
Upon processing the UK Competition and Markets Authority website, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority, the most granular strategy is to mine public consultations for candid industry feedback. I would navigate to the CMA’s repository of closed consultations and search for any market study or review of the UK telecommunications or digital markets since 2021. The objective is to locate and download the published responses to these consultations submitted by telecom operators and trade associations. These submissions often contain frank assessments of competitive problems, including concerns about dominant players or unfair practices, and would serve as direct evidence of industry concern.
Upon processing the European Commission’s competition policy website, https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/, a granular search strategy is to find high-level statements of policy that validate our claims of regulatory failure. I would search the “Speeches” archive for all public addresses made by the European Commissioner for Competition since 2022. I would perform a keyword search within these speeches for terms like “third country subsidy”, “gatekeeper”, “digital sovereignty”, and “level playing field”. A speech acknowledging the challenge that subsidized foreign state-owned enterprises pose to the integrity of the single market would be powerful evidence that the Commission is aware of the very problem we allege it has failed to adequately address.
Upon processing the British and Irish Legal Information Institute database, https://www.bailii.org/, the granular search strategy is to build a foundation of legal precedent for our novel claims. Rather than searching for cases involving Huawei directly, I would search for UK case law establishing principles on the “duty of care” owed by public regulators to market participants, the legal test for “causation in economic torts”, and the grounds for a “judicial review of a procurement decision based on bias”. The objective is to assemble a library of case law that will support the legal architecture of our state liability and unfair competition claims.
Upon processing the searchlink for the law firm Mayer Brown, https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/industries, which is a corporate website and not a public database, a direct search for case evidence is not feasible. The most granular strategy is to use the site’s internal search function to probe for expert analysis that could support our legal arguments. I would execute a search for publications, white papers, or blog posts using specific legal and technical terms such as “EU 5G procurement regulation”, “competition law state-owned enterprise Europe”, and “telecoms non-tariff barriers”. The objective is to find any legal analysis published by the firm’s experts that corroborates our position that the procurement processes in the EU have been susceptible to distortion or that competition with state-backed entities creates an unlevel playing field. Such an article from a major law firm would serve as persuasive secondary evidence.
Upon processing the searchlink for the UK’s Companies House, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/, the granular search strategy is to move beyond simple verification and seek corroborating evidence from competitors’ filings. I would execute a search for the UK-registered entities of Huawei’s main competitors, specifically “Ericsson Limited” and “Nokia UK Ltd”. For each company, I would access their filing history and download their most recent annual accounts. The specific objective is to perform a keyword search within their Strategic or Directors’ Reports for phrases like “market conditions”, “competitive pressures Europe”, “public tenders”, and “fair access”. Any statement describing a challenging or unfairly competitive environment in European markets would be a powerful piece of evidence from a key industry player, directly supporting our claim that the market has been distorted.
Upon processing the searchlink for Spain’s official registrar portal, https://www.sede.registradores.org/, the granular strategy is to extract specific financial and legal information from the commercial registry (Registro Mercantil). I would execute a search for the exact corporate entity “Huawei Technologies España S.L.”. Once the entity is located, the objective is to request and review its latest filed annual accounts (Cuentas Anuales) to ascertain the scale of its operations and revenues in Spain. Furthermore, I would meticulously review the record for any “anuncios y avisos legales” (legal notices and announcements). This is designed to uncover any mentions of ongoing litigation, administrative sanctions, or other legal proceedings in Spain that are not yet widely publicised, which could serve as direct evidence of the regulatory scrutiny alleged in our case.
Upon processing the searchlink for the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database, https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html, the granular search strategy is to find disclosures made by Huawei’s publicly-listed competitors to US investors. I will search for the latest annual reports (Form 20-F) filed by “Ericsson” and “Nokia”. After downloading these reports, I will conduct a specific keyword search within the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” sections. The search terms would include “Spain procurement”, “European market access”, “level playing field”, “state-backed”, and “Huawei”. An explicit disclosure to investors detailing unfair competition or biased public procurement processes in Europe would constitute extremely strong evidence, as it is a formal statement of material business risk made under penalty of US securities law.
Upon processing the searchlink for the engineering product database GlobalSpec, https://www.globalspec.com/search/products?categoryIds=5346, which is not a legal database, the most granular strategy is to use it for technical analysis to support our claim of procurement bias. I would conduct comparative searches for the technical specifications, standards compliance, and listed certifications for 5G base station equipment manufactured by “Huawei”, “Ericsson”, and “Nokia”. The objective is to create a technical comparison table. This table would then be used to cross-reference the technical requirements listed in any Spanish 5G public tender documents we obtain. Evidence that a tender’s requirements were written so narrowly that they could only be fulfilled by the specific technical profile of a Huawei product would be compelling proof of a biased procurement process designed to exclude competitors.
Upon attempting to process the searchlink https://www.tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/, it appears to be an invalid or decommissioned URL that does not lead to an active website. A granular analysis suggests this was likely the European Commission’s former portal for trade defence instruments (TRON). Therefore, the best strategy is to pivot to the current, active platform. I would instead execute a search on the European Commission’s main DG Trade website, specifically within its “Trade Defence” section. The search would look for any ongoing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations into “telecommunications equipment” originating from “China” since 2021. Finding such an investigation would provide official evidence that the European Commission is formally examining potentially trade-distorting practices from China in the very sector central to our case.
Upon processing the searchlink for the OpenSanctions advanced search portal, https://www.opensanctions.org/advancedsearch/, the most granular search strategy is to query for specific individuals and entities implicated in our allegations. I would first execute a search for the entity “Huawei Technologies España S.L.” and its parent company, filtering the results to show any listings related to corruption, bribery, or financial crime sanctions. Concurrently, I would execute a separate, highly specific search for the individual “José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero”, not to find sanctions, but to see how he is classified as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and to review any associated entities or individuals mentioned in the database. This is to investigate potential publicly recorded links to the “empresario chino, socio del expresidente” that our case alleges worked for Huawei to influence the Spanish government111111111. A positive finding, such as a PEP record with relevant business associations, would provide critical evidence for our undue influence cause of action.
Upon reading the content of https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/api/, it is clear this is not a search interface but technical documentation for developers. Therefore, a direct search cannot be executed. The most granular analysis of this page is to understand its strategic potential. This API would allow our technical team to build a monitoring tool that programmatically queries the OpenSanctions database in real-time. We could use it to continuously check for updates on Huawei, its known executives, and any individuals identified in the Belgian or Spanish probes. This would provide immediate alerts if any party is added to a sanctions list or if their PEP status changes, giving us immediate access to new evidence as it becomes public.
Upon processing the link https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/bulk/, I can confirm this page provides instructions for downloading the entire OpenSanctions dataset, and is not a search tool. A granular strategic approach to this resource would be to assign our data analysis team to download the full dataset. An offline analysis allows for far more complex queries than a web interface. For example, we could perform network analysis to map out all direct and indirect relationships between Huawei-affiliated entities, identified lobbyists, and Politically Exposed Persons across the EU, specifically looking for previously unknown connections to figures within the Spanish government or the European Parliament. This could uncover the hidden corporate web used to exert influence, providing powerful structural evidence.
Upon processing the webpage https://www.opensanctions.org/faq/150/downloading, it is evident this is an informational FAQ page that complements the bulk data documentation. No search can be performed here. The page provides technical details on the format and methods for acquiring the dataset. The strategic value is in confirming the feasibility and process for our data team to obtain the bulk data needed for the deep network analysis mentioned previously. It provides the necessary procedural information to execute our evidence-gathering strategy of mapping corporate and political connections offline.
Upon processing the Global Trade Alert’s data center at https://globaltradealert.org/data-center, the most granular search strategy is to identify the specific state actions that constitute the market distortion we allege. I would use the data center’s filters to conduct a precise query. I would set the “Implementing Jurisdictions” to “Spain” and the “European Union”. I would set the “Affected Sectors” to “Telecommunications equipment”. Crucially, I would filter the “Intervention Type” to show only “Public procurement” and “Subsidy” measures implemented since January 2021. This specific search is designed to isolate any procurement rule changes or subsidies in Spain that benefited Huawei or disadvantaged competitors, providing direct evidence of the regulatory failures that support our state liability claim and our estimation of £600 million in lost opportunities for British companies
Upon processing the searchlink for the European Commission’s competition case database, https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments, the best search strategy is to broaden our query beyond just antitrust matters. I would execute a search using the keyword “Huawei” and apply filters for case types including both “Antitrust” and “State aid”. The geographic scope would be filtered to “Spain”, “Belgium”, “Portugal”, and “France” for cases initiated between 2021 and the present. This revised strategy is designed not only to find evidence of abuse of dominance but also to uncover any potential investigations into illegal subsidies or other state support that could have given Huawei an unfair advantage, directly supporting our cause of action based on market distortions that have harmed UK companies111111111. A finding of illegal state aid would be a powerful piece of evidence.
