Mexico’s CNA Fines Liverpool and Chedraui Over Mall-Rent Collusion
Regulatory Overhang
Key Facts
—The fine. Mexico’s CNA imposed fines exceeding 500 million pesos (about US$27 million) on 10 June 2026.
—The targets. Retailers Liverpool and Chedraui, plus developers including Grupo Danhos and GICSA, were sanctioned.
—The conduct. Competitors agreed to fix maximum rent discounts and deny reductions to tenants during the pandemic.
—The harm. The estimated damage to shopping-centre tenants reached roughly 404 million pesos.
—The status. The sanction is not yet final; the companies can appeal through Mexico’s competition courts.
Mexico’s antitrust regulator has fined retail giants Liverpool and Chedraui, alongside major shopping-centre developers, for colluding to fix commercial rents during the pandemic, a case that puts the real-estate arms of household-name brands under an uncomfortable spotlight.
What the CNA found
On 10 June 2026, Mexico’s Comisión Nacional Antimonopolio (CNA), the antitrust body that replaced the former Cofece in July 2025, announced fines totalling more than 500 million pesos (about US$27 million). The regulator concluded that a group of retailers and shopping-centre landlords had operated a classic horizontal cartel.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, these competitors agreed to fix the maximum discounts they would offer on commercial rents. They also agreed not to grant rent reductions to tenants struggling with lockdowns and collapsing footfall.
The Liverpool Chedraui connection
The sanctioned parties include department-store chain El Puerto de Liverpool and supermarket operator Grupo Chedraui, acting through their real-estate and landlord arms. These are not small players: Liverpool runs about 124 stores and holds roughly 7.8 million active store-branded credit cards, while Chedraui operates about 700 stores in Mexico plus a sizeable grocery business in the United States.
Also fined were shopping-centre developers Grupo Danhos, GICSA, Acosta Verde, DMI and ARYBA, along with the developers’ association ADI and several individuals. The regulator estimated the harm to tenants at about 404 million pesos.
A per-se illegal agreement
Under Mexican competition law, the conduct is classified as a “práctica monopólica absoluta” — a per-se illegal cartel agreement between competitors. This is the opposite of a legitimate joint venture or an industry association discussing best practices.
The investigation was opened during the pandemic by the then-Cofece, and its successor, the CNA, resolved the case and made the fines public on 10 June 2026.
What this means for investors
The case signals that Mexico’s renamed regulator is serious about pursuing horizontal collusion, even when it involves powerful household names. Shopping-centre leasing and landlord practices are now firmly on the CNA’s radar.
For investors in Mexican retail and real-estate stocks, the immediate read-through is regulatory overhang. The sanction is administrative and not yet final — the companies can challenge it before Mexico’s specialised competition courts, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court, in litigation that could take years.
The wider Latin America picture
Across Latin America, competition authorities are becoming bolder in targeting collusion in concentrated sectors. Mexico’s move echoes recent aggressive antitrust enforcement in Brazil and Chile, where regulators have also scrutinised retail and real-estate ties.
For expats and international businesses operating in Mexico, the case is a reminder that local antitrust risk extends well beyond the obvious manufacturing or telecoms sectors. Commercial leases, a bread-and-butter cost for any business with a physical footprint, are now a documented area of enforcement.
What to watch next
The key date to track is the start of the appeals process. If the companies file challenges, the specialised competition courts will test how solid the CNA’s evidence really is.
A final Supreme Court ruling could take years, but any interim decisions will move share prices. Investors should also watch whether the CNA follows up with individual sanctions against executives, a step that would raise the personal stakes considerably.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Liverpool and Chedraui do wrong?
Through their real-estate arms, they colluded with shopping-centre developers during the pandemic to fix maximum rent discounts and to refuse rent reductions for tenants. Under Mexican law, this is a per-se illegal cartel agreement between competitors, not a legitimate business arrangement.
Is the fine final, or can the companies appeal?
The sanction is administrative and not yet final. The companies have the right to challenge it before Mexico’s specialised competition courts, and the litigation could eventually reach the Supreme Court, a process that may take years.
Why does this case matter for investors outside Mexico?
It shows that Mexico’s antitrust regulator is willing to target powerful domestic brands and that commercial real-estate practices are under scrutiny. For anyone holding Mexican retail or property stocks, the case creates regulatory overhang and sets a precedent for future enforcement in the sector.
Connected Coverage
Sources: Mexico's CNA (Comisión Nacional Antimonopolio).
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
In depth
LatAm Markets: Live Signals → — real-time movers, turnover leaders and FX across Latin America.
Read More from The Rio Times