Red Bull v. European Commission
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union, Case T-306/23, 15 October 2025
The General Court of the European Union dismissed Red Bull’s action challenging the European Commission’s decision to carry out an unannounced inspection (“dawn raid”) in March 2023.
The inspection followed an informal complaint by Monster Energy, which alleged that Red Bull was restricting the market for energy drinks larger than 250 ml.
According to the Commission, Red Bull:
- granted financial incentives to retailers on condition that they remove higher-volume competing products from their assortment,
- conducted a negative campaign (“smear campaign”) against energy drinks larger than 250 ml,
- cooperated with competitors within a trade association with the aim of limiting the sale of such products.
The Commission conducted inspections in several EU Member States and seized several terabytes of data, which were subsequently reviewed in Brussels — amounting to nearly six additional weeks of examination.
Red Bull’s main pleas
Before the General Court, Red Bull relied on four principal grounds of appeal:
- Insufficient reasoning – the Commission failed to clearly define the subject matter of the investigation
- Lack of evidence – the decision was based on a single complaint without further verification
- Disproportionality – according to Red Bull, the Commission could have issued a request for information (RFI) instead of conducting a dawn raid
- Infringement of the rights of defence – complaints regarding the conduct of Commission officials and the excessive duration of the inspection.
Findings of the General Court
The General Court rejected all pleas:
- Sufficient reasoning – The Court held that the Commission’s decision sufficiently described the sector, the relevant market, and the nature of the suspicions, enabling Red Bull to understand the subject matter of the investigation “without excessive interpretation”.
- Sufficient evidence of suspicion – The Court confirmed that a single detailed complaint (approximately 700 pages long) may constitute a sufficient basis for launching a dawn raid. The Commission was not required to verify the allegations with third parties beforehand, as this could compromise the effectiveness of the inspection.
- Proportionality – The Commission enjoys a broad margin of discretion in selecting investigative tools. In this case, the decision to conduct a dawn raid was proportionate in light of the nature of the suspicions and the risk of non-cooperation.
- Conduct of Commission officials – The Court did not examine the merits of complaints concerning the conduct of Commission officials, as these relate to the implementation of the decision rather than its legality. Such grievances must be pursued through separate legal avenues.
Conclusions and practical takeaways
The judgment confirms that the European Commission retains broad discretion when deciding to initiate a dawn raid, while still being required to comply with minimum standards of transparency and proportionality.
For businesses, the ruling sends several important messages:
- A single detailed and credible complaint may be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
- A dawn raid decision will be lawful if its scope can be understood without excessive interpretation.
- Complaints concerning the conduct of officials must be raised separately, in distinct proceedings.
- Digital inspections are becoming increasingly extensive and costly, raising questions regarding proportionality of expenses.
Red Bull has already initiated separate proceedings seeking reimbursement of the costs of the months-long inspection, which could open a new chapter in defining the limits of proportionality in the Commission’s enforcement practice. Meanwhile, in November, the Commission opened a formal investigation into Red Bull’s alleged anti-competitive conduct.
Mucalo Law Firm continues to monitor EU case law in the field of competition law and to keep its clients informed about developments in regulatory and procedural standards.