Upon reading the content of https://db-comp.eu/, which appears to be a third-party aggregator of EU competition law information, the optimal strategy is to use it to find secondary or analytical evidence. I would execute a search for publications or case summaries using keywords like “Huawei 5G competition”, “telecoms market dominance”, and “EU procurement law Ericsson”. The goal is to find academic articles, legal commentary, or case notes that analyze the competitive landscape of the EU’s 5G sector. Such documents could provide expert analysis to support our arguments that Huawei’s practices have distorted the market, and could be used as persuasive evidence in our submissions.
Upon processing the European Commission’s trade policy website, https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/, the best search strategy is to locate official policy documents that recognize the existence of the problems we are campaigning against. I would search the publications and policy sections for reports on “non-tariff trade barriers”, “digital sovereignty”, “5G security supply chain”, and “level playing field in public procurement”. The objective is to find official EU communications that acknowledge the risks of relying on high-risk vendors and the need for transparent procurement, which would provide evidence for our claim of regulatory failure and the need for structural reforms as promoted by our “FAIR INFLUENCE, FAIR COMPETITION” campaign
Upon processing the European Commission’s Access to Markets portal, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home, the search strategy is to find direct evidence of market access complaints from other businesses. I would use the portal’s database to search for registered trade barriers within the EU, specifically filtering for the “Telecommunications” sector in “Spain” and “Belgium” from 2021 onwards. Keywords for the search would include “public procurement”, “biased specifications”, and “transparency”. Discovering a formal complaint filed by a competitor like Ericsson or Nokia would be invaluable evidence, corroborating our allegations of market distortion from a directly affected party and potentially identifying new members for our collective action.
Upon processing the advanced search on Investegate, https://www.investegate.co.uk/advanced-search, the most effective strategy is to search for announcements from Huawei’s direct competitors that have a UK market presence. I will search for all regulatory news service announcements from “Ericsson” and “Nokia” published since 2021. Within their announcements, particularly annual or quarterly reports, I will search for keywords such as “market conditions”, “competitive environment Europe”, “public tenders”, and “fair competition”. A statement in an official report detailing difficult market access or unfair competition in Spain would be strong evidence from a major industry player, substantiating our claim of £600 million in lost opportunities for British and European firms
Upon processing the company database OpenCorporates, https://opencorporates.com/companies, the best search strategy is to map the corporate network used for the alleged undue influence. Beyond searching for “Huawei Technologies” and its national subsidiaries in Spain, Belgium, and Portugal, I will execute searches for any lobbying firms that have been publicly named in media reports in connection with the Brussels investigation. I will then analyze the corporate filings of these lobbying firms to identify their directors and ownership structure. This strategy aims to uncover the specific corporate vehicles and individuals involved in the lobbying efforts, which is crucial evidence for proving the allegations of undue influence over public institutions
Upon processing the OpenCorporates registers page, https://opencorporates.com/registers, the strategy is to use this directory as a verification tool to trace evidence back to its primary source. For each corporate entity identified in the main OpenCorporates search, such as “Huawei Technologies España SL” or associated lobbying firms, I will use this page to navigate to the official, national business registry for Spain (Registro Mercantil) or Belgium (Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises). The objective is to confirm the registration data and obtain officially sourced copies of corporate documents. This ensures that the evidence we gather on corporate structures is unimpeachable and suitable for submission in legal proceedings.
Upon processing the first searchlink, https://www.publicsector.co.uk/, which is a news and information platform for the UK public sector, the optimal search strategy to uncover new evidence is to focus on the impact of EU procurement practices on UK businesses. My approach would be to use the website’s search bar to query combinations of keywords. The best search strategy would be to use the search string “Huawei” AND (“EU procurement” OR “European tenders”) AND (“UK firms” OR “British business”) AND “telecoms”, filtering the results for articles published between 2021 and the present. This search is designed to find news reports or analyses that could serve as contextual evidence, potentially quoting UK trade bodies or affected companies discussing market access difficulties in the EU, thereby supporting our cause of action for damages due to unfair competition and regulatory failure.
Upon processing the second searchlink, https://www.gov.uk/search/advanced, the UK Government’s official advanced search portal, the best strategy is to seek official reports and policy documents that validate our claims of economic harm. I would execute a search for documents containing the exact phrase “Huawei” and at least one of the words “competition”, “procurement”, or “lobbying”. I would filter the search to show documents from the “Competition and Markets Authority”, the “Department for Business and Trade”, and the “Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office”, with a publication date set from January 1, 2021, to the present. This strategy is designed to locate potential evidence such as a market study by the Competition and Markets Authority on the 5G sector, a government report on post-Brexit trade barriers for UK tech firms in the EU, or official guidance on dealing with high-risk vendors, any of which could substantiate our cause of action for state liability and quantify the damages.
Upon processing the third searchlink, https://e-justice.europa.eu/advancedSearchManagement?action=advancedSearch, the European e-Justice Portal, the most effective search strategy is to find direct legal precedent or ongoing cases. I would conduct a search within the “Case law” section. The strategy is to search for the keyword “Huawei” and apply filters to select the “Member States” of Spain and Belgium, and limit the “Area of law” to “Competition law” and “Commercial law”. The search would cover the period from 2021 onwards. This search is aimed at uncovering crucial evidence, such as published preliminary rulings, judgments, or official notices of investigation related to the Belgian authorities’ probe into lobbying or any Spanish court proceedings challenging public contracts awarded to Huawei. Finding such a document would constitute a significant finding of infringement that could support a follow-on action.
Upon processing the fourth searchlink, https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/registers-business-insolvency-land/business-registers-search-company-eu_en, the EU business register portal, the strategy shifts from finding infringement evidence to gathering essential procedural information. The best approach is to use this tool to identify the precise legal entities of our opponent in the relevant jurisdictions. I would execute separate searches for the company name “Huawei Technologies” in the national registers of Spain, Belgium, Portugal, and France. This search is not designed to find evidence of wrongdoing but to obtain the official corporate registration details, such as the exact company name, registered address, and legal status of each national subsidiary. This information is a necessary type of evidence for correctly identifying the defendants in any future legal proceedings, which is fundamental to all our possible causes of action.
Upon processing the fifth searchlink, https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments, the European Commission’s competition case database, the strategy is to find a definitive finding of infringement from the highest competition authority in the EU. The optimal search strategy is to use the instrument search to look for any cases with “Huawei” listed as a party. I would then filter the results to show only “Antitrust” cases initiated from 2021 onwards. A successful search could yield the most powerful evidence possible: a formal Decision from the European Commission finding that Huawei has infringed EU competition law. Such a decision would establish a binding finding of infringement and would be the ideal foundation for a follow-on private damages claim, which is one of our key causes of action. It would also serve as undeniable proof of the regulatory failure we allege.
COAS & FOIS
Here are the new insights, findings, causes of action, and strategies based on the provided documents.
The new information from the website provides profound insights into COCOO’s overarching strategy, which is far more sophisticated than merely sending letters. The core insight is that COCOO operates a public-facing litigation and advocacy playbook, using media campaigns to create political and reputational pressure on a target. This pressure is designed to make inaction by public bodies unsustainable. The ultimate goal is not necessarily to win in court, but to create a “need for procurement” where the targeted public body or corporation hires COCOO for a low-value, sub-threshold “scoping study” to avoid a full public tender. This is a tactic to get a foot in the door, justified by COCOO’s unique intellectual property and prior investigative work. The strategy then pivots towards proposing a global mediation process, positioning COCOO as the only “informed neutral” party capable of brokering a comprehensive settlement. This reveals the litigation is a tool to force a negotiation where COCOO acts as a paid mediator. Furthermore, the estimated damages have been significantly increased from £600 million in the letters to a potential of over £2 billion for the UK across the EU, dramatically raising the stakes.
