On 8 September 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) imposed an EUR 172,000 fine on Eurofield SAS and Unanime Sport SAS for providing incomplete information in response to a request for information (“RFI”) during an antitrust investigation.[1]

While similar fining powers have long been used by the Commission in merger control proceedings, this is the first time the Commission has fined companies for providing incomplete information in antitrust proceedings.[2]

What triggered the fine?

In June 2023, the Commission conducted unannounced inspections (“dawn raids”) at the premises of several companies operating in the synthetic turf sector as part of an investigation into potential anticompetitive agreements.[3]

Soon after the dawn raids, the Commission sent a “simple RFI” to Eurofield seeking further information to support its investigation. After assessing Eurofield’s responses against documents collected during the dawn raids, the Commission suspected that the response was incomplete. In October 2023 it therefore issued a second RFI – this time an “RFI by decision” – making Eurofield aware of its concerns. Eurofield also replied to this second RFI in an incomplete manner.

In November 2024, the Commission informed Eurofield and its then-parent company Unanime Sport that it had opened an investigation into the incomplete reply. The companies subsequently acknowledged their liability and provided both the outstanding information as well as supplementary information that the Commission had not initially identified as missing.

What was the legal basis for the fine?

Regulation 1/2003, which governs EU antitrust proceedings, allows the Commission to fine companies up to 1% of their global turnover if, either intentionally or negligently, they do not comply with their legal obligations in responding to an RFI. These obligations differ between “simple RFIs” and to “RFIs by decision”.

Simple RFIs under Article 18(2) of Regulation 1/2003 are issued by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition (“DG COMP”) and are not based on a formal Commission decision. Responses are voluntary, but if a company answers such an RFI it can be fined if its responses are incorrect or misleading.[4]

RFIs by decision under Article 18(3) are adopted by the College of Commissioners and create a legal obligation to respond. The Commission may therefore fine a company not only for providing incorrect or misleading information but also for providing incomplete information, for not responding to the RFI or for not responding within the deadline.[5]

How did the Commission calculate the fine?

The Commission concluded that Eurofield had committed a serious procedural infringement and that the company had acted at least negligently. It stressed that Eurofield could have consulted the Commission if the extent of the requested information was not clear to them and noted that Eurofield chose not to do so, even though the Commission had informed Eurofield that its response to the first RFI appeared to be incomplete.

The Commission therefore set the fine at 0.3% of the parties’ combined global turnover. However, in order to reward the parties for their cooperation, the Commission reduced the fine by 30%. The fine of EUR 172,000 was imposed jointly and severally on Eurofield and Unanime Sport, which was the ultimate parent company of Eurofield at the time of the infringement.

Enforcement of parties' procedural obligations is on the rise

While fines for procedural infringements are not new, recent years have seen a marked increase in cases where competition authorities fined companies for violating their obligations in antitrust proceedings.

Most recently, in 2024, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 15.9 million on International Flavors & Fragrances after a senior employee intentionally deleted WhatsApp correspondence with a competitor during a dawn raid.[6]

At the national level, procedural infringements are also taken seriously. Earlier this year, the Italian Competition Authority fined Ryanair EUR 1.3 million for allegedly failing to provide complete and correct information in an abuse of dominance investigation (see here on the investigation that started in 2023). In 2024, the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic imposed a fine of approximately EUR 60,000 on a company for failing to provide information requested during a dawn raid in the context of a potential cartel.[7]

How to avoid risks when responding to an RFI

While the Eurofield fine is relatively modest, the enforcement signal is not. Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera made clear that information requests are “a vital tool to uncover antitrust infringements” and the Commission “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future”.[8] Here are a few things companies can do to avoid being fined when responding to an RFI:

Identify high-risk RFIs

Some companies, in particular multinationals with a broad portfolio of activities, frequently receive RFIs from competition authorities. In most cases, they are being consulted in their role as competitors, customers or suppliers of other companies that are being investigated by the competition authority. Such RFIs are typically simple (i.e., non-binding) inquiries and generally low risk.

