Every now and then a company has the courage (and the resources) to challenge a dawn raid by the European Commission in court (see a collection of past cases here). Latest example is Michelin, who challenged a dawn raid conducted by the Commission (supported by the French Competition Authority) in January 2024. The judgement of the General Court issued on 9 July 2025 contains a few interesting aspects which I will try to summarize in the post. Unfortunately, the decision is only available in French, so bear with me, in case I got the translation wrong (although France is my favorite holiday destination, I never actually learned French and now I am stuck with Latin while on holidays…).
Background of the case
In January 2024, the Commission conducted unannounced inspections (dawn raids) at several competing tire manufacturers, investigating alleged signaling of future pricing strategies for replacement tires for cars and trucks through public communications such as earnings calls. Among others, Michelin’s headquarters in Clermont-Ferrand was inspected, followed by an off-site inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels. The inspection concluded on 7 March 2024, and Michelin filed an appeal with the General Court on 8 April 2024.
Michelin argued that the inspection order lacked sufficient justification. Specifically, it criticized the Commission’s use of terms such as “in particular,” “including,” and “and/or,” and noted that the decision failed to clarify whether the alleged conduct constituted an agreement or a concerted practice under Art. 101 TFEU. Michelin also contended that the Commission had not presented adequate evidence of a potential antitrust infringement to warrant the inspection decision.
What the court held
To be honest, this decision contains many interesting aspects, and anyone who has time should definitely read it. In the following, I will focus on those points which I found most interesting:
- As regards the use of terms like “in particular,” “including,” and “and/or,” (
which lawyers, of course, would never use) the General Court held that the use of the phrase “and/or” by the Commission to describe the suspected coordination – whether through agreements or concerted practices – does not affect the Michelin’s legal rights or obligations during the inspection. According to the General Court, the exact legal classification of the coordination was not necessary at the inspection stage, and Michelin failed to show any adverse consequence. Additionally, the use of terms like “in particular” and “including” served to clarify the nature of the suspicions, helping Michelin understand the focus of the investigation. - Unsurprisingly, the General Court rejected Michelin’s complaint that the case only served to apply an example of a case that is included under para. 432 in the Horizontal Guidelines. The General Court stated that “the Commission, as the institution responsible for implementing competition policy, has the possibility of providing, in guidelines, guidance on its interpretation of the conformity with competition law of conduct which has not yet been penalised” and there was no evidence in the file to suggest that the decision was adopted for the sole purpose of giving substance to an example referred to in the Horizontal Guidelines.
- Very interesting – in particular because it provides valuable insides into the Commission’s investigation methods – is what the General Court says in this regard: The case began with an algorithmic screening of hundreds of thousands of earnings calls across various industries, which the Commission had obtained from a financial data provider. According to the Commission’s statement, two main categories of key search terms were used. The first included nearly 100 bigrams – pairs of consecutive words – related to strategic business decisions. The second comprised over 400 bigrams aimed at detecting statements about competitors’ current or anticipated behavior. Based on its findings, the Commission concluded that major tire manufacturers stood out from other sectors due to a higher number of communications containing bigrams suggestive of potential collusion. These were then qualitatively assessed by the Commission to understand their context. The Commission noted that this review covered both earnings calls flagged by the quantitative analysis and others that were not. The Commission also observed that manufacturers’ statements aligned in response to changes in raw material and energy prices. When prices rose, earnings calls often suggested tire prices should increase; when input costs fell, statements tended to discourage price reductions. This approach, in the Commission’s view, helped to establish a link between theoretical unilateral public announcements and the conduct and ultimately led to the dawn raid.
- The General Court also clarified that, in general, it considers signalling of the type described by the Commission to be potentially capable of constituting an infringement of Article 101 TFEU.
- However, there was a slight silver lining for Michelin: the General Court held that while the evidence justified the dawn raid for the main period of the alleged infringement, it could not be used to investigate earlier conduct lacking contemporaneous documents, statements, or indicators.
Phew, that was quite a bit to take in – so, what comes next?
Apologies for the rather long text – I hope it was worth the read. If you skipped to the end, I would encourage you to go back and start from the beginning. For those still with me: one of the most striking aspects is the Commission’s effort to assess whether collusion can occur through public statements during capital market communications. Companies will face increasing difficulty balancing capital market compliance with antitrust obligations. Communication teams and other stakeholders should be instructed accordingly.
The General Court appears open to the idea that such conduct may infringe Article 101 TFEU – that is no surprise, but it signals that the threshold for violations may be lower than ever. The Commission also seems prepared to pursue such cases, so we may see more outcomes from the initial data screening.
Finally, Michelin’s small win reminds us that the Commission still needs at least some evidence to justify a dawn raid.
Interesting times ahead!
Antitrustpolitics.com 