European Commission imposes first ever fine for incomplete reply to information request

On 8 September 2025, the European Commission ("EC") imposed a fine of €172,000 on Eurofield SAS ("Eurofield") and its then-parent company Unanime Sport SAS ("Unanime Sport") for providing incomplete information in response to requests for information ("RFIs") during an ongoing antitrust investigation in the synthetic turf sector. This marks the first time the EC has fined a company for an incomplete RFI reply in an antitrust case. The decision sends a clear message: companies must take RFIs very seriously.

Background

• In June 2023, the EC issued a so-called "Simple RFI" to Eurofield under Article 18(2) of Regulation 1/2003, to which a response is voluntary, but a response containing incorrect or misleading information may attract a fine of up to 1% of the group's worldwide turnover.
• Following an assessment of the reply – combined with evidence gathered during dawn raids – the EC suspected the response was incomplete.
• In October 2023, the EC issued a second RFI, this time an "RFI by Decision" pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003. Such decisions entail an obligation to respond, backed by the EC's power under Article 23(1)(b) to impose fines of up to 1% of the group's worldwide turnover where companies provide incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. The EC also warned Eurofield that its earlier reply was likely deficient.
• Eurofield's reply to the second RFI was again found incomplete. In November 2024, the EC opened a procedural investigation which culminated in the September 2025 fine.

Basis of the Fine

The EC found that Eurofield and Unanime Sport had at least negligently failed to provide complete information:

• Seriousness of the infringement – The EC stressed that the effectiveness of its investigations depends on complete and accurate RFI replies. Given the prior warning, the companies should have sought clarification if in doubt. The EC initially calculated the fine at 0.3% of the parties' combined turnover.
• Cooperation – The fine was reduced by 30% because the parties acknowledged liability, agreed to pay a fine, and provided the missing documents as well as additional information.

Implications

While fines for procedural infringements are not new, this is the first fine for an incomplete RFI reply. It follows earlier high-profile procedural fines, including:

• E.ON (€38m, 2008) – for breaking a seal during a dawn raid.
• International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and International Flavors & Fragrances IFF France SAS (€15.9m, 2024) – for obstruction where a senior employee deleted WhatsApp messages during a dawn raid.

The EC is not alone in pursuing procedural breaches:

• The Italian Competition Authority fined Ryanair €1.3m earlier this year for allegedly providing incomplete information.
• The Slovak Antimonopoly Office fined a company ~€60,000 in 2024 for failure to provide requested information.
• Similar sanctions have been imposed in merger proceedings by authorities in Austria, Norway and the UK.

Key Takeaways for Companies

• Accuracy and completeness are essential – RFI responses must be carefully prepared and reviewed.
• Warnings matter – The EC did not move directly to a fine but gave the company an opportunity to provide the missing information through an RFI by Decision, with a clear warning of its concerns. Providing the information at this point may have avoided a fine.
• Engagement with authorities helps – Where doubts exist, companies should seek clarification from the EC or national authorities.
• Cooperation can mitigate sanctions – Acknowledging liability and providing supplementary information reduced Eurofield's fine by 30%.

As Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera underlined, the EC considers RFIs "a vital tool to uncover antitrust infringements" and "will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future". Companies should expect continued vigilance on procedural compliance across Europe.

This case demonstrates that procedural obligations under competition law are being enforced with increasing strictness, including for incomplete responses – not just for obstruction or incorrect information. Companies subject to RFIs – whether in competition investigations or merger control, or other areas where the European Commission has enforcement powers such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, should treat them as high-risk, high-priority compliance matters.

_{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.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}