Luxembourg, October 15, 2025 – The General Court (GC) of the European Union has dismissed Red Bull’s challenge against the European Commission’s (EC) 2023 decision to raid the company’s offices in Austria, France, and the Netherlands, ruling that the authority had sufficient grounds to suspect anticompetitive conduct in the energy drinks market.
Background to the Case
The EC’s decision of March 8, 2023, ordered Red Bull GmbH and all directly or indirectly controlled subsidiaries – including Red Bull France SASU and Red Bull Nederland BV – to submit to inspections. The inspections were executed simultaneously at Red Bull’s premises in Fuschl am See, Paris, and Amsterdam.
According to the inspection order, the EC had received information suggesting that Red Bull may have engaged in practices restricting competition in the off-trade energy drink sector (supermarkets, convenience shops, and wholesalers) within the EU and EEA. The suspicions covered three areas:
- Exclusionary practices – including financial incentives and rebates allegedly linked to the delisting of rival energy drinks, particularly those sold in cans larger than 250 millilitres, combined in some cases with threats of supply refusal. These practices were suspected in Belgium, Estonia, France, Lithuania, and the Netherlands.
- Denigration campaign – alleged efforts since 2020 to discredit larger-can energy drinks among retailers and wholesalers, especially in Germany and the Netherlands, with the apparent aim of limiting their sales.
- Industry coordination – possible agreements within Energy Drinks Europe (EDE) to limit the sale of large-size cans across the EU and EEA.
Red Bull asked the Court to annul both the inspection decision and any measures carried out under it, including the seizure of electronic documents.
The GC ruled that the second part of Red Bull’s request was inadmissible because the EU judicature does not have jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments or injunctions against the institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies of the Union.
Court’s Findings
The GC rejected all five pleas raised by Red Bull, including claims that the EC had acted without adequate evidence, provided insufficient reasoning, or violated proportionality and due process.
The judges held that the EC’s decision clearly described the suspected conduct, markets, and geographic scope, and thus allowed Red Bull to understand the object and purpose of the inspection. The use of qualifying terms such as “in particular” or “potentially” did not make the decision speculative or open-ended, given the preliminary stage of the investigation.
On evidence, the Court found that the EC possessed “sufficiently serious indicia” to justify the raid, including a detailed informal complaint submitted in April 2022 by a major competitor, backed by successive written submissions, internal correspondence from retailers, and communications with distributors across multiple member states. These documents described in detail alleged payments, rebate schemes, and pricing arrangements intended to disadvantage competing brands.
The Court also confirmed that the EC was not required to verify all third-party information before acting, since inspections are investigative tools designed to collect, not prove, evidence.
Health-Related Arguments Dismissed
Red Bull had argued that some of the practices identified—such as promoting smaller can sizes and supporting EDE’s “code of practice”—were aligned with public health objectives under the EU framework and therefore not anticompetitive. The Court dismissed this defence, noting that even measures framed as health initiatives could constitute restrictions of competition if they reduced market access or targeted rivals’ products.
The judges further observed that Red Bull’s market position in several member states appeared strong enough to warrant suspicion of dominance, making potential abuse under Article 102 TFEU a legitimate line of inquiry.
Proportionality and Conduct of the Raid
The Court ruled that the EC had acted proportionately, as an inspection was necessary to secure information that Red Bull was unlikely to provide voluntarily through written requests. It reiterated that dawn raids are essential investigative tools and that their intrusive nature does not in itself render them unlawful.
Allegations concerning the behaviour of EC inspectors during the raids, such as the alleged obstruction of phone calls and the handling of employee devices, were dismissed as irrelevant to the legality of the inspection order, since they related to the conduct of the operation rather than the underlying decision.
The General Court ultimately upheld the EC’s inspection order, confirming the legality of the dawn raid and ordering Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull France SASU, and Red Bull Nederland BV to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those linked to interim measures.
Lawyers Hanno Wollmann, Franz Urlesberger, and Anna Visontai-Knor of Schoenherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH, alongside Jürgen Schindler and Frances Dethmers of Davis Polk & Wardwell, represented Red Bull.
The case is T‑306/23 Red Bull GmbH & Ors v Commission before the General Court.