There are no definitive findings of infringement from a court or regulator in the documents that would automatically allow for a follow-on claim. The documents contain allegations that are subject to ongoing investigation. The text makes it clear that the claims are based on information currently available and do not constitute proven facts unless established in a legal proceeding. The campaign is designed to investigate and expose potential violations. The “presuntas infracciones” or “alleged infringements” that would form the basis of a claim, once proven by an authority, include violations of lobbying laws through alleged improper payments, gifts, and privileged access to influence political decisions and public procurement. A key allegation mentioned is the potential for a cartel in the 18-FDG radio-pharmaceutical market, which was investigated by Spain’s CNMC, and agreements of “pay-for-delay” involving Teva which were fined by the European Commission; these are cited as examples of the type of conduct being investigated in the Huawei case.
The possible causes of action are explicitly and implicitly outlined. A primary cause of action is a claim against Huawei for anti-competitive practices, specifically the abuse of a dominant market position and unfair competition, which is prohibited under EU and national competition law. A second cause of action exists against the relevant public bodies and ministries in Spain and other EU member states for regulatory failure and breach of their duty to ensure fair competition and transparency in public procurement. This would be a claim for state liability based on the harm caused by their alleged omissions. A third cause of action would be to seek the invalidation of public contracts awarded to Huawei on the grounds that they were procured through a flawed or illegal process, such as a violation of procurement rules or conduct contrary to public order. Finally, COCOO is building a collective or group action on behalf of a class of affected companies, investors, and consumers to seek compensation for the economic damages suffered as a result of the alleged common conduct.
The evidence consists of several types from various sources. There is Testimonial Evidence to be gathered from the companies, investors, and consumers who join the compensation campaign via the COCOO.UK website, detailing their specific losses and experiences with unfair competition. There is Investigative Evidence from COCOO’s own research into lobbying practices, public contracts, and market distortions. There is Documentary Evidence from public sources, such as tender documents from EU, Spanish, and UK procurement portals, which may show biased technical specifications or irregular awards. There is also Corporate Evidence from the financial statements and legal filings of Huawei’s competitors, such as Ericsson and Nokia, which may document market access challenges. There is Official Evidence from the ongoing investigations cited in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and France regarding undue influence, which can be sought through official channels. Finally, there is Financial Evidence derived from economic analysis to substantiate the estimated £2 billion in damages to UK and EU businesses.
To seek further evidence, several search strategies should be implemented on search platforms. A strategy for public procurement portals like the EU’s TED and Spain’s Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público would involve searching for all telecommunications and 5G infrastructure tenders from 2021 to the present, using keywords such as “Huawei”, “Ericsson”, and “Nokia” to compare contract awards, tender specifications, and the list of bidders to identify patterns of exclusion or bias. A strategy for competition authority websites, specifically the European Commission’s DG COMP and Spain’s CNMC, would be to search for all market studies, sector inquiries, and decisions related to the telecommunications equipment market, using search terms like “5G competition”, “abuse of dominance telecom”, and “market distortion Huawei”. A strategy for parliamentary and lobbying registers, including the EU Transparency Register and national equivalents, would be to search for all declared meetings, hospitality, and expenses reported by Huawei and its known lobbying firms, cross-referencing dates with key legislative and procurement decisions. A strategy for corporate and financial news archives would involve searching for all reports from 2021 onwards mentioning Huawei in combination with keywords like “investigation”, “raid”, “MEP bribery”, “Zapatero”, and “procurement influence” to gather media evidence and trace the public narrative of the scandal. A final strategy for legal databases would be to search for any litigation filed by or against Ericsson, Nokia, or other telecom providers in the EU that mentions unfair competition or procurement challenges in the 5G sector to identify parallel legal actions.
Spanish Intelligence-Gathering Protocol: COCOO v. Huawei
1. Corporate Intelligence: Infocif & Registradores de España
- Objective: To construct a complete corporate and financial anatomy of Huawei’s Spanish operations, primarily
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES ESPAÑA, S.L. - Search Parameters:
- Company Name:
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES ESPAÑA, S.L. - Company Identifiers (CIF): Search for the primary CIF and any variations.
- Company Name:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- Corporate Structure: Full details of directors (
administradores), both current and former, and shareholder information (accionistas) to map control and influence. - Financials: Obtain all available annual accounts (
cuentas anuales) for forensic analysis of revenue streams, profit margins, and potential balance sheet anomalies that could indicate state subsidies. - Corporate Links: Identify any associated subsidiaries, parent companies, or joint ventures registered in Spain.
- Corporate Structure: Full details of directors (
2. Public Procurement & State Aid: Contratación del Estado & InfoSubvenciones
- Objective: To uncover direct evidence of procurement irregularities and illicit state aid. These are central to our claim of market distortion.
- Search Parameters:
- Contractor/Beneficiary:
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES ESPAÑA, S.L. - Keywords:
Huawei,5G,equipamiento de red,mantenimiento de red,ciberseguridad.
- Contractor/Beneficiary:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- Contracts Database: A full list of all public contracts awarded to Huawei by any Spanish public body. We will scrutinize these for abnormally high values, lack of competing bids, or specifications tailored exclusively to Huawei products. The previous identification of a Basque Government tender specifically for Huawei equipment 1 serves as a precedent for this line of inquiry.
- Subsidies Database: A record of any grants, loans, or other forms of state aid received by Huawei in Spain. This will be critical evidence for our unlawful state aid arguments.
3. Competition & Market Regulation: CNMC (Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia)
- Objective: To identify any prior or ongoing investigations by the Spanish competition authority into Huawei’s market conduct.
- Search Parameters:
- Company Name:
Huawei - Keywords:
abuso de posición dominante(abuse of dominant position),ayudas de estado(state aid),competencia desleal(unfair competition),telecomunicaciones.
- Company Name:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- Records of any sanctioning procedures (
expedientes sancionadores). - Market reports analyzing Huawei’s competitive position and practices.
- Decisions related to mergers or joint ventures that could impact market concentration.
- Records of any sanctioning procedures (
4. Political & Legislative Influence: Congreso de los Diputados & Portal de Transparència (Catalunya)
- Objective: To map Huawei’s political influence and lobbying efforts in Spain, mirroring the conduct under investigation at the EU level.
- Search Parameters:
- Keywords:
Huawei,5G,China,seguridad redes.
- Keywords:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- Congress: Mentions in parliamentary debates, questions posed by MPs regarding Huawei, and reports from relevant committees.
- Transparency Portals: Records from lobbyist registers (
registres de grups d'interès), details of meetings with public officials, and contracts awarded at the regional level.
5. Financial & Insolvency Records: CNMV, Publicador Concursal & BOE
- Objective: To monitor the financial health of related entities and identify market impacts.
- Search Parameters:
- Company Names:
Huaweiand key Spanish competitors or partners.
- Company Names:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- CNMV (Securities Market): Any relevant filings or market abuse investigations if Huawei is linked to publicly traded companies in Spain.
- Insolvency Register: Notices of bankruptcy or restructuring for competitors, which could be a consequence of Huawei’s anti-competitive behaviour.
6. Intellectual Property: OEPM (Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas)
- Objective: To understand the scope of Huawei’s protected technology in Spain.
- Search Parameters:
- Applicant/Owner:
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
- Applicant/Owner:
- Data Points for Extraction:
- A complete list of Spanish patents and trademarks to assess their technological footprint and identify potential areas of litigation.
7. Central Bank Records: Banco de España
- Objective: To find macroeconomic reports relevant to our case.
- Search Parameters:
- Keywords:
inversión extranjera(foreign investment),telecomunicaciones,riesgos financieros(financial risks).
- Keywords:
- Note: This source was flagged as inaccessible in the initial sweep.2 I will attempt to access it again; if unsuccessful, we will rely on other sources for financial system analysis.
I will commence the execution of this intelligence-gathering operation immediately. The findings will be systematically compiled and integrated into our central case file to build an undeniable body of evidence. I will report back as soon as the first tranche of actionable intelligence is secured.
I. Introduction: Mandate and Strategic Overview
A. Confirmation of Mandate
This memorandum confirms the instruction to act as solicitor for COCOO.UK (“Cocoo”) in its proposed legal challenge against Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its relevant subsidiaries, including HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (UK) CO., LTD. (hereafter collectively “Huawei”). The primary objective is to formulate and execute a legal strategy to secure financial redress and other remedies for a class of claimants—comprising UK and EU companies, investors, and potentially consumers—who have suffered economic harm as a direct result of Huawei’s alleged systemic anti-competitive practices. The core of the claim centers on undue influence in public procurement processes, market distortion through illicit means, and leveraging unfair advantages, including potential state subsidies, to the detriment of fair competition within the European technology sector.
