EC imposes unprecedented fine for the provision of incomplete information in an antitrust investigation

How the EC’s case unfolded

In the context of its ongoing antitrust investigation in the synthetic turf sector, in June 2023 the EC sent turf manufacturer Eurofield an informal request for information.

The authority was alerted to the possible incompleteness of Eurofield’s reply after comparing it with documents collected during dawn raids carried out as part of the probe.

The EC made Eurofield aware of its concerns, and sent a subsequent formal request for information, but found that the company again replied in an incomplete manner.

In November 2024, the EC informed Eurofield and Unanime Sport—Eurofield’s ultimate parent at the time of the infringement—that it had opened an investigation into the suspected procedural breach. From this point, the EC says that the companies agreed to cooperate. Ultimately, they submitted the documents identified as missing as well as additional information.

A “serious” infringement

The EC can impose fines of up to 1% of total turnover on companies that supply incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information in response to a formal information request.

Here, the EC considered that the infringement was serious and that Eurofield had been at least negligent. It noted that, if Eurofield and its parent Unanime Sport had any doubts as to the extent of the information requested, they could have sought clarification from the authority. They chose not to do so, it said, despite having been made aware of the suspected incompleteness of the initial reply.

The EC settled on a fine of EUR172,000—0.3% of the parties’ combined total turnover—saying this was “both proportionate and deterrent.”

Significantly, this amount includes a 30% reduction for cooperation, taking into account the fact that the companies acknowledged the breach and agreed to pay a fine.

New, but not new

The EC is no stranger when it comes to sanctioning companies for procedural infringements. Fines for obstructing a dawn raid, for example, have reached multiple millions. And from a merger control perspective, there have been similarly high penalties for failing to file, jumping the gun, and for submitting incorrect, incomplete or misleading information in the context of an EC merger review.

However, this is the first time that the EC has used its powers to impose a fine for the provision of incomplete information in reply to an information request in the context of an antitrust investigation.

It likely won’t be the last: on announcing the EC’s fine, Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera warned that the EC “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future.”

The EC is not alone

Summer 2025 has seen another notable enforcement case. In July, the Italian Antitrust Authority (IAA) fined Ryanair EUR1.34 million for providing inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information during an abuse of dominance probe.

Specifically, the IAA found the airline had failed to provide internal strategic documents—business plans and other relevant presentations—that were in its possession. Ryanair had claimed that it did not prepare business plans for Italy or other countries, and that strategic decisions are taken informally and not documented.

Again, the company’s alleged failings came to light when the IAA obtained access to documents during dawn raids of Ryanair’s Dublin premises.

The fine is the authority’s highest-ever penalty for such an infringement.

Elsewhere this year, we have seen enforcement action for procedural breaches in a number of other jurisdictions, including the U.S., China, New Zealand, Poland and Slovakia. Individuals, as well as companies, have faced sanctions, including criminal prosecution.

Key takeaway: Treat information requests with care

Authorities see information requests as a vital tool in uncovering antitrust infringements, particularly cartels, which are by their nature secretive.

They will seek to deter inaccurate, misleading or incomplete responses by taking a strict approach to clear breaches. Sanctions are not just a theoretical possibility: antitrust authorities across the globe are ramping up enforcement of these procedural violations.

Companies should therefore take care when dealing with information requests, both informal and formal. It is important that the firm fully understands its obligations to respond and the potential consequences of non-compliance, the context and scope of the request is clear, individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge feed into the response, any document uncovered during any inspection of the company are taken into account, and any deadlines are met (or discussed with the authority where meeting them may not be feasible).

If a company is faced with information requests from multiple authorities (e.g., in the context of parallel antitrust probes into the same or similar conduct), coordination and consistency of responses will be key.