On September 8, 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of around €172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company, Unanime Sport SAS, for providing incomplete information during an ongoing antitrust investigation. This marks the first time the Commission has imposed a fine for the provision of incomplete information in reply to a request for information (“RFI”) in the context of an antitrust procedure.[1] The Commission announced it “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future.” [2]
When can the Commission impose a fine for providing incomplete information in response to RFI?
During antitrust investigations, the Commission typically requests information via two investigatory tools, with different legal implications:
- “Simple” RFI. A response to a “simple” RFI is voluntary, and no fine will be imposed for a failure to respond. However, the Commission can sanction a recipient up to 1% of the company’s annual turnover for (intentionally or negligently) providing incorrect or misleading information. [3]
- RFI by decision. A response to an RFI issued by decision is mandatory, and the recipient is subject to a fine for non-compliance within the set deadline. As with the simple RFI, the Commission may levy a fine of up to 1% of the company’s annual turnover for (intentionally or negligently) providing incorrect or misleading information. However, under this tool, the Commission may also impose a fine if the company provides incomplete information.[4]
Why was Eurofield fined?
In June 2023, the Commission conducted an unannounced inspection at the premises of certain companies active in the synthetic turf sector.[5] In the same month, the Commission sent a simple RFI to Eurofield (“Simple RFI”). After comparing Eurofield’s response with the information seized during the unannounced inspections,[6] the Commission suspected that Eurofield’s reply was incomplete.
Therefore, in October 2023, the Commission sent a second RFI to Eurofield, this time by decision (“Decision RFI”), and “made it aware of its concerns.” Finding Eurofield’s response to the Decision RFI to be incomplete once again, the Commission opened a formal investigation in November 2024 for an alleged procedural breach. Shortly thereafter, the Parties chose to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation by acknowledging their failure to provide complete information, agreeing to pay a fine, and providing the missing information along with supplementary data to comply with the Decision RFI.[7]
How was Eurofield’s fine set?
The Commission concluded that the Parties were at least negligent, as they failed to provide complete information despite being warned that their reply was likely incomplete. Additionally, they did not seek clarification from the Commission regarding the RFI’s scope, had any doubt existed.
The fine was imposed jointly and severally on Eurofield and its ultimate parent entity at the time of the infringement, Unanime Sport,[8] which has been held liable under the presumption of parental liability.[9] The Commission set the fine at 0.3% of the two parties’ combined annual turnover, which was reduced by 30% to account for the parties’ cooperation following the opening of the formal investigation—ultimately resulting in a fine of around €172,000.
Implications
The Eurofield decision signals that the Commission will not hesitate to fine companies for providing not just inaccurate or misleading, but also incomplete information. The obligation to provide accurate RFI responses is not limited to the parties directly involved in the antitrust proceedings, but may apply also to any third-party company responding to a Commission’s RFI.[10]
While procedural breaches—like providing incomplete information—were traditionally treated as an aggravating factor in decisions fining a company for antitrust infringements,[11] the Commission is increasingly penalizing procedural violations on a standalone basis. It has, in particular, imposed several heavy fines for breaches during unannounced inspections.[12] However, the Commission cannot treat the same conduct as both a standalone procedural violation and as an aggravating circumstance when setting a fine.[13]
This trend brings the Commission’s antitrust enforcement in line with its approach in merger control, where it has consistently fined companies for providing inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information.[14] At the national level, several competition authorities have already imposed fines for such procedural breaches during antitrust (and merger) investigations.[15]
[1] The Commission had previously sanctioned companies for providing incorrect information in response to an RFI in an antitrust case, but such breaches were treated as aggravating factors when calculating the final fine for the underlying anticompetitive conduct (see, e.g., Anheuser-Busch Incorporated – Scottish & Newcastle (Case IV/34.237), Commission decision of December 14, 1999; Peugeot (Case IV/31.143), Commission decision of September 25, 1986. In contrast, in this case, the Commission fined Eurofield for providing incomplete information in a standalone decision, while the antitrust investigation may still be ongoing.
[2] Commission Press Release IP/25/2022, “Commission fines Eurofield SAS and Unanime Sport SAS around €172,000 for providing incomplete information to the Commission in an antitrust investigation”, September 8, 2025 (available here) (“EC Press Release”). The decision has not yet been published.
[3] Article 18(2) in conjunction with Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation 1/2003.
[4] Article 18(3) in conjunction with Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003.
[5] Commission Press Release IP/23/3133, “Antitrust: Commission carries out unannounced inspections in the synthetic turf sector”, June 7, 2023 (available here).