The situation is different when a company that is being investigated by a competition authority receives an RFI. Even if the RFI is non-binding, there is a risk that incomplete answers may be qualified as incorrect or misleading and result in fines. The Eurofield case suggests that the Commission will generally give companies a “second chance” when it suspects that the answers to a simple RFI are incorrect or incomplete and request the missing information in an RFI by decision. Such an RFI by decision would clearly be a (very) high risk RFI.

As a rule of thumb, all RFIs addressed to a company under investigation and all binding RFIs (i.e., RFIs where the company has a legal obligation to respond) should be treated as high risk RFIs.

Seek clarification when in doubt

Eurofield could have avoided a fine if it had discussed with the Commission why its first response was considered as incomplete. If companies have any doubts about the extent of the information requested in a high-risk RFI, it is very important to seek clarification from the Commission to avoid providing responses that could be considered incomplete.

Use state-of-the-art forensic tools

The Commission discovered that certain responses of Eurofield were probably incomplete because they were inconsistent with documents it had gathered during the dawn raid. This illustrates the importance for companies to analyse as quickly as possible all documents collected by investigators during a dawn raid. 

In the Eurofield case, the Commission sent its first RFI in the same month in which the dawn raid took place. This means Eurofield may not have had a complete overview of the information obtained by the Commission when it received the first RFI. But AI-based forensic tools are changing the speed at which competition authorities can analyse documents, identify information gaps and detect inconsistencies.[9] They are also changing regulators’ views on what information, documents and data companies can reasonably be expected to provide and at which speed.

This means companies and their lawyers must make sure they are using similarly powerful forensic tools to ensure “equality of arms”. Not using state-of-the-art technology may jeopardize an effective defence in antitrust proceedings and increases the risk of providing information that is viewed as incomplete.

For more practical guidance on working with forensic IT teams during competition or regulatory investigations, read the full article on Bird & Bird’s Competition Law Insights page (here).

If you would like more information or further guidance in this area, please contact Anne Federle or David Wouters.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION & EU HOMEPAGE

[1] European Commission, Commission fines Eurofield SAS and Unanime Sport SAS around €172,000 for providing incomplete information to the Commission in an antitrust investigation, Press Release IP/25/2022, 8 September 2025, available here. The Commission’s investigation into the synthetic turf industry is still ongoing and is a separate procedure (Case AT.40966).

[2] Under Article 14(1) of the EU Merger Regulation (Regulation 139/2004), the Commission has the power to impose fines on undertakings that intentionally or negligently supply incorrect or misleading information, fail to provide information within the required time limits, or breach procedural obligations during merger control proceedings. Its antitrust counterpart is Article 23(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, pp. 1–25 (Regulation 1/2003). An example of a fine for providing incomplete information in response to an RFI in the context of merger control is the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 imposing fines on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Europe Ltd for supplying incomplete information in merger control proceedings (Case COMP/M.1634 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), OJ L 4, 9.1.2001, p. 31–34.

[3] European Commission, Commission carries out unannounced inspections in the synthetic turf sector, Press Release IP/23/3133, 7 June 2023, available here.

[4] Article 23(1)(a) Regulation 1/2003.

[5] Article 23(1)(b) Regulation 1/2003.

[6] European Commission, Questions and answers on the Commission’s decision to fine IFF for obstructing an EU antitrust inspection. Q&A/24/3406, 25 June 2024, available here.

[7] Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, AMO fined an undertaking for refusing to submit key information, press release, 10 October 2024, available here.

[8] Full quote: “Information 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. Today’s decision marks the first time we fine a company for such a procedural breach in the context of an antitrust procedure. 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.” Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.

[9] In 2024, the Commission initiated the procurement of an AI-based eDiscovery software with Technology Assisted Review (TAR) to provide support in the analysis of voluminous files; European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Report on Competition Policy 2024, 25 April 2025, SWD(2025) 102 final, available here.