B. Executive Summary of Findings
A comprehensive investigation into the available evidence confirms that a formidable, multi-faceted legal case can be constructed against Huawei. The findings reveal a clear and consistent pattern of corporate conduct that deviates significantly from established legal and ethical norms within the UK and EU. This conduct encompasses a range of activities, from a large-scale bribery and corruption scandal currently under criminal investigation by European authorities to its formal designation as a “high-risk vendor” by the UK Government on national security grounds. This pattern of behaviour provides a powerful context for the specific allegations of unfair competition and irregular awards in public procurement tenders, which form the basis of the economic harm suffered by the proposed claimant class.
C. Strategic Conclusion
The legal and factual predicate for a successful collective action against Huawei is exceptionally strong. The English courts, whose jurisdiction in complex, multinational disputes was robustly affirmed by the Supreme Court in a case involving Huawei itself, represent a uniquely advantageous forum for this litigation. The proposed strategy is to intertwine three distinct but causally-linked narratives of Huawei’s misconduct into a single, compelling legal argument. These three pillars are: (1) the ongoing EU criminal investigation into bribery and corruption; (2) the UK’s official, legally-binding exclusion of Huawei from its critical 5G infrastructure on security grounds; and (3) specific instances of irregularities and market distortion in public procurement across the UK and EU. By demonstrating that these are not isolated incidents but manifestations of a single, overarching corporate strategy to win by any means necessary, we can establish a powerful case for systemic unfair competition and secure significant redress for the harmed parties.
II. The Factual Matrix: Establishing a Pattern of Conduct
To succeed, the case must present a coherent narrative of Huawei’s actions. The following sections construct this narrative, connecting disparate events to demonstrate a consistent pattern of behaviour that has fundamentally distorted fair competition and caused quantifiable harm to our clients.
A. The Adversary: Corporate Anatomy and State Proximity
Understanding the nature of the adversary is critical. Huawei presents itself as a private, employee-owned company, but its corporate structure, governance, and conduct suggest a far more complex reality, with deep ties to the Chinese state apparatus.
1. UK Corporate Entity Analysis (HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (UK) CO., LTD. – 04295981)
The primary operational entity in the United Kingdom is HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (UK) CO., LTD., a private limited company incorporated on 28 September 2001, with its registered office at Earley East, Thames Valley Park Drive, Reading. Its stated nature of business is “Other telecommunications activities” (SIC 61900).
A review of the company’s corporate filings at Companies House reveals several key characteristics. The board has experienced a remarkably high turnover of directors, with a significant number of Chinese nationals holding these positions. For example, filings show multiple director appointments and terminations within short periods, such as in March and June 2025, a pattern which can suggest an entity where local directors have limited autonomy and strategic control is exercised from a central headquarters.
Notably, Huawei has previously appointed several high-profile British figures to its UK board, including Lord Browne of Madingley, Sir Andrew Cahn, and Sir Kenneth Olisa, all of whom have since resigned. This practice is a well-known strategy for foreign companies seeking to build local credibility and navigate the political and business establishment. The subsequent departure of these respected figures could suggest a fundamental conflict between standard UK corporate governance principles and the operational realities or directives from Huawei’s global leadership. This allows for the argument that the UK board was structured as a “Potemkin village”—an external façade of legitimacy and independent oversight designed to reassure UK authorities, while the true decision-making power, influenced by the Chinese state, remained concealed.
Financially, the UK entity has multiple outstanding charges registered against it, primarily with DBS Bank, which secure “All benefits and rights of Huawei Technologies (UK) Co.”. This provides insight into its financial arrangements and identifies key commercial relationships that may be relevant during the disclosure phase of litigation.
| Name | Role | Appointment Date | Resignation Date | Nationality | Country of Residence | |
| CAO, Caiyun | Active Director | 01 Jun 2025 | Chinese | England | ||
| FAN, Yan | Active Director | 01 Mar 2025 | Chinese | England | ||
| ZHANG, Zhe | Active Director | 01 Mar 2025 | Chinese | England | ||
| CHEN, Yun | Active Secretary | 01 Feb 2015 | ||||
| WU, Fang | Resigned Director | 01 Mar 2025 | 01 Jun 2025 | Chinese | England | |
| WANG, Xin | Resigned Director | 01 Aug 2022 | 01 Mar 2025 | Chinese | Germany | |
| XIAO, Binbing | Resigned Director | 01 Aug 2022 | 01 Mar 2025 | Chinese | England | |
| YAN, Lida | Resigned Director | 01 Oct 2023 | 01 Mar 2025 | Chinese | China | |
| LORD BROWNE, Edmund John Philip | Resigned Director | 01 Feb 2015 | 08 Sep 2020 | British | England | |
| CAHN, Andrew Thomas | Resigned Director | 01 Feb 2015 | 08 Mar 2022 | British | United Kingdom | |
| OLISA, Kenneth Aphunezi, Sir | Resigned Director | 01 Aug 2018 | 08 Mar 2022 | British | England | |
| Table 1: Selected Key Personnel of HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (UK) CO., LTD. (04295981). Source: |
2. Global Structure and State Influence
Globally, Huawei describes its governance as a “collective leadership model” led by a rotating chairman, with a Board of Directors, a Supervisory Board, and a Shareholders’ Meeting composed of employee representatives. However, this structure has been heavily scrutinized. During a UK Parliament debate, it was asserted that Huawei is effectively a “state-owned corporation” under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, with its ownership held by a trade union committee.
These allegations are substantiated by claims of massive state support. The same Hansard record references reports of Huawei receiving up to $75 billion in state subsidies, including tax breaks and grants, which create market conditions where it is virtually impossible for unsubsidised Western competitors to compete on a level playing field. These claims directly support the core of our case: that Huawei’s market position is not the result of superior innovation or efficiency alone, but of unfair competition backed by state power.
B. The Gravamen: A Triad of Unlawful Influence
Huawei’s conduct cannot be viewed as a series of isolated incidents. Instead, the evidence points to a three-pronged pattern of behaviour designed to secure market access and dominance through means that fall well outside the bounds of lawful and ethical competition.
1. The EU Bribery and Corruption Scandal (2021-Present)
Beginning in March 2025, a major criminal investigation was launched by Belgian authorities into allegations of “active corruption within the European Parliament” that was said to have “benefited Huawei”. The alleged conduct, which reportedly began in 2021, involved a systematic campaign of disguised lobbying. This included “remuneration for taking political positions, excessive gifts like food and travel expenses and regular invitations to football matches”. More specific allegations have emerged of payments of €15,000 being offered to the author of a letter favorable to Chinese 5G firms, and €1,500 to each co-signatory.
The official response from European authorities has been swift and severe, demonstrating the gravity of the allegations. The investigation triggered coordinated police raids on over 20 addresses in Belgium, France, and Portugal. In a highly unusual move, both the European Parliament and the European Commission suspended access for all accredited Huawei lobbyists. This ban was subsequently extended to “any intermediaries acting on Huawei’s behalf,” effectively severing the company’s formal lobbying channels to the EU’s executive body.
The scandal has had significant industry repercussions. Major pan-European trade associations, facing pressure from the Commission and damage to their own reputations, moved to distance themselves from Huawei. Groups including DigitalEurope, BusinessEurope, and the European Internet Forum suspended Huawei’s membership, while SolarPower Europe took the step of formally expelling the company. This conduct occurred against a backdrop of immense lobbying expenditure by Huawei, which declared costs of over €2 million annually in the EU and secured at least 76 high-level meetings with the Commission in the years leading up to the scandal. The juxtaposition of this vast, declared lobbying effort with the secret, allegedly corrupt activities under investigation paints a picture of a company willing to operate on two tracks—one public, one illicit—to achieve its objectives.
| Date | Event | Source(s) |
| 2021 | Alleged bribery and “disguised lobbying” practices begin. | |
| Mar 13, 2025 | Belgian authorities conduct over 20 raids in Belgium, France, and Portugal. | |
| Mar 13, 2025 | Belgian prosecutors announce investigation into “active corruption” benefiting Huawei. | |
| Mar 14, 2025 | European Parliament suspends access for all 9 accredited Huawei lobbyists. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 | Reports emerge that major lobby groups (DigitalEurope, EIF, ECSO) are reviewing Huawei’s membership. | |
| Apr 24, 2025 | European Commission extends ban to include all “intermediaries acting on Huawei’s behalf.” | |
| Apr 28, 2025 | SolarPower Europe’s board votes to expel Huawei from its membership. | |
| Table 2: Chronology of the EU Lobbying Scandal and Regulatory Response (2021-Present) |
2. The UK 5G Network Exclusion
In the UK, Huawei has been the subject of a formal, state-level determination that it poses an unacceptable security risk. After initially permitting Huawei a limited role in the country’s 5G network in January 2020 , the UK Government reversed its position in July 2020, mandating the company’s complete removal from public 5G networks by the end of 2027.
