Earlier this week, the Commission fined French companies Eurofield SAS and its former parent Unanime Sport SAS (together Eurofield) a total of approx. EUR 172,000 for providing incomplete information during an antitrust investigation into the synthetic turf sector. This decision marks the first time the Commission has imposed a fine solely for the provision of incomplete data in response to a formal request for information in an antitrust investigation.
What the case is about
The Commission’s investigation began in June 2023 with a “simple” request for information sent to Eurofield. After comparing the company’s response with documents obtained during unannounced inspections, the Commission suspected omissions and issued a formal request for information in October 2023. While the Commission alerted Eurofield to the insufficiencies, Eurofield again submitted an allegedly incomplete reply. In November 2024, the Commission opened an investigation regarding its suspicion of Eurofield having submitted incomplete replies to their information requests. Eurofield cooperated, acknowledged liability, and submitted not only the documents which the Commission had already identified as missing, but also additional supplementary documents that the Commission had not previously identified as missing, earning a 30% reduction in the fine.
The final penalty – 0.3% of the companies’ combined turnover (the fine could have amounted up to 1% of the total turnover of companies) – was imposed jointly and severally on both entities. The Commission emphasized that even negligent omissions can seriously hinder its ability to investigate anti-competitive conduct.
A first in EU antitrust enforcement
This case marks the first time the Commission fined a company for supplying incomplete information in an antitrust investigation. While previous procedural fines have targeted more overt obstruction – such as tampering with evidence or breaching seals (see below) – this decision underscores the importance of full transparency and diligence also in responding to information requests.
Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera highlighted the significance of the ruling, stating that “[i]nformation requests are a vital tool to uncover antitrust infringements. If companies do not provide full and complete replies to our requests, they can compromise our investigations.”
Other procedural breach cases by the Commission
The Eurofield case joins a growing list of Commission decisions targeting procedural infringements:
- E.ON: In January 2008, the Commission fined E.ON EUR 38 million for allegedly breaching a seal during an inspection, which it treated as a serious violation of procedural rules. When determining the fine, the Commission took into consideration that this had been the first ever fine imposed for obstructing or interfering with a Commission’s antitrust investigation.
- Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des Eaux (LDE): Three years later, in May 2011, the Commission fined Suez Environnement and its subsidiary LDE EUR 8 million for an alleged seal breach conducted (admittedly unintentional) by one of their employees. Although noting that seal breaches qualify as serious procedural breaches, when setting the fine the Commission took into account the cooperative behavior of the companies.
- International Flavors & Fragrances Inc and International Flavors & Fragrances IFF France SAS (together IFF): Last year, in June 2024, the Commission fined IFF EUR 15.9 million – 0.15% of the companies’ combined turnover – after a senior employee deleted WhatsApp messages exchanged with a competitor during a dawn raid. The deletion was deemed to be an obstruction, and the fine was reduced by 50% due to the company’s cooperation. Back then, Margrethe Vestager, former Commission Vice-President, highlighted that the Commission “will not tolerate any action that could impact the effectiveness of our investigations and that we firmly pursue and sanction any such obstructions.”
These cases reflect the Commission’s increasing reliance on procedural enforcement to safeguard the integrity of its investigations.
German Federal Cartel Office: Similar powers and practice?
Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO) also has the power to impose administrative fines for procedural breaches, including incomplete or misleading responses to formal information requests. With respect to incomplete or misleading responses to formal information requests, the FCO may – as the Commission – impose fines of up to 1% of the total turnover of the undertaking or association of undertakings in the business year preceding the fining decision.
While the FCO – as far as it is publicly known – has not yet issued a fine solely for providing incomplete information in the context of an antitrust investigation, it has fined companies for providing false data during merger control proceedings (see e.g., here, here and here).
Outlook
The Eurofield case sends a clear message: Companies must treat information requests from regulators with the same seriousness as substantive antitrust allegations. The Commission expects “utmost care” in preparing responses and will not tolerate negligence, especially when prior warnings are ignored. Mrs. Ribera’s warning is unequivocal: “We will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future to ensure that our investigations are carried out effectively to the benefit of consumers.”
With its EUR 110 million fine in 2017 against Facebook for providing allegedly misleading information during the merger control proceeding regarding the acquisition of WhatsApp, the Commission had already emphasized that the same diligence is, of course, also expected in merger control proceedings.
For companies operating in the EU, this means:
- Companies must be proactive in ensuring responses to regulatory requests are complete and accurate.
- Legal counsel should be consulted early to clarify the scope of requests – if necessary, by inquiring with regulators – and avoid inadvertent omissions.
- Cooperation can mitigate penalties, but only if it is timely and comprehensive.
As the Commission continues to refine its procedural enforcement toolkit, companies should expect more scrutiny not just of their market behavior, but of how they engage with regulators. The Eurofield case may be the first of its kind, but it is unlikely to be the last.
Photo by Simon Hurry on Unsplash
Antitrustpolitics.com 