Antitrust Bites – Newsletter

Incomplete information in an antitrust investigation: the first sanction imposed by the European Commission and a similar case under scrutiny by the Italian Competition Authority

In a press release dated 8 September 2025, the European Commission announced that it had sanctioned Eurofield SAS and its then parent company Unanime Sport SAS for providing incomplete responses to a request for information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in the context of an ongoing investigation into an alleged cartel in the synthetic turf sector.

The case stems from a so-called simple request for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Regulation sent to Eurofield in June 2023. After comparing the responses received with documents obtained during subsequent inspections of companies active in the sector, the Commission deemed the company's response to be incomplete. Therefore, in October 2023, it sent Eurofield a second request for information, this time by means of a decision pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Regulation, setting out its concerns. Nevertheless, Eurofield's response to this request was also incomplete.

The Commission therefore initiated an investigation into a suspected breach of antitrust procedural rules, which resulted in the application, for the first time, of Article 23 (1)(b) of the Regulation, under which the Commission may impose fines of up to 1% of turnover on undertakings which, intentionally or negligently, in response to a request for information made by decision adopted pursuant to Article 18(3), provide incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or fail to provide the information within the time limit set.

During the investigation, the companies involved cooperated with the Commission under a mechanism inspired by the settlement procedure for cartels, which allowed them to obtain a 30% reduction in the fine, initially quantified at 0.3% of the companies' combined turnover.

This case is reminiscent of a similar case decided by the Italian Competition Authority last July, when the Authority imposed a fine of more than EUR1 million on Ryanair for providing incomplete responses to two requests for information pursuant to Article 14(2) of Law No. 287/1990 and Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 217/1998 as part of an investigation by the Authority into a possible abuse of a dominant position. The requests were aimed at reconstructing the structure and operations of the group in Italy and, in particular, at obtaining the business plans relating to the Italian market for the period 2021-2023.

The inspection documentation acquired by the Authority during the parallel proceedings for abuse of a dominant position showed that Ryanair regularly draws up business plans and other strategic planning documents, which are also shared at senior management level, and which should have been produced. Despite this, the company denied in its responses to requests for information that it had prepared such documents, stating that its organizational structure was not such as to provide for or allow the production of formal, shared company documents for strategic decision-making.

The Authority therefore found that Ryanair not only failed to provide documentation that actually existed and was available to it, but also provided untrue and misleading information about its non-existence, thus constituting a violation of Article 14(5)(d) of Law No 287/1990, on the grounds of gross negligence. Under this provision, the Authority imposes an administrative fine of up to 1% of total worldwide turnover on persons who, intentionally or through negligence, in response to a request for information, provide inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information or fail to provide the information within the specified time limit.

 

The Court of Justice's long-awaited ruling on the dies a quo of the limitation period in follow-on actions

In its judgment of 4 September 2025 in the preliminary ruling case C-21/24, the Court of Justice addressed the issue of when the limitation period begins to run in damages actions for breaches of competition law (follow-on actions).

In line with Advocate General Medina's opinion (see our Antitrust Bites – April 2025), the court held that limitation periods can't begin to run until a national competition authority's (NCA) decision has become final following judicial review and has been published with any relevant judgment appellate judgment.

The case originated from an action brought in Spain in 2023 against a car manufacturer that had been fined by the NCA in 2015 for exchanging commercially sensitive information in breach of Article 101 TFEU. The defendant argued that the claim was time-barred, contending that the limitation period had begun to run in 2015, when the NCA’s decision was first published.

Identifying a conflict in the case-law on this point, the referring Spanish court asked the CJEU to clarify whether the dies a quo of the limitation period runs from the publication of the NCA’s infringement decision or from the moment when such a decision becomes final.