This decision was not political whim; it was based on a formal technical review by the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). The NCSC concluded that new US sanctions, which restricted Huawei’s access to trusted US semiconductor technology, meant it was “impossible to continue to guarantee the security of Huawei equipment in the future”. The government codified this policy into law via the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. Under this Act, a formal “designated vendor direction” was issued to 35 UK telecom operators, legally designating Huawei as a “high-risk vendor” and setting out a series of binding deadlines for the removal of its equipment from various parts of the network.
This official designation was preceded by intense scrutiny in the UK Parliament. A Hansard debate from March 2020 records deep and cross-party concerns about Huawei’s intimate links to the Chinese state, its alleged role in facilitating human rights abuses against the Uyghur people, and the fundamental security risks of embedding its technology in critical national infrastructure. The government’s initial distinction between the network “core” and “edge” was dismissed by one MP as “complete and utter nonsense,” reflecting expert opinion that the entire 5G network could be compromised from the edge.
3. Irregularities in Public Procurement
The third pillar of the case connects this pattern of illicit influence and untrustworthiness to the direct economic harm suffered by Cocoo’s clients. The core allegation is that companies have been unfairly disadvantaged or have lost public tenders irregularly due to Huawei’s undue influence.
A compelling case study is the contract awarded by Newcastle University to a company named Flexigrid for the “Supply of Huawei Enterprise Network Equipment Maintenance Services – 2022 – 2027”. This contract was concluded on 6 July 2022. This date is significant: it is two full years
after the UK government announced its policy to ban and remove Huawei from 5G networks. While the contract may not be for 5G equipment specifically, it demonstrates the continued procurement of services for a vendor that the government had already formally identified as a national security risk. The fact that this was a single-bidder award under a Dynamic Purchasing System, while not necessarily improper on its face, raises serious questions about the procurement process in this context. Why would a public body commit to a five-year maintenance contract for equipment from a high-risk vendor that the nation was actively trying to phase out?
This is not an isolated issue. The investigation notes that UK companies have suffered harm from disadvantages in public procurement in Spain. This is corroborated by a 2024 tender notice from the Basque Government in Spain, which explicitly sought “Equipamiento de fabricante Huawei” (Equipment from manufacturer Huawei), showing continued public sector demand for its products even amidst the swirling security and corruption concerns.
These events should not be viewed in isolation. A court must not assess a procurement challenge in a vacuum. It must be invited to view any tender involving Huawei through the lens of a company that is under active criminal investigation for bribery by EU authorities and has been formally designated a high-risk national security threat by the UK government. This context makes any claim of unfairness, lack of transparency, or unequal treatment in a bidding process where Huawei was a participant substantially more credible and compelling.
III. The Legal Framework: Causes of Action and Jurisdictional Hooks
The factual matrix provides a robust foundation for several legal claims. Crucially, recent legal precedent establishes the English courts as a powerful and appropriate forum to hear this complex, international dispute.
A. Jurisdiction: The Global Reach of the English Courts
The cornerstone for establishing the jurisdiction of the English courts is the UK Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Unwired Planet v. Huawei ( UKSC 37). This case, in which Huawei was a lead appellant, has ironically created a highly favourable jurisdictional environment for our claim. The Supreme Court made several critical findings:
- It confirmed that an English court has the power to grant an injunction preventing the infringement of a UK patent, with the injunction being conditional on the defendant refusing to take a global licence for a multinational patent portfolio.
- It asserted the court’s power to determine the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms of that global licence, even without the parties’ agreement.
- The court’s reasoning was deeply pragmatic, acknowledging the commercial reality that global markets require global solutions and that the cost of country-by-country litigation would be prohibitive.
Most pertinently for our case, the Supreme Court made a finding on Huawei’s conduct, noting that Unwired Planet had shown itself willing to grant a licence on FRAND terms, whereas “Huawei was only prepared to take a licence on its own terms”. This characterisation of Huawei as an “unwilling licensee” who sought to frustrate the process is a judicial finding that we can leverage to describe its broader litigation and commercial posture.
This precedent can be turned against its original participant. We will argue by analogy that the court’s logic extends beyond patent law. The Unwired Planet case concerned a UK-based harm (patent infringement) that was connected to a global set of rights (the patent portfolio) and a contractual undertaking (the ETSI IPR policy). Our case also concerns UK-based harm (lost profits, depressed market value) caused by a pattern of anti-competitive conduct that is international in scope. The “undertaking” in our case is not to a standards body, but the fundamental obligation to abide by UK and EU competition and procurement law. Just as the court stepped in to prevent an “unwilling licensee” from frustrating the patent system through hold-out, it must now step in to prevent a dominant market actor from frustrating the principles of fair competition through a systemic campaign of illicit, international influence. Any attempt by Huawei to challenge the jurisdiction of the English courts can be framed as another example of it acting as an “unwilling litigant,” attempting to evade accountability in the very forum whose broad powers it has experienced firsthand.
B. Primary Causes of Action
The factual matrix supports several parallel causes of action:
1. Breach of UK/EU Competition Law
- Abuse of a Dominant Position: Under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the UK’s Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998, we will argue that Huawei holds a dominant position in specific markets for telecommunications network equipment. Its conduct—including leveraging massive alleged state subsidies to undercut competitors , engaging in alleged bribery to secure political influence and contracts , and distorting public procurement processes—constitutes an abuse of that dominant position designed to foreclose and harm its competitors.
- Unlawful State Aid: The evidence from the Hansard debate regarding up to $75 billion in subsidies provides a basis for an argument that Huawei has benefited from unlawful state aid, distorting competition in the single market. This can be used as powerful evidence of market distortion in our national court claim and could form the basis of a separate complaint to the European Commission.
2. Breach of Public Procurement Law
For each public tender that a claimant company lost to Huawei, we can mount a challenge under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The core principles of the regulations are transparency, equal treatment, and non-discrimination. The overwhelming evidence of Huawei’s illicit lobbying in the EU and its official high-risk designation in the UK creates a powerful inference that these principles were fundamentally breached. It is arguable that a contracting authority could not have conducted a fair and equal evaluation of bidders when one of those bidders was engaged in the conduct now subject to a criminal probe.
3. Economic Torts
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy: This tort requires showing an agreement between two or more parties (e.g., Huawei and complicit public officials or MEPs) with the intention to injure the claimant, using means that are unlawful (e.g., bribery, breaches of procurement regulations). The EU criminal investigation, which alleges a criminal syndicate and active corruption, provides the direct factual predicate for this claim.
C. The Evidentiary Weight of Official Censure
In civil litigation, evidence of a party’s general bad character is often inadmissible. However, the actions taken against Huawei by the UK and EU governments are not mere opinion or character evidence. The UK Government’s “designated vendor direction” is a formal legal instrument under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, based on an expert security assessment by the NCSC. It is a finding of fact by a competent governmental body. Similarly, the EU Parliament and Commission’s coordinated ban on Huawei lobbyists is an official sanction resulting directly from an ongoing criminal investigation. We will argue that these are formal, official findings that are highly relevant and admissible to establish Huawei’s propensity for untrustworthy and illicit behaviour. This elevates them from mere background context to a central plank of our evidence, making the specific allegations of procurement-rigging substantially more likely to be true in the eyes of the court.
IV. The Path to Victory: A Multi-Pronged Strategic Plan
A successful outcome requires a strategy that combines robust litigation with coordinated regulatory and public pressure.
A. The Litigation Blueprint
- Forum Selection: The High Court of England and Wales (specifically the Technology and Construction Court or the Commercial Court) is the optimal forum. It possesses the necessary expertise in complex, high-value commercial disputes, and the jurisdictional precedent from Unwired Planet is binding and highly favourable.
- The Collective Action: The immediate priority is the formal constitution of the claimant group, as outlined by Cocoo’s project, encompassing companies, investors, and others who have suffered economic harm. Evidence of specific lost contracts, devalued investments, and other quantifiable damages must be gathered. The claim will be structured as a collective action for damages arising from a common pattern of anti-competitive conduct by Huawei.
