Technology, Media & Communications

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.

Introduction

In May 2025, the Commission launched a public consultation on possible reforms to its merger guidelines, covering seven core topics that underpin how the Commission assesses the competitive impact of mergers.[1] On October 29, the Commission summarized the main trends of the 243 responses[2] it received.[3] The highlights are as follows:

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 Paper E – Digitalization.

On July 10, 2025, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published both its 2024 Annual Report,[1] and its 2025-2026 Roadmap,[2] which outlines its priorities for the year ahead. 

In July 2025, the European Commission launched a consultation about its revision of the EU antitrust procedural rules.[1] This is part of a comprehensive evaluation that the Commission initiated in March 2022, to ensure that the procedural framework for the EU’s antitrust enforcement remains “fit for the digital age” after its enactment 20 years ago.[2]

In the past year, the General Court has ruled on several challenges to Commission dawn raids initiated against Symrise,[1] Michelin,[2] and Red Bull,[3] clarifying the limits of the Commission’s investigatory powers. In all three cases, the General Court upheld the legality of the inspections,[4] though refined the evidentiary and procedural standards governing dawn raids.[5] The most recent Michelin and Red Bull judgments, in particular: (i) clarified what constitutes “sufficient indicia” for the Commission to initiate a dawn raid; (ii) validated the Commission’s use of new digital tools to gather indicia for dawn raids and its practice of gathering information onsite and later reviewing that information over extended periods of time at the Commission’s premises (“extended inspection”); and (iii) confirmed the Commission’s margin of discretion in selecting the most appropriate investigative measure—such as dawn raids or requests for information—in antitrust investigations.