[6] Based on the EC Press Release, it is unclear whether the Commission compared Eurofield’s response to information seized at Eurofield or at premises of other companies active in the synthetic turf sector that were subject to dawn raids.
[7] EC Press Release.
[8] In February 2024, Unanime Sport was acquired by TenCate Grass Holding B.V.
[9] If a parent company owns all or virtually all the capital of its subsidiary, it is presumed to exercise decisive influence over the subsidiary. Under these circumstances, both are considered one undertaking, and the parent company is jointly and severally liable for any competition law infringement of the subsidiary unless it proves that the subsidiary acted independently. See, e.g., Akzo Nobel NV and others v. Commission (Case C-97-08 P) EU:C:2009:536, para. 60; and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Commission (Case C-595/18 P) EU:C:2021:73, para. 32.
[10] While there has not yet been any precedent in antitrust enforcement, in 2000 the Commission fined a third party to merger proceedings for failing to supply information within the required time limit.
[11] See, e.g., Apple – App Store Practices (music streaming) (Case COMP AT.40437), Commission decision of March 4, 2024, paras. 961–962 (the basic amount of the fine increased by 20% for submitting incorrect information in response to an RFI); Graphite Electrodes (Case COMP/E-1/36.490), Commission decision of July 18, 2001, paras. 160 and 164 (the basic amount of the fine increased by 85% for, inter alia, obstructing the Commission’s investigation by warning other cartel members);, Greek Ferries (Case COMP/34.466), Commission decision of December 9, 1998, paras. 159–161 (the basic amount of the fine increased by 10% due to Minoan Lines’ attempt to mislead the Commission by instructing co-conspirators to differentiate prices); Nintendo (Case COMP/35.706), Commission decision of October, 30 2002, para. 419(the basic amount of the fine increased by 10% as John Menzies’s refusal to cooperate was treated as an aggravating factor).
[12] See, e.g., Commission Press Release IP/24/3435, “Commission fines International Flavors & Fragrances €15.9 million for deleting WhatsApp messages during an antitrust inspection”, June 24, 2024 (available here);, E.ON Energie AG (Case COMP/B-1/39.326), Commission decision of January 30, 2008 (€38 million fine for the breach of seal during an inspection); and Suez Environnement – breach of seal (Case COMP/AT.39796), Commission decision of May 24, 2011 (€8 million fine for the breach of seal during an inspection).
[13] IBP Ltd and International Building Products France SA v European Commission (Case T-384/06) EU: T:2011:113, para. 109.
[14] See,Commission Press Release IP/25/1893, “Commission opens formal investigation for possible breach of the duty to supply correct information in merger investigation of KKR/NetCo transaction”, July 24, 2025 (formal investigation opened to determine whether KKR provided incorrect or misleading information during merger investigation); Commission Press Release IP/24/1434, “Commission sends Statement of Objections to Kingspan for providing incorrect, incomplete and misleading information during merger investigation”, March 19, 2024 (available here); Merck/Sigma-Aldrich (Case COMP/M.8181), Commission decision of May 3, 2021 (€7.5 million fine for supplying incorrect and/or misleading information in response to an RFI and in Form RM); General Electric / LM Wind Power (Case COMP/M.8436), Commission decision of April 8, 2019 (€52 million fine for negligently providing incorrect information in a merger notification), see also Cleary Gottlieb Antitrust Watch Blog here; Facebook/WhatsApp (Case COMP/M.8228), Commission decision of May 17, 2017 (€110 million fine for supplying incorrect and/or misleading information in a merger notification and in response to an RFI); and Tetra Laval/Sidel (Case COMP/M.3255), Commission decision of July 7, 2004 (€90,000 fine for supplying incorrect and/or misleading information in a merger notification).
[15] See, e.g., Italian Competition Authority, Decision Nº 31647 of July 29, 2025, in Case A568B (available here) (€1.3 million fine on Ryanair for providing inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information in an abuse of dominance investigation); Slovak Competition Authority Press Release, “Cartels: AMO fined an undertaking for refusing to submit key information”, October 1, 2024 (available here) (€60,000 fine for failure to provide the requested information in a cartel investigation); Lithuanian Competition Authority Decision No. 2S-3 of February 23, 2012 (available here) (LTL 86,400 fine on UAB “Plungės duona” for failing to provide the requested information in an ongoing antitrust investigation); and Portuguese Competition Authority, Decision INC 2015/1 of June 21, 2015, in Case PRC 2013/05, (available here) (€150,000 fine on Peugeot Portugal for providing false, inaccurate or incomplete information as part of antitrust probe).