The European Commission Issues First-Ever Fine for Providing Incomplete Information in Antitrust Investigation

On 8 September 2025, the European Commission (EC) announced a €172,000 fine on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and Unanime Sport SAS (Unanime Sport) (Eurofield’s ultimate parent at the time of the infringement) for providing incomplete information to the EC in the context of an ongoing investigation into the synthetic turf sector. The message is clear: companies must take requests for information very seriously.

What Prompted the Fine?

In June 2023, the EC issued a so-called ‘simple 18(2)’ request for information (RFI) to Eurofield pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, for which DG COMP does not need to involve other parts of the EC.

The EC’s assessment of Eurofield’s reply to the initial RFI, in combination with documents collected during unannounced inspections (dawn raids) as part of the overall investigation, led the EC to suspect that the reply was incomplete. In October 2023, the EC therefore issued a second RFI by decision of the College of Commissioners, i.e., pursuant to Article 18(3) and subject to Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation No 1/2003. An 18(3) RFI gives the EC the power to impose a fine of up to 1% of a company’s turnover where the addressee, within the deadline set, intentionally or negligently, supplies incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. The EC also made Eurofield aware of its concerns related to the first reply.

As Eurofield’s reply to the second RFI was also deemed incomplete, the EC, in November 2024, opened an investigation into Eurofield’s suspected breach of procedural rules, ultimately imposing a fine of approximately €172,000 – the first fine ever for supplying incomplete information in the context of an antitrust investigation.

What Was the Basis of the Fine?

Two main factors played into the calculation of the fine. 

First, the EC considered the infringement to be serious. The effectiveness of antitrust investigations depends, inter alia, on companies’ replies to RFIs being complete and accurate. The EC considered that the infringement was committed at least negligently, as the EC had made Eurofield and Unanime Sport (the parties) aware of the suspected incompleteness of their reply to the initial RFI. If there were any doubts as to the extent of the information requested, the parties could have sought clarification from the EC – but failed to do so. This would have led to a fine corresponding to 0.3% of the parties’ combined total turnover.

Second, however, the EC reduced the fine because the parties proactively cooperated with the investigation. When informed of the suspected breach, the parties agreed to cooperate with the EC. They acknowledged liability for the infringement, accepted to pay a fine, and submitted not only the documents identified as having been missing, but also supplementary information. This led to a 30% reduction of the fine.

Implications

Fines for procedural infringements are not a new phenomenon. Rather, they have become increasingly relevant, with the EC having issued – in some cases rather significant – procedural fines in antitrust investigations and merger proceedings. For example, in 2008, the EC fined E.ON €38m for breach of a seal affixed during a dawn raid, thereby sending “a clear message to all companies that it does not pay off to obstruct the Commission’s investigations”. And, more recently, in June 2024, the EC issued a €15.9m fine for obstruction where a senior employee, during the EC‘s dawn raid, had deleted WhatsApp messages exchanged with a competitor.

This is, however, the first fine imposed in the context of an incomplete reply to an RFI but likely will not be the last. As highlighted by Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera, the EC views RFIs as “a vital tool to uncover antitrust infringements” and “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future to ensure that [our] investigations are carried out effectively to the benefit of consumers”. 

Procedural infringements are also a focus of national competition authorities. For example, earlier this year, the Italian Competition Authority fined Ryanair €1.3m for allegedly failing to provide complete and correct information in an antitrust investigation. And in 2024, the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (AMO) imposed a fine of approximately €60,000 on a company for failing to provide information requested by the AMO. Similarly, fines for procedural breaches in the context of merger proceedings have been imposed in a number of jurisdictions, including Austria, Norway, and the UK. 

What does this mean going forward? 

Companies subject to antitrust investigations, whether carried out by the EC or national competition authorities, must take replies to RFIs seriously. Failing to reply in a complete and accurate manner may have serious consequences, in particular when, as was the case for Eurofield, the EC has warned the company of a potential infringement.