The White & Case Dawn Raid Analysis Quarterly (DRAQ) is an information and discussion resource regarding surprise on-the-spot inspections by antitrust authorities (dawn raids) across Europe. DRAQ provides updates on recent case law, enforcement activity and trends.
Q3 2026 at a glance
In the third quarter of 2026, European competition authorities conducted a total of 6 dawn raids. This represents a 33% decrease compared to the same period in 2024 (9 dawn raids) and a 45% decrease compared to the same period in 2025 (11 dawn raids). Most notably, it marks a 60% drop from the previous quarter Q2 2026 during which authorities conducted 15 dawn raids. In Q3 2026, national competition authorities conducted dawn raids in a wide variety of sectors including energy, real estate, technology, healthcare or financial services.
Q3 2026 highlights:
- On 31 July 2026, the Commission formally warned Temu's parent company and its subsidiary ("Temu") for failing to cooperate during an FSR-related inspection in Ireland in December 2025. This means that Temu can face a fine for obstructing the dawn raid. The Commission stated that during an inspection Temu failed to "actively cooperate on multiple aspects." It said the company didn't comply with "several basic requests" on company activities, management and IT systems.
- On 1 July 2026, Red Bull lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice of the EU arguing that the General Court's judges made errors over assessing whether legal costs incurred during the European Commission's antitrust inspection should be covered. As reported here, in April 2026 the lower EU court delivered a judgment dismissing Red Bull's demand for the European Commission to reimburse the costs.
- On 20 August 2026, it was reported that Chinese company JD.com's acquisition of a German electronics retailer faces a compliance conflict in the context of the European Commission's ongoing review of the acquisition under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. This is because Chinese authorities have now prohibited domestic entities and persons from cooperating with or carrying out cross-border investigative actions that China considers an illegitimate exercise of the EU's extraterritorial jurisdiction. This intervention represents the second occasion on which China has publicly invoked its recently established blocking mechanism to counter EU FSR enforcement measures.
- On 2 October 2026, the CMA published updated guidance on its confidential whistleblowing process. The process allows individuals to confidentially report suspected cartel conduct or other competition law infringements by their current or former employer to the CMA. Such individuals can qualify for legal protection under whistleblowing laws (and can also be eligible for financial reward). Under these protections, if an individual's identity is found out, they may not be treated badly by their employer or lose their job just because they have spoken out in this way. A non-disclosure agreement (sometimes called a confidentiality or 'gagging' clause) cannot be used to stop them making a whistleblowing report.
We provide more statistics below on the number of raids and the sectors impacted, including a country-by-country list, available through our Interactive Dawn Raid map.
Key Q3 2026 legal developments
Below is a selection of key developments in Q3 2026:
- One professional use is enough: EU General Court upholds Commission's power to access personal devices and messaging applications when gathering information pursuant to an RFI
- Accessing data during a dawn raid from privately owned devices requires prior judicial authorisation or authorisation from an independent administrative body
- Danish dawn raid obstruction decision: deleting emails during a dawn raid doesn't pay - even if you confess and cooperate
- Hide and seek during a dawn raid: UK construction firm and its employees fined by the CMA for concealing evidence during inspection
One professional use is enough: EU General Court upholds Commission's power to access personal devices and messaging applications when gathering information pursuant to an RFI
In June 2026, the EU General Court ("GC") dismissed annulment actions brought by Lagardère and Vivendi against requests for information ("RFIs") issued in the context of the European Commission's gun-jumping investigation regarding Vivendi's acquisition of Lagardère. On 31 July 2026, Vivendi and Lagardère appealed the judgment to the CJEU. Unless and until the GC judgment is overturned on appeal, the judgment remains valid EU law.
The GC confirmed that the Commission may require the production of business communications held on personal email accounts, personal mobile phones and personal messaging applications such as WhatsApp, SMS, Telegram and Signal, where those tools have been used for professional purposes. Crucially, a single instance of professional use is sufficient to bring a personal device or application within scope.
Although the GC acknowledged that the obligation to produce documents from personal communication tools carried the risk of serious interference with the right to private life under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, it found the interference was proportionate and justified by the objective of protecting effective competition on the internal market. The GC noted that the Commission's investigative powers would be rendered ineffective if companies could refuse production of data pursuant to an RFI simply because documents were stored on personal devices. Procedural safeguards - including encrypted provision and virtual data room review for sensitive personal data, and a dedicated mechanism for the protection of journalistic sources - were found to be adequate. Challenges to the scope of search terms, the number of custodians and the nearly four-year review period were all dismissed.
