On November 1, 2025, the Commission issued a policy brief[1] in which it rejected calls to extend the legal professional privilege to in-house counsel communication. The Commission examined the question after stakeholders called for such an extension as part of the revision process of the regulation governing antitrust investigation, Regulation 1/2003.[2]
On October 15, 2025, the French Cour de cassation (“Court”) confirmed a €680,000 fine on the trade union Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France (“CDF”) (“Decision”).[1] The Court held that the CDF’s call for a boycott of certain dental care networks constituted a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article L. 420-1 of the French Commercial Code.[2]
The French Cour de cassation confirms the FCA’s independence in settlement-referral procedures and classifies information exchanges between tenderers, including when exploring subcontracting, as a restriction by object.[1]
On September 24, 2025, the French Cour de cassation upheld the sanction imposed by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) on Vinci group entities active in construction and technical services, and on their subsidiary Santerne Nord Tertiaire (“Santerne”), for unlawful exchanges of confidential information during a public tender procedure.
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic C – Innovation And Other Dynamic Elements In Merger Control.
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]
On April 17, 2025, further to an appeal lodged by a competitor (Valocîme), the Conseil d’Etat upheld the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) decision[1] approving Phoenix Tower International (“PTI”) as purchaser of the passive mobile infrastructure assets which Cellnex had committed to divest as part of the FCA’s review of its acquisition of Hivory.[2] The Conseil d’Etat approved the FCA’s analysis of the independence of the proposed purchaser as well as the absence of new adverse competitive effects due to the purchaser’s acquisition of the divested assets.
In two rulings of April 8, 2025, the French Cour de cassation confirmed that dawn raids may lawfully be conducted at employees’ private residences without requiring additional safeguards beyond those set out in the French Commercial Code.[1]
On December 19, 2024, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed fines totalling €611 million on 10 manufacturers and two distributors (selling primarily in brick and mortar stores) active in the household appliances sector for engaging in resale price maintenance (“RPM”) practices between February 2007 and December 2014 (the “Decision”).[1] The FCA found that the companies coordinated prices to limit competition from online distributors for over seven years. This is the second largest fine ever levied by the FCA regarding purely vertical practices and the highest fines ever imposed (in absolute terms) on distributors for RPM practices. The FCA also ordered the publication of a summary of the Decision in the paper and online editions of Le Monde and Les Echos’newspapers. However, the FCA rejected the objection relating to a potential horizontal agreement between manufacturers of small domestic appliances.
On December 5, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) clarified the scope of its judgment of June 27, 2024, referring back the assessment of TDF’s acquisition of Itas to the French Competition Authority (“FCA”).[2] The Court ruled that the referral was limited to further investigation, while the final decision would be taken by the Court of Appeals (not the FCA).
On November 28, 2024, the Commission published the results of an extensive ex-post study examining its past enforcement of merger control rules in the pharmaceutical sector (the “Study”).[1]