- Central Legal Argument: The core submission to the court will be that Huawei’s commercial success in UK and EU public sector markets was not the legitimate result of fair competition on the merits. Rather, it was achieved through a systemic, international strategy of unlawful influence, market distortion, and leveraging of state-backed advantages. The EU bribery scandal serves as direct evidence of this strategy in action, while the UK’s national security designation serves as an official government verdict on the company’s untrustworthiness.
B. Regulatory and Political Leverage
This legal action will not proceed in a vacuum. To maximise pressure on Huawei and increase the probability of a favourable outcome, we will pursue a parallel strategy of regulatory engagement. This involves preparing and submitting formal, evidence-based dossiers to:
- The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), detailing the evidence of abuse of dominance and other anti-competitive practices.
- The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), sharing relevant information uncovered in our investigation that may assist with any UK-based limbs of the European criminal probe.
- The Belgian Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, offering to provide evidence from affected UK companies to support and broaden their ongoing criminal investigation into Huawei.
This strategy creates a “pressure cascade.” A purely private law claim can be contained and fought through attrition by a well-resourced defendant like Huawei. However, active regulatory and criminal investigations carry the threat of far greater sanctions, including massive fines, director disqualifications, and debarment from future public contracts. By actively and formally feeding information from our civil case into these official channels, we create a powerful feedback loop. The regulators may uncover evidence through their statutory powers that assists our civil claim, and the pressure of fighting a multi-front legal and regulatory battle will stretch Huawei’s resources and increase its incentive to seek a comprehensive and favourable settlement with our claimant group.
C. Damages, Redress, and Final Relief
- Quantifying the Claim: The estimated £2 billion claim will be substantiated by expert forensic accountants. Their task will be to construct a detailed economic model of the “but-for” world: what revenues, profits, and market share would the claimant companies have achieved but for Huawei’s unlawful conduct? This will include lost profits on specific, identified tenders as well as broader damages for the depressive effect of unfair competition on the market as a whole.
- Defining the Full Scope of Relief: We will seek a comprehensive set of remedies from the High Court:
- Damages: Full monetary compensation for all quantified losses suffered by the claimant class.
- Declaratory Relief: A formal declaration from the Court that Huawei’s conduct was unlawful and in breach of UK/EU competition and public procurement law. This provides a powerful, public vindication of the claimants’ position.
- Injunctive Relief: An injunction preventing Huawei from bidding on UK public sector contracts for a specified period, or, alternatively, an injunction requiring specific and onerous transparency and compliance measures to be attached to any future bids, to be monitored by an independent supervisor.
V. Conclusion and Immediate Next Steps
A. Summary of Case Strength
The case against Huawei is exceptionally strong. The unique convergence of a major, ongoing EU criminal investigation into bribery, a formal UK government designation as a national security risk, and a favourable jurisdictional precedent from the UK’s highest court creates a legal and factual foundation of rare solidity. Huawei is demonstrably vulnerable on multiple fronts, and the evidence of a pattern of systemic misconduct is compelling and well-documented.
B. Immediate Actions
The following immediate actions are recommended to advance the case:
- Formalise the retention of this firm and establish a secure communication and document-sharing protocol for this privileged matter.
- Commence the formal process of identifying, vetting, and signing up members of the claimant class to build the collective action.
- Issue instructions to engage pre-eminent forensic accounting experts to begin constructing the damages quantification model.
- Draft the initial Letter Before Action to be served on HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES (UK) CO., LTD., formally outlining the claims and putting the company on notice of the impending litigation.
- Prepare the initial evidence dossiers for strategic submission to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Serious Fraud Office.
The evidence suggests that a determined and strategically-executed legal action has a high prospect of success. We await your instructions to proceed
Batch 1 of 6
1. Searchlink: www-publicsector-co-uk
- The Standard Model: The model for this platform is to use it as a directory to identify and target key contacts within the UK public sector, particularly for initiating contact regarding public contracts or regulatory matters.
- Customisation for the HUAWEI CASE:
- Objective: To identify the specific officials within the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, who are responsible for 5G policy, telecoms supply chain security, and market competition.
- Search Strategy:
- Use the
publicsector.co.ukdirectory search. - Search for job titles such as:
"Director of Telecoms Security","Head of 5G Policy","Head of Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification", and"Head of Telecoms Market Competition". - Filter by organisation: “DSIT”, “Ofcom”, “National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)”.
- Use the
- Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for “UK government Telecoms Security Act” reveals that DSIT is the lead department for this policy. Searching its website identifies the key policy teams and senior civil servants responsible for its implementation.
- Expected Outcome: A detailed stakeholder map of the key public officials responsible for this policy area. This list is essential for our government engagement strategy, allowing us to target the correct decision-makers with our public contract proposal.
2. Searchlink: www-gov-uk-search-advanced
- The Standard Model: The model for
gov.ukis to use its advanced search capabilities to locate specific policy documents, official reports, and public datasets published by UK government bodies. - Customisation for the HUAWEI CASE:
- Objective: To find all official UK government reports, impact assessments, and policy documents related to the decision to ban Huawei and the estimated costs of this policy.
- Search Strategy:
- Use the advanced search on
gov.uk. - Use exact phrase searches for
"Huawei","5G supply chain diversification strategy", and"rip and replace". - Combine with keywords like
"costs","economic impact", and"Telecoms Security Act". - Filter for documents published by: “DSIT”, “National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)”, and “HM Treasury”.
- Use the advanced search on
- Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for “UK government impact assessment Huawei ban” leads to official documents, such as the “5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy” published in 2020, which acknowledges the costs and competition issues arising from the decision.
- Expected Outcome: A dossier of official UK government publications. This will contain the government’s own estimates of the “rip and replace” costs and its analysis of the market concentration issue. This is primary evidence that can be used to prove the existence of the harm and to justify the need for our proposed compensation and diversification scheme.
3. & 4. Searchlinks: www-e-justice-europa-eu-advancedsearch and e-justice.europa.eu/topics/registers...
- The Standard Model: The model for the EU e-Justice portal is to leverage its interconnection of national business registers to find official corporate information on companies registered within any EU member state.
- Customisation for the HUAWEI CASE:
- Objective: To identify the official UK and European corporate entities of the main Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) who are the primary victims of the “rip and replace” policy.
- Search Strategy:
- Use the portal’s “Find a Company” function, which searches across interconnected EU and UK business registers.
- We will perform searches for the main MNOs operating in the UK: “Vodafone Group Plc”, “BT Group Plc” (for EE), “Three UK”, and the UK entity for Telefónica (“O2”).
- Supporting Online Intelligence: We will cross-reference our findings with the corporate information sections of the MNOs’ own websites, which typically provide details of their main registered operating companies.
- Expected Outcome: A definitive list of the correct legal entities for each MNO. This is a critical first step in building a coalition and presenting our proposal, ensuring we are engaging with the correct corporate bodies and their legal representatives.
Batch 2 of 6
1. Searchlink: www-db-comp-eu
- The Standard Model: The doctrine for
db.comp.euis to use it for rapid precedent analysis in EU competition law, particularly for mergers and State Aid cases, to understand the European Commission’s approach in specific sectors 2. - Customisation for Our Case:
- Objective: To find all relevant EU precedents for antitrust cases against dominant technology platforms.
- Search Strategy: As this is a competition case, this platform is a primary tool. We will search the
db.comp.eudatabase using the “Antitrust” filter. Keywords for the search will include"abuse of dominance","digital platform","gatekeeper", and the names of major tech companies like"Google","Apple","Amazon", and"Meta". - Supporting Online Intelligence: An online search for
"European Commission investigation Apple App Store"or"Google Android antitrust case"confirms that the Commission has conducted multiple high-profile investigations into these exact issues, providing specific case names and numbers (e.g., AT.40437 – Google Android) to search for in the database. - Expected Outcome: A comprehensive list of all relevant EU antitrust cases against Big Tech. The official decisions in these cases will provide the legal and economic framework for how the Commission defines relevant markets for digital platforms and what practices it considers an abuse of dominance. This is foundational for building our complaint.
2. Searchlink: www-policy-trade-ec-europa-eu
- The Standard Model: The standard model for the EU’s trade policy portal is to conduct forensic keyword searches within the legal texts of EU trade agreements and official policy documents to identify legal risks and opportunities 3.
- Customisation for Our Case:
- Objective: To gather the official EU policy and legal framework for regulating large digital markets.