This judgment echoes the Commission's existing practices during dawn raids, where inspectors have for some time been accessing personal mobile phones and messaging applications of individuals at the inspected premises. The GC's endorsement of this standard at judicial level strengthens the Commission's hand. Moreover, the Commission has broad information-gathering powers also under the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act or the Foreign Subsidies Regulation so companies can expect such standard will be also applied during inspections under those regimes.
Companies should treat these judgments as a signal to review their internal communications policies, document retention practices and dawn raid preparedness protocols - ensuring they can address the Commission's broad access rights while protecting the privacy interests of affected individuals.
For more details, see our client alert here.
Accessing data during a dawn raid from privately owned devices requires prior judicial authorisation or authorisation from an independent administrative body
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU (the "Court") delivered a judgment in Imagens Médicas Integradas and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência.
The Court held that national competition authorities in the EU must obtain prior authorisation from a judge or an "independent administrative body" if - during a dawn raid - inspectors want to access data stored on mobile phones, laptops, or any other storage medium belonging to an individual rather than to the company. That judge or body must have the necessary powers and provide the necessary safeguards to ensure a fair balance between the employee's human rights and the legitimate needs of the competition authority's investigation.
According to the Court, access to data stored on personally owned devices gives rise to "serious", or even "particularly serious", interference with employees' fundamental human rights, in particular their right to respect for their private and family life and the protection of their personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is because access is likely to reveal information about the employees' everyday habits, permanent or temporary places of residence, travel, activities, social relationships and places frequented socially. It could also include sensitive data that is subject to special protections under the General Data Protection Regulation, such as information on an employee's race, political opinions, religious beliefs, health and sexual orientation. The Court further said that an inspection may nevertheless proceed if the devices are sealed and not accessed until the independent review is completed.
Practical takeaways:
- Even though the ruling was delivered in the context of enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by a national competition authority, the principles set out by the Court in this judgment may have impact on how the European Commission conducts dawn raids. In instances where the Commission's investigators need to access data from personally owned devices, businesses may require the Commission to obtain a judicial authorisation via a national competition authority assisting on a dawn raid (if applicable) or ensure that any such device remains sealed and not accessible at all pending an independent review.
- The Court does not address whether the need for a prior authorisation extends to devices that are owned by the company but are also used for private purposes by its employees or officers. Such devices could arguably deserve the same treatment; however, businesses should take a cautious approach here and always seek advice from legal counsel as companies could be fined for obstruction if they refuse to provide company data from the personal device.
Danish dawn raid obstruction decision: deleting emails during a dawn raid doesn't pay - even if you confess and cooperate
On 25 June 2026, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority ("DCCA") issued a decision finding that Jobteam obstructed a dawn raid. Prior to that, the DCCA conducted an unannounced inspection at Jobteam A/S's premises. The inspection targeted suspected anti-competitive practices in the job placement and recruitment sector. According to the DCCA, Jobteam's representative was instructed on the company's duty to cooperate and warned that deleting data could constitute obstruction, punishable by a fine. The company was also told which employees were subject to data preservation.
Within a 32-minute window, one of the employees deleted over 5,000 Outlook items - first moving them to the deleted items folder, then permanently erasing them via SoftDelete. The deletions targeted items at the core of the investigation. At a meeting later that morning, Jobteam's lawyer disclosed that the employee had, "in panic," deleted emails after the inspection began, and offered to help recover them. The DCCA proceeded to preserve the company's Microsoft 365 data and later exported activity logs confirming the deletion pattern.
Crucially, the DCCA rejected Jobteam's argument that its voluntary admission and offer to help recover the files excused the conduct, holding the obstruction was already completed upon deletion. EU practice confirms this approach: in the IFF decision the Commission stated that "subsequent cooperation[…] cannot undo the fact that there had been a deletion of data." Cooperation only moderates the fine for obstruction. Voluntary admission does not absolve a company from the liability.
In this case, the fine itself has not yet been set - if Jobteam does not bring the decision before the courts, the DCCA will refer the case to the Maritime and Commercial Court with a claim for a fine. While Jobteam's cooperation cannot undo the violation, the DCCA has indicated that cooperation including the offer to help recover the deleted emails may still be considered as a mitigating factor when the fine is eventually calculated.
