The White & Case Foreign Subsidies Regulation Quarterly (FSRQ) is an information and discussion resource regarding the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation. FSRQ provides updates on recent enforcement activity and trends.
Below is a selection of recent developments in Q3 2026 and the key FSR statistics for M&A deals.
Key Q3 2026 FSR developments
- European Commission launches dawn raid obstruction proceedings
- Rejection of interim measures request concerning FSR information gathering
- First review of the FSR
European Commission launches dawn raid obstruction proceedings
On 31 July 2026, the Commission issued a Statement of Grounds to Temu's owner PDD Holdings Inc. and its subsidiary WhaleCo Technology Limited alleging dawn raid obstruction. The Statement of Grounds focuses on Temu's conduct during the Commission's December 2025 inspection at WhaleCo's Dublin premises, which was launched pursuant to an ex officio Article 9 FSR investigation.
According to its press release, the Commission has preliminarily concluded that Temu breached its duty to cooperate under Article 14 of the FSR by failing to comply with several "basic requests" made by the Commission. These include requests concerning the provision of:
- information on the organisation and management of Temu's activities in the EU
- information on the IT tools and systems used by the company for its activities in the EU
- specific books and records on the company's activities in the EU.
On 1 August 2026, Temu issued a press statement stating that it did not agree with the Commission's preliminary findings in its Statement of Grounds, and that it had "cooperated fully and complied with all the requests the Commission made during the inspection".
This is the first time that the Commission has launched formal dawn raid obstruction proceedings under the FSR. Under the FSR, for dawn raid obstruction the Commission can impose a fine of up to 1% of total turnover in the preceding business year.
Rejection of interim measures request concerning FSR information gathering
As noted in our Q2 edition below, Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer Goldwind Science & Technology has brought proceedings before the EU General Court to contest information requests issued by the Commission in the course of an FSR investigation. The company is seeking both annulment of the requests and an interim order suspending compliance with the demands pending the outcome of the proceedings.
On 20 July 2026, the President of the EU General Court (T-335/26 R) rejected Goldwind's request for interim measures, holding that Goldwind had failed to establish that the condition relating to urgency (necessary to adopt an interim measure) had been satisfied.
Goldwind had argued that having to respond to the Commission's requests for information pending the outcome of its action for annulment would cause two types of serious and irreparable damage resulting, first, from significantly prolonging the investigation beyond the indicative 18-month period provided for in Article 11(5) of Regulation 2022/2560 and, second, from serious and irreversible harm to its rights of defence.
The President rejected Goldwind's arguments on several grounds. The President held that Goldwind could not in principle "rely on difficulties arising from the way in which its activities are organised to claim that it is not required to respond to questions put by the Commission in order to determine whether financial contributions provided by a third country confer a benefit on the applicant within the internal market. Engaging in activities in the internal market entails an obligation for the undertakings concerned to comply with the rules governing its proper functioning, which includes the obligation to respond to requests for information provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 2022/2560." The President also considered that it was unclear how suspending the operation of the contested decision (or part of it) could help to remove the uncertainty regarding the outcome of the investigation and reduce the alleged commercial and reputational risk. On the contrary, the President considered that such a suspension could have the effect of prolonging the period of uncertainty.
The President did not consider that the mere fact of the Commission receiving the information requested would cause irreversible harm to its rights of defence. The President noted that if the Commission was not entitled to request the information, and consequently the contested decision were to be annulled by the Court, the Commission would be required to remove the information in question from its file and would be unable to use it as evidence. Goldwind relied by analogy on the Court of Justice's judgment in Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C-583/13 P), arguing its rights of defence would be seriously endangered if the Commission relied on evidence obtained via a request unrelated to the investigation's subject matter. The President distinguished that case: unlike Deutsche Bahn, which concerned an inspection tainted by irregularities, this case involved a transparent information request that had, from the outset, been intended to cover all entities and financial contributions in the Goldwind Group, in order to determine whether they conferred a benefit within the internal market.
As Goldwind failed to establish urgency, a cumulative condition for the grant of interim measures, the President dismissed the application for interim measures without needing to rule on whether there was a prima facie case or to weigh the competing interests. Costs were reserved. The substantive annulment action remains pending before the General Court.
First review of the FSR
On 14 July 2026. the Commission published its first review of the FSR, confirming that the instrument is fit for purpose after three years of enforcement, while signalling targetted procedural simplifications to ease the compliance burden on businesses. See here our analysis of the report.
Key statistics – M&A deals
All statistics are updated as of 28 September 2026.
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.
© 2026 White & Case LLP