- Search Strategy: We will search the portal at
trade.ec.europa.euand its linked internal market sections for the official legislative texts and all related policy documents (impact assessments, press releases, etc.) for the “Digital Markets Act (DMA)” and the “Digital Services Act (DSA)”. - Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for
"Digital Markets Act official text"leads directly to the primary legal document, Regulation (EU) 2022/1925. This regulation sets out specific obligations for companies designated as “gatekeepers.” - Expected Outcome: A dossier containing the complete legal architecture for the EU’s regulation of digital platforms. This is critical for our case as it provides a new set of legal obligations against which we can assess TechCo’s conduct. Proving a breach of the DMA could be a powerful component of our complaint to the Commission.
3. Searchlink: www-eu-itas-by-nation
- The Standard Model: The procedure for the EU’s International Trade in Services (ITAS) database is to extract quantitative data to analyze service trade trends 4.
- Customisation for Our Case:
- Objective: To quantify the economic scale of the digital services market across the EU, providing a compelling context for the importance of ensuring competition in this sector.
- Search Strategy: This platform is for services, making it directly relevant. We will use the ITAS database (and its linked Eurostat data) to extract statistics on the total value of the “Telecommunications, computer, and information services” sector for the entire EU-27 and for key member states like Germany and France.
- Supporting Online Intelligence: We will cross-reference this data with reports from industry analysis firms or bodies like the European Investment Bank (EIB) that publish on the size and growth of Europe’s digital economy.
- Expected Outcome: A quantitative report showing the multi-hundred-billion-euro scale of the digital services market in the EU. This data is essential for demonstrating to competition authorities that the practices of a dominant firm like TechCo can have a massive and detrimental impact on a critical and growing sector of the European economy.
4. Searchlink: www-policy-trade-ec-europa-eu-2
- The Standard Model: The doctrine for the EU’s trade enforcement portal is to use its formal complaint mechanisms to challenge unfair trade barriers 5.
- Customisation for Our Case:
- Objective: To find any instances where the EU’s new digital regulations (DMA, DSA) have been challenged by other countries as being a trade barrier.
- Search Strategy: We will search the trade barrier database for any complaints filed by non-EU countries (particularly the US) against the EU. The search keywords will be
"Digital Markets Act","Digital Services Act","gatekeeper", and"platform regulation". - Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for
"US government position on EU Digital Markets Act"reveals official statements from the US Trade Representative and commentary from tech industry lobby groups expressing concerns that the DMA unfairly targets US companies. - Expected Outcome: An intelligence report detailing the international political and trade-related disputes surrounding the EU’s new digital regulations. This provides valuable context, helping us to understand the geopolitical landscape in which our competition complaint will be assessed and to anticipate any arguments that the regulations themselves are protectionist.
5. & 6. Searchlinks: www-investegate and www-opencorporates-com
- The Standard Model: These platforms are used in combination. OpenCorporates is used to map corporate structures, while Investegate is used to monitor the public announcements of any UK-listed entities within that structure 6.
- Customisation for Our Case:
- Objective: To map the full European corporate structure of our hypothetical target, “TechCo,” and monitor its UK-listed competitors.
- Search Strategy:
- Using OpenCorporates, we will search for all European subsidiaries of our target company (e.g., Apple, Google), paying close attention to their registered entities in Ireland and Luxembourg, which are often used for tax and corporate structuring purposes. This identifies our legal defendants.
- Using Investegate, we will set up monitoring alerts for any smaller, UK-listed software or tech companies that compete with TechCo in a specific niche. We will monitor their RNS announcements for any commentary on “competition,” “market conditions,” or their relationship with the dominant platform.
- Supporting Online Intelligence: An online search for “Apple corporate structure Europe” or “Google Ireland subsidiary” often leads to news articles and regulatory filings that explain the role of these key national entities within the global corporate web.
- Expected Outcome: A detailed corporate map of TechCo’s European operations, allowing us to target the correct legal entities in our complaint. The monitoring of smaller UK competitors may also yield valuable “from the trenches” evidence of how TechCo’s practices are harming smaller players in the market.
5. & 6. Searchlinks: www-competition-cases-ec-europa-eu-searchcaseinstrumentsa (and its duplicate)
- The Standard Model: The model for the EC Competition case search portal is to track enforcement actions and find precedents by filtering for cases by type (Antitrust, Merger, State Aid), company name, and NACE code.
- Customisation for the HUAWEI CASE:
- Objective: To find any past or present EU competition cases related to the telecommunications equipment market, which could provide evidence of the existing market structure and potential competition concerns.
- Search Strategy:
- Search the EC case database, filtering for “Merger” and “Antitrust” cases.
- Use keywords:
"telecoms equipment","Huawei","Ericsson","Nokia","Samsung", and"ZTE". - We will look for any merger cases between these players or any antitrust investigations into their conduct.
- Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for “European Commission Nokia Ericsson merger” or “EU antitrust telecoms equipment” will reveal if there have been any major past investigations into this specific market. For example, the historic “Nokia/Siemens” and “Alcatel-Lucent/Nokia” mergers were reviewed by the Commission.
- Expected Outcome: An intelligence report on the history of EU competition enforcement in the telecoms equipment market. The Commission’s analysis in past merger decisions will contain a detailed assessment of the market structure, barriers to entry, and the competitive positions of Huawei, Nokia, and Ericsson. This is invaluable evidence to support our argument that the market is now an unhealthy duopoly.
Batch 3 of 28
12, 13 & 14. Searchlinks: www-opencorporates-com and its associated direct links
- The Standard Model: As a global aggregator of corporate registries, OpenCorporates is the primary tool for mapping international corporate structures, identifying officers, and tracking the status of entities across more than 140 jurisdictions111. Its advanced search capabilities are invaluable for untangling complex ownership chains2.
- Customisation for the PFIZER CASE:
- Objective: To identify and map the full European corporate structure of the defendants, Pfizer and Flynn Pharma, to ensure all liable entities are included in the legal action.
- Search Strategy:
- Conduct an initial broad search on
opencorporates.comfor “Pfizer Inc.” and “Flynn Pharma” to identify all global entities. - Refine the search by filtering by jurisdiction, focusing on the United Kingdom and Ireland, as these were the primary territories of the infringement identified by the CMA.
- For each key subsidiary found, such as “PFIZER LIMITED” (UK) and “FLYNN PHARMA LIMITED” (UK), record its company number, registered address, and current status.
- Navigate to the “Officers” tab for each of these entities to identify all listed current and former directors.
- Click on each director’s name to map their network of other corporate appointments, which may reveal other related but less obviously named corporate entities involved in the structure.
- Conduct an initial broad search on
- Supporting Online Intelligence: A search for the “CMA Pfizer Flynn final report” confirms that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority decision was directed at “Pfizer Limited” and “Flynn Pharma Limited”3. This provides the precise legal names of the main defendant entities to use as primary search terms on OpenCorporates, ensuring our investigation is correctly targeted from the outset.
- Expected Outcome: A detailed corporate network map for both Pfizer and Flynn Pharma across Europe. This dossier will provide the official names, registration numbers, and registered addresses for every relevant legal entity. This is a non-negotiable legal prerequisite for correctly drafting and serving the claim forms for our damages action in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal.
-
Problema Central: El “Caso Huawei” se centra en las consecuencias económicas y de competencia derivadas de la prohibición o restricción impuesta por varios gobiernos occidentales (liderados por EE. UU. y seguidos por el Reino Unido y otros países de la UE) a la empresa china de telecomunicaciones Huawei para participar en el despliegue de las redes de infraestructura 5G. La justificación oficial de estas prohibiciones se basa en riesgos para la seguridad nacional. Sin embargo, la exclusión de un competidor importante del mercado ha creado, de facto, un duopolio en el suministro de equipos de red 5G, dominado por Ericsson y Nokia.
-
El Daño y las Víctimas: COCOO identifica dos formas principales de perjuicio derivado de esta situación:
- Daño a los Operadores de Redes Móviles (MNOs): Empresas como Vodafone, Telefónica, etc., que ya habían instalado equipos de Huawei en sus redes 4G y 5G iniciales, se ven obligadas por ley a incurrir en costes masivos de “rip and replace” (arrancar y reemplazar) para sustituir esos equipos por los de los proveedores autorizados (Nokia/Ericsson).
- Daño a los Consumidores y a la Economía: La reducción de la competencia a un duopolio conduce inevitablemente a precios más altos, menor innovación y un despliegue más lento de la tecnología 5G. Estos costes se trasladan en última instancia a los consumidores y a las empresas a través de tarifas más altas y una peor calidad del servicio, lo que perjudica la competitividad económica general del país.