Hide and seek during a dawn raid: UK construction firm and its employees fined by the CMA for concealing evidence during inspection
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (the "CMA") fined a UK construction firm and two of its employees a combined £50,000 for concealing a mobile phone and documents during an on-site inspection. The CMA carried out the inspection under a court warrant as part of its investigation into 12 construction companies suspected of bid rigging in public and private sector procurement, including projects funded through the UK Government's Condition Improvement Fund for educational institutions.
During the inspection, Individual 1 (B.P.), M&J's Estimating Director, instructed Individual 2 (T.W.), the company's Office Manager, to remove a work mobile phone and paperwork from the premises to prevent CMA investigators from finding them. B.P. also falsely told CMA officers that he did not have a work mobile phone. The items were returned later that day, but the CMA held that even temporary concealment risked the loss of relevant information and wasted valuable investigative time.
The fines imposed were: M&J Group – £25,000, B.P. (Individual 1) – £20,000; T.W. (Individual 2) – £5,000. Although the conduct related to actions of two individuals, and the materials were voluntarily provided to the CMA by the company, the CMA noted that the company was also fined because a company can only act through its employees and agents, and "it is well established that undertakings can be liable for the actions of their employees." Moreover, the CMA noted that "the actions and state of mind of employees are attributable to the undertaking employing them." The CMA further noted that M&J failed to take adequate steps to ensure the requirements were complied with "so as to ensure that its employees could not remove relevant materials" or "sufficiently supervise [B.P's] actions on the day of the inspection." The CMA considered it reasonable and proportionate to impose a larger penalty on the company, as the responsible employer with considerable resources to ensure compliance, than on the individuals themselves.
The quick return of the materials was treated as a mitigating factor that reduced the penalty from the statutory maximum of £30,000 to £25,000, not as a basis for avoiding the liability altogether - the CMA stated that M&J "proactively self-reported the Relevant Conduct to the CMA, without prompting by the CMA," which meant the materials were returned within hours of having been removed from the M&J's premises.
These penalties relate solely to obstruction and are separate from the underlying bid-rigging investigation, which remains ongoing.
Since January 2025, the CMA's enhanced enforcement powers allow significantly higher penalties for non-compliance: fixed fines of up to 1% of turnover and daily penalties of up to 5% of daily turnover. As M&J's conduct predated these new powers, the lower maximum penalties applied. Companies should take note: the cost of non-cooperation during a CMA inspection has risen sharply.
Interactive Dawn Raid map
Hover over the highlighted countries to get a closer look at the enforcement activity of the respective National Competition Authorities since 2021.
Austria2024
2023
2022
2021
Belgium2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Bulgaria2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Croatia2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Cyprus2023
2022
2021
Czech Republic2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Denmark2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Estonia
Finland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
France2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Germany2024
2023
2022
2021
Greece2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Hungary2025
2023
2022
2021
Ireland2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Italy2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Latvia2026
2025
No dawn raids for the period 2021 – 2023 Lithuania
Luxembourg2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Netherlands2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Norway2026
2025
2023
2022
2021
Poland2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Portugal2024
2023
2022
2021
Romania2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovakia2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Slovenia2026
2024
2023
2022
2021
Spain2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
Sweden2023
2022
2021
Switzerland2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
United Kingdom2023
2022
2021
|
A look at the statistics
The information below has been sourced from LexisPSL, and is based on dawn raids that have been publicly announced by competition authorities. The LexisPSL information was supplemented from selected public sources in jurisdictions where further information was available. Since not all competition authorities announce every dawn raid, the data below likely underestimate the number of raids. The sector charts reflect dawn raids in which the sectors were identified by the competent authorities. In some jurisdictions (e.g., Germany or Czech Republic), the authority publishes the number of raids without identifying the sector. As a result, the statistics in the charts below may underestimate the actual number of dawn raids by sector and country. The statistics displayed for the Czech Republic are available only as of 2021.
Number of dawn raids per year in the EU, Switzerland and the UK, 2018 – 2026 (Q3)
Dawn raid leader board: Number of dawn raids by jurisdiction, 2018 – 2026
Number of dawn raids tracker per year and during 2018 – 2026 (Q3) in the EU plus Switzerland and the UK
Dawn raids tracker by sector: EU plus Switzerland and the UK, 2025 and 2026 (Q3)
Dawn raids tracker by sector: EU plus Switzerland and the UK, 2018 – 2026 (Q3)
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