The Court first confirmed that the rules on limitation periods under Directive 2014/104 are substantive in nature and cannot be applied retroactively. It further noted that limitation periods serve a dual function: on the one hand, to ensure that victims harmed by an antitrust infringement have sufficient time to gather the information necessary to prepare a damages action; on the other hand, to prevent the right to compensation from being exercised after an indefinite delay, to the detriment of the infringer.

The innovative element of the ruling, however, lies in the clarification of the knowledge requirement. Reiterating the principles set out in Heureka (C-605/21), the court explained that a limitation period can only start once the claimant has, or can reasonably be deemed to have, knowledge of four elements: the existence of the infringement, the harm suffered, the causal link, and the identity of the infringer.

In addition, for the first time in its case-law, the court drew a key distinction between Commission decisions and NCA decisions. Commission decisions, pursuant to Article 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003, are binding on national courts, which cannot adopt rulings that conflict with them. By contrast, NCA decisions lack binding force while subject to judicial review: until then, victims cannot rely on them before national courts to establish the infringement.

Finally, the Court stressed that the knowledge requirement presupposes not only that the decision is final, but also that it has been officially published and made accessible to the public. In the case at hand, this condition was only met in 2021, when the Spanish Supreme Court upheld the NCA’s 2015 decision and published its judgment in the publicly accessible judicial database.

 

Recent interventions of the ICA against greenwashing

Reaffirming its commitment to combating greenwashing, the ICA recently sanctioned a clothing company for using misleading messages regarding the sustainability of its products. It also successfully concluded a moral suasion case against a company operating in the non-alcoholic beverage sector, which removed untrue claims from the packaging of its products.

Greenwashing refers to the distorted or misleading use of environmental claims (“green claims”) in order to influence consumer choices, suggesting or otherwise giving the impression – in commercial communications, marketing or advertising – that a product or service has a positive impact or no impact on the environment or is less harmful to the environment than competing products or services. This conduct – as the Authority has repeatedly ascertained – normally constitutes an unfair commercial practice.

It was precisely this finding that led the ICA to impose a fine of EUR1 million on a company operating in the “fast fashion” and “super-fast fashion” sector for using misleading and/or omissive promotional messages relating to the sustainability of its clothing.

The Authority noted that:

• The company emphasised the “circularity” of its clothing production on its website through vague and generic claims. The website completely lacked information that would allow users to understand what concrete programs and initiatives the company had actually undertaken to design a “circular system” and achieve “responsible consumption.” The company also admitted that it didn’t deal with or ensure the “reuse” and “recycling” of its products – activities which are of central importance to guarantee the “circularity” of products.

• The company promoted a clothing collection, describing it as “sustainable” because it was allegedly based on the use of “eco-sustainable” materials, such as “limited edition recovered/rehabilitated fabrics,” “recycled materials” and “forest-safe fibres.” According to the Authority, the claims used are vague, generic and not adequately justified; in fact, the website doesn’t provide sufficient information on the quantity of eco-sustainable materials used for each product, on the environmental benefits of the products (which, in any case, are limited) and, last but not least, on the marginal nature of this clothing line compared to the company's total products.

• The company presented generic, misleading and unclear “green claims” regarding decarbonisation targets, allegedly consisting of a “25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030” and “zero emissions by 2050.” In fact, the website didn’t indicate realistic and concrete plans and methods for achieving these objectives, which would even be contradicted by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions related to the company's activities in 2023 and 2024.

In view of this conduct, and highlighting the greater degree of diligence required of companies operating in a highly polluting sector like “disposable” clothing, the ICA found that the company had violated Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Legislative Decree 206/2005 (Consumer Code) and sanctioned the company.

The other intervention mentioned above consisted of the successful conclusion of a moral suasion case against a company operating in the non-alcoholic beverage sector, which used environmental claims stating that the production of mineral water bottles didn’t involve greenhouse gas emissions or even had a positive impact on the environment.

As a result of the moral suasion, the company removed the claims, which included claims such as “CO2 Impatto Zero” (Zero CO2 Impact), from the labels of the bottles, from its website and from promotional commercials/videos.