-
La Propuesta de COCOO (USP): La estrategia de COCOO no es defender a Huawei en el plano de la seguridad nacional. En su lugar, aborda las consecuencias económicas de la prohibición. La propuesta central es un “Proyecto de Contratación Pública” ofrecido al gobierno (por ejemplo, al del Reino Unido). En esta Propuesta No Solicitada (USP), COCOO se ofrece para gestionar una de dos posibles soluciones:
- Opción A: Fondo de Compensación para los MNOs: Gestionar un fondo público para compensar a los operadores por los costes directos de “rip and replace” que se les ha impuesto por una decisión gubernamental.
- Opción B: Acción Colectiva de Consumidores: Iniciar una reclamación colectiva masiva contra el gobierno, argumentando que su decisión de prohibir a Huawei, al reducir la competencia, ha causado un perjuicio económico a todos los consumidores y empresas del país. COCOO gestionaría esta compleja reclamación a cambio de un porcentaje de la indemnización.
Actores Clave y sus Intereses
- Gobiernos Occidentales (ej. Reino Unido): Su interés principal es la seguridad nacional y la alineación geopolítica con sus socios (especialmente EE. UU.). Sin embargo, también tienen interés en minimizar el impacto económico negativo de sus decisiones políticas sobre sus propias economías y empresas.
- Huawei: Aunque no es el cliente de COCOO, es un actor central. Su interés es, por supuesto, revertir las prohibiciones, pero al ser esto poco probable, un interés secundario sería ver reconocida la falta de competencia y el daño económico que su exclusión provoca, lo que podría ayudarle en otros frentes.
- Operadores de Redes Móviles (MNOs): Son una víctima directa. Su interés es ser compensados por los enormes costes de “rip and replace”. Son los clientes naturales para la Opción A de la propuesta de COCOO.
- Consumidores y Empresas: Son la víctima final del aumento de precios y de la menor calidad del servicio. Su interés es obtener una compensación por este perjuicio. Son los demandantes en la Opción B de la propuesta de COCOO.
- Ericsson y Nokia: Son los principales beneficiarios comerciales de la prohibición, al consolidar su posición en un mercado duopolístico. Su interés es mantener el statu quo y oponerse a cualquier medida que cuestione los efectos de la exclusión de su principal competidor.
- COCOO: Se posiciona como el único actor capaz de estructurar y monetizar el daño económico causado por una decisión geopolítica. Su interés es conseguir un contrato público, ya sea con los MNOs o en nombre de los consumidores, para gestionar una reclamación de compensación a gran escala.
Análisis Estratégico y Perspectivas Profesionales (Mis Insights)
Este caso es una demostración de la capacidad de COCOO para operar en la intersección de la geopolítica, la regulación tecnológica y el derecho de la competencia, creando una oportunidad comercial a partir de un conflicto de alto nivel.
-
Fortalezas del Caso:
- Elusión del Debate sobre Seguridad Nacional: La estrategia es brillante porque evita por completo el debate sobre si Huawei es o no una amenaza para la seguridad. COCOO acepta la decisión del gobierno como un hecho y se centra exclusivamente en las consecuencias económicas legalmente cuantificables de esa decisión. Esto neutraliza el principal argumento político en contra.
- Daño Económico Tangible: Tanto los costes de “rip and replace” para los MNOs como el sobreprecio para los consumidores debido a la falta de competencia son daños económicos que pueden ser modelados y cuantificados por peritos, aunque de forma compleja.
- Clara Cadena de Causalidad: La lógica es directa: la decisión del gobierno causó la exclusión de un competidor, la exclusión causó una reducción de la competencia, y la reducción de la competencia causó un daño económico. Esta es una cadena de causalidad sólida para una reclamación legal.
- Múltiples Clientes Potenciales: El modelo de COCOO es flexible y puede dirigirse tanto a los MNOs (un grupo pequeño y sofisticado de clientes) como a los consumidores (una acción colectiva masiva), lo que duplica las posibilidades de éxito.
-
Debilidades y Riesgos:
- Riesgo Político Extremo: A pesar de la inteligente evasión del tema de la seguridad, cualquier acción que parezca “ayudar” indirectamente a Huawei o que critique una decisión de seguridad nacional se enfrentará a una inmensa oposición política y mediática. La narrativa puede ser fácilmente tergiversada como “antipatríotica”.
- Complejidad de la Prueba del Daño: Probar el “sobreprecio” en el caso de los consumidores es extremadamente difícil. Requiere un complejo modelo contrafáctico para estimar cuál habría sido el precio de los servicios 5G en un mercado con tres competidores en lugar de dos. Este modelo será ferozmente atacado por los peritos del gobierno.
- La Defensa del Interés Público Superior: El gobierno argumentará que, aunque se haya producido un daño económico, éste estaba justificado por el interés superior de proteger la seguridad nacional. Superar esta defensa en los tribunales es un obstáculo legal formidable.
- Resistencia de los MNOs: Aunque son víctimas, los MNOs pueden ser reacios a demandar al gobierno del que dependen para obtener licencias y otras regulaciones. Pueden preferir negociar una compensación discretamente en lugar de unirse a una acción legal pública de alto perfil.
-
Recomendaciones para los Próximos Pasos y Refinamiento de la Estrategia:
- Priorizar el Frente de los MNOs: La vía de reclamación en nombre de los MNOs por los costes de “rip and replace” es mucho más directa y el daño más fácil de cuantificar que el caso de los consumidores. La estrategia inicial debería centrarse en formar una coalición con uno o dos de los principales operadores para lanzar una reclamación conjunta por estos costes.
- Contratar Peritos de Prestigio Mundial: El éxito del caso depende casi por completo de la credibilidad de los informes periciales económicos. Es absolutamente esencial contratar desde el principio a una de las principales consultoras económicas del mundo, con experiencia en la modelización de mercados de telecomunicaciones, para que prepare el informe sobre el daño competitivo.
- Controlar la Narrativa Mediática de Forma Agresiva: La campaña mediática debe ser excepcionalmente clara y disciplinada. El mensaje central debe ser: “Respetamos la decisión del gobierno sobre la seguridad, pero los contribuyentes y las empresas no deberían pagar la factura. Esta acción busca una compensación justa por los costes directos de una decisión política”. Cada comunicado debe reiterar que no se está defendiendo a Huawei.
- Estrategia de Búsqueda: Nuestras búsquedas en los searchlinks deben centrarse ahora en: 1) Cuantificar los costes de “rip and replace” citados en los informes anuales de los MNOs en plataformas como la LSE o SEC EDGAR. 2) Encontrar cualquier estudio de mercado (en los sitios de la CMA, la UE, etc.) que analice el nivel de competencia en el mercado de equipos de telecomunicaciones. 3) Investigar precedentes legales en los que los tribunales hayan concedido una indemnización por daños económicos causados por una decisión gubernamental legítima pero perjudicial.
-
Core Problem: The “Huawei Case” addresses the significant economic harm inflicted upon Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and national economies as a consequence of the UK government’s decision to ban Huawei from the country’s 5G infrastructure. This decision, driven by national security concerns, has effectively created a duopoly in the telecom equipment market, dominated by Nokia and Ericsson.
-
The Harm and The Victims:
- Primary Victims (MNOs): Mobile operators like BT, Vodafone, and others who had already begun deploying Huawei equipment in their 5G networks are now legally mandated to undertake a costly “rip and replace” process. This involves immense direct costs for new equipment, installation, and network integration, estimated to be in the billions of pounds.
- Secondary Victims (Consumers & Economy): The resulting duopoly in the equipment market is expected to lead to higher prices for MNOs, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers and businesses through higher mobile service fees. It also risks slowing the pace of 5G rollout and reducing network innovation, harming the UK’s overall economic competitiveness.
-
COCOO’s Unsolicited Proposal (USP):
- COCOO’s strategy is not to challenge the government’s national security decision. Instead, it accepts the ban as a political reality and focuses on mitigating its economic consequences.
- The core of the case is a public contract proposal presented to the UK government. In this proposal, COCOO offers to design and manage a “5G Network Diversification and Compensation Scheme.”
- This scheme would have two functions:
- Administer Compensation: To create and manage a fund that would compensate the MNOs for the government-mandated “rip and replace” costs.
- Promote Competition: To manage a fund that supports market entry for new, trusted equipment suppliers (such as Samsung or other Open RAN vendors), thereby breaking the Nokia/Ericsson duopoly in the long term and fostering a more competitive and resilient supply chain.
- The project would be funded by a small levy or through direct government funding, justified by the argument that since a government decision caused the economic harm, the government has a responsibility to mitigate it.