Legal teams at digital platforms and online marketplaces approaching announceable transactions that engage the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation are increasingly using AI to draft regulatory-strategy memos on remedies hierarchy, generate executive-committee briefings on cross-border merger-clearance exposure, and validate Section IV.3 remedies-priority language against the OECD text before remedy negotiations open with authorities.
The RLB Specialist Panel put a set of practitioner-grade questions on the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation to two frontier AI models with web search active. Each question is prepared by the Panel based on the workflows that legal teams at digital platforms and marketplaces actually use AI for under the OECD's 2025 revision of the Recommendation of the Council on Merger Review (OECD/LEGAL/0333). The Panel then binds every AI response to verbatim regulator-issued source text held as primary substrate.
On the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation, the AI subjects returned a single hallucinated answer for legal teams at digital platforms and marketplaces, in the form of Misattributed Cross-Jurisdictional Doctrine.
For legal teams at digital platforms and marketplaces advising on cross-border merger transactions touching the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation, citation accuracy on the operative architecture, on Section IV.3 remedies hierarchy, and on Section III.11.b failing firm defence is load-bearing in every authority-facing submission, every board memo, and every transactional document. A counterparty or competition authority who identifies a structural inflation, a misattributed sub-hierarchy, or a closed-cumulative-test framing on first reading calls the entire piece of advice into question.
The structural-architecture failure is the most directly visible: a board memo or regulator-facing submission that lists 'international co-operation' or 'monitoring' as operative RECOMMENDS sections is wrong on first reading. The Section IV.3 EU sub-hierarchy import is the most insidious failure, reading as authoritative because the EU framework is real, but presenting EU practice as OECD content imports the wrong normative baseline into the firm's remedy strategy.
The published Specialist Panel findings carry the following citation identifiers:
RLB-H-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002-Sonnet46 (Section IV.3 structural-remedy hierarchy misattributed to EU practice)This is the consolidated view of findings. Click the Citation IDs or 'see details →' on any item for the full details for each finding.
When Legal teams at Digital Platforms & Marketplaces firms use AI to scope the remedy hierarchy under Section IV.3 of the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation, AI tools we tested substituted a fix-it-first / upfront buyer pool / crown jewel ordering, drawn from EU merger-control practice, in place of the Recommendation's actual standalone-business preference within structural remedies. Any internal framework document, deal-team briefing, or merger-readiness playbook built from this AI output encodes a remedy ladder the OECD text does not prescribe, creating a gap between the firm's internal guidance and the standard that OECD member-jurisdiction competition authorities apply.
For a platform firm in active multi-jurisdictional merger review, the cost is operational: mid-review correction of circulated guidance, misalignment between internal documentation and external submissions, and credibility damage within the deal team at a moment when the Legal function's authority needs to be unimpeachable.
Every finding on this page compares an AI subject's account of the rule against the regulator's verbatim text from the regulator's own portal. Both are linked. Each delta, its root causes, and impact analysis are documented and published with immutable Citation IDs.