These interventions confirm the ICA's commitment to combatting greenwashing to protect consumers, who are increasingly sensitive to environmental issues.

 

Tying in the digital platform sector: European Commission closes proceedings under Article 102 TFUE with acceptance of commitments

The European Commission has recently announced that it has accepted the commitments submitted by an IT operator, within the context of the proceedings concerning an alleged tying practice in breach of Article 102 TFEU.

According to the Commission's preliminary assessment, expressed in the Statement of Objections, the operator allegedly held a dominant position in the market for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications for professional productivity and abused that position by tying the sale of its communication and collaboration platform service to its packages (or suites) containing productivity software.

Such conduct, according to the Commission, would have conferred an undue competitive advantage to the platform, while strengthening the operator's dominant position in the productivity software market and its model based on integrated suites, to the detriment of competitors offering stand-alone software products.

The operator therefore initially submitted a series of commitments, essentially aimed at:

• offering customers purchasing in the EEA versions of suites without the communication and collaboration platform and at a significantly lower price than the suites that include it, avoiding applying discounts to suites with the platform that exceed those provided for suites without it;
• offering customers purchasing in the EEA recurring opportunities to switch to suites without the platform, allowing the implementation of such suites in data centres around the world;
• allowing competitors effective interoperability with some of their products and services for specific functionalities;
• allowing customers in the EEA to extract messaging data for use in competing platforms.

Following the outcome of the market test conducted by the Commission to verify whether the proposed commitments were sufficient to address the identified competition concerns, the operator further committed to:

• increasing the price difference between suites without the platform and the corresponding versions that include it by 50%;
• clarify that its websites, when advertising offers that include the platform, must also show the corresponding offer without the platform;
• publish information on interoperability and data portability on all websites aimed at developers.

The commitments will last for seven years, except for those relating to interoperability and data portability, which will last for ten years.

 

European Commission launches public consultation on revision of Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on technology transfer agreements

On 11 September 2025, the European Commission launched a public consultation on the draft revisions to the Block Exemption Regulation applicable to technology transfer agreements (TTBER) and the related Guidelines, both in force since 2014.

In a very short overview, technology transfer agreements concern the licensing of technological rights, as identified by the TTBER. The TTBER provides for an exemption from the application of Article 101 TFEU for certain categories of technology transfer agreements that meet certain conditions, concerning the market shares of the parties to the agreement and the absence of hardcore restrictions.

By means of the draft revisions subject to public consultation, the Commission intends to review market developments and further changes that have taken place over the last decade that may have an impact on the text of the TTBER and its Guidelines, with a view to updating them.

The draft revisions are primarily aimed at reducing uncertainties encountered in practice around calculating the market shares held by the parties to the agreement, which are relevant for the application of the provisions of the TTBER, by introducing guidance and criteria for market share calculation methodologies.

The draft revisions also aim to introduce specific guidance on data licensing agreements, clarifying the conditions under which data licensing is subject to the application of the TTBER and the Guidelines. Specific provisions will also be introduced regarding the licensing of databases protected by copyright.

The conditions applicable to technology pools, ie agreements whereby two or more parties form a package of technologies licensed to pool participants and/or third parties, are also being revised.

Guidance is also planned on licensing negotiation groups, ie agreements where potential licensees agree to jointly negotiate the terms of technology transfer agreements. The draft revision of the Guidelines examines in particular the possible pro-competitive effects of these agreements.

Finally, the proposed revision of the Guidelines provides further guidance on (i) the application of Article 101 TFEU to agreements concluded by SMEs that are not likely to significantly affect trade between Member States or that do not appreciably restrict competition; (ii) revises the definition of potential competitor to take account of developments in case law and enforcement practice, and (iii) introduces additional examples of scenarios that may justify withdrawal of the benefit of the block exemption.

Interested parties are invited to submit comments by 23 October 2025.