A first example was published during the Roman Republic around 50 BC. J.-C.  In order to protect the grain trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone who directly, intentionally and treacherously stopped supply ships.  Under Diocletian in 301 AD, an edict imposed the death penalty on anyone who violated a customs system, for example by buying, obscuring or inventing the scarcity of everyday goods.  Other laws were part of Zeno`s Constitution of 483 AD, which dates back to the Florentine municipal laws of 1322 and 1325.  It provided for the confiscation of property and the banishment of any commercial combination or joint action of monopolies granted privately or by the emperor. Zeno has revoked all exclusive rights previously granted.  Justinian I then introduced laws to pay civil servants to administer state monopolies.  Competition law gained new recognition in Europe in the interwar period, when Germany enacted its first antitrust law in 1923 and Sweden and Norway passed similar laws in 1925 and 1926 respectively.
However, with the Great Depression of 1929, competition law disappeared from Europe and was revived after World War II, when the United Kingdom and Germany, under pressure from the United States, became the first European countries to adopt full-fledged competition laws. At regional level, EU competition law has its origins in the Agreement of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) between the France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany in 1951 after the Second World War. The agreement was intended to prevent Germany from re-establishing its dominance in coal and steel production, as it was believed that this dominance had contributed to the outbreak of war. Article 65 of the Agreement prohibited cartels and Article 66 provided for concentrations and abuses of dominant positions by undertakings.  This was the first time that the principles of competition law had been incorporated into a plurilateral regional agreement and that the trans-European model of competition law had been established. In 1957, competition rules were incorporated into the Treaty of Rome, also known as the EC Treaty, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaty of Rome made the adoption of competition law one of the main objectives of the EEC by “creating a system which ensures that competition in the common market is not distorted”. The two key provisions of EU competition law for undertakings have been set out in Article 85, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements, subject to certain exemptions, and in Article 86, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. The Treaty also established principles for the competition law of the Member States, Article 90 for public undertakings and Article 92 containing provisions on State aid. Merger regulations were not included because Member States had not reached consensus on this issue at that time.  Individuals could also be subject to directors` disqualification orders or even criminal prosecution for serious violations of competition law.
The new world had just opened up, trade and plunder abroad were pouring wealth into the international economy, and the attitudes of businessmen were changing. In 1561, a system of industrial monopoly licenses was introduced in England, similar to modern patents. But under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the system would have been abused a lot and used only to preserve privileges and not promote anything new in terms of innovation or manufacturing.  In response, the English courts have developed case law on restrictive business practices. The Statute followed the unanimous decision in Darcy v. In 1602 alone, also known as the fall of the monopolies, the Royal Bank cancelled the exclusive right granted by Queen Elizabeth I Darcy to import playing cards into England.  Darcy, an official of the Queen`s Household, sought damages for the respondent`s violation of this right. The court found that the grant was zero and that three characteristics of the monopoly were (1) price increases, (2) a decrease in quality, (3) a tendency to reduce craftsmen to idleness and begging. This put an end to the monopolies granted until King James I began to grant them again. In 1623, Parliament passed the Statute on Monopoly, which for the most part excluded patent rights from its prohibitions, as well as guilds. From King Charles I to the Civil War to King Charles II, monopolies continued, which was particularly useful for increasing incomes.
 Then, in 1684, in East India Company v. Sandys, it was decided that exclusive rights to trade were legitimate only outside the empire, on the grounds that only large and powerful companies could trade under the conditions prevailing abroad.  Each sets out certain conditions that must be met in order for the agreement to be exempted from the block exemption. Those conditions may include, for example, conditions relating to the market shares of the parties and the types of restrictions contained in the agreement. A number of EU block exemptions have been incorporated into UK national law with some minor changes and will continue to apply under UK competition law after Brexit. First, it is necessary to determine whether an undertaking holds a dominant position or behaves `to a significant extent independently of its competitors, customers and, ultimately, its consumer`.  Under EU law, very large market shares give rise to the presumption that an undertaking holds a dominant position, which can be rebuttable.  Where an undertaking holds a dominant position, there is “a particular responsibility not to allow its conduct to affect competition in the common market”.
 Like collusive behaviour, market shares are determined by reference to the market in which the company and the product in question are sold. Although lists are rarely closed, certain categories of abusive behaviour are generally prohibited by the country`s legislation. For example, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to increase spending and update technology could be abusive.  The link between a product and the sale of another product can also be considered an abuse, as it restricts consumer choice and deprives competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission, which eventually resulted in a fine of several million for the integration of its Windows Media Player into the Microsoft Windows platform. Refusal to provide an essential facility for all companies trying to compete for use can be an abuse. An example is a case involving a medical company called Commercial Solvents.
 When Commercial Solvents founded its own rival in the anti-TB drug market, it was forced to continue to supply a company called Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. .