Red Bull V Commission – Abuse of Dominance and Procedural Safeguards

Overview

The European Commission (“The Commission”) has recently opened a formal investigation[1] into Red Bull to inquire as to whether it has infringed competition rules in the energy drinks sector. The process is initiated by a complaint submitted by Monster Energy, one of Red Bull’s biggest competitors in which it was alleged that Red Bull granted incentives to off-trade channel to stop selling or disadvantage competing energy drinks and misused its position as category manager.

The Commission is   concerned that Red Bull may have implemented such strategy at least in the Netherlands and will be examining whether it pursued an EEA-wide strategy. If confirmed, this would mark the EU’s first abuse-of-dominance case involving the misuse of category management. Category management is defined as the practices entrusting the management/display of a product category (e.g. energy drinks, pharmaceuticals, baby formula, soft/alcoholic drinks) to one or more suppliers which acts as the “category captain”. This generally not only cover the products of the category manager but also the products of competitors in terms of shelf allocation, promotions, availability of the products, etc. in retail level. This practice emerged in the 1990s, when supermarkets faced wider product ranges and increasingly crowded shelves, so they started relying on suppliers for advice on how to organise them in a way that maximised sales, given the suppliers’ better access to data and consumer demand. In the energy-drinks sector, this influence can extend to decisions about which brands are placed at eye level or given prominent visibility.

However, such practices were investigated on national level in the past. For example, in 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority fined Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim and Haleon a total of approx. EUR 11 million for anticompetitive category management arrangements concerning the placement of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines in pharmacies. It was found by the authority that the three firms jointly designed and enforced planograms (i.e. shelf layout diagrams) that gave advantage their own products and excluded or disadvantaged rivals. It is concluded that these practices are exclusionary and not objectively justifiable or benefit consumers.

In addition to the substance of the case, Red Bull also challenged the dawn raid that launched the investigation, arguing before the General Court (“Court”) that the inspection was overly broad and insufficiently justified. The Court disagreed[2]. In its October 2025 judgment, it found the Commission had “sufficiently serious clues” to support the raid and that the inspection order was clear enough. The judges stressed that at this early stage, while the investigation is still ongoing, the Commission does not need proof, only credible indications of a possible infringement. This article examines both aspects of the case: the Commission’s investigation and the Court’s ruling on the inspection decision.

Background

The investigation started in March 2023[3], when Commission officials conducted unannounced inspections at Red Bull’s offices in Austria, France and the Netherlands. During these dawn raids, inspectors reviewed physical records, internal files, emails and other electronic data relating to Red Bull’s commercial practices. The evidence collected during those inspections ultimately led the Commission to initiate formal proceedings.

The investigation centres on Red Bull’s behaviour in the off-trade retail channel: supermarkets, petrol stations and similar shops where energy drinks are purchased for consumption elsewhere. The Commission is looking into whether Red Bull used its strong market position to influence shelf layouts and product visibility in ways that may have discouraged retailers from giving space to rival brands. The concerns are particularly strong in the Netherlands, where Red Bull is thought to hold a dominant position in the wholesale supply of branded energy drinks.

The Commission is examining at three types of conduct. The first concerns incentives that may have encouraged retailers to delist products sold in cans larger than 250 ml or give them less favourable shelf space. The second type of conduct concerns Red Bull’s role as “category manager” for the energy drinks aisle in certain stores. The Commission is exploring whether Red Bull used this influence not just to promote its own brand but to hinder competitors. If proven, this would be the first case in which the misuse of a category management role is seen as an abuse of dominance. Third, the Commission is investigating whether Red Bull engaged in coordination with other industry players through the trade association Energy Drinks Europe (“EDE”) to limit the distribution of energy drinks sold in cans larger than 250 ml. Such conduct, if verified, could fall under Article 101 TFEU as an anticompetitive practice, especially if it involved competitors reaching a common understanding to curb market access for certain formats.

Investigation

The Commission is assessing Red Bull’s conduct under both Article 102 and, potentially, Article 101 TFEU[4]. Each of the three practices under scrutiny raises distinct legal concerns.

The first two (offering incentives to delist rival products and misusing category management responsibilities) are rooted in Red Bull’s own conduct, not coordination, and are being examined as possible abuses of dominance under Article 102. If Red Bull holds a dominant position in the relevant markets, tactics that reduce competitors’ visibility or limit their access to shelf space may be deemed abusive or anticompetitive. Offering retailers incentives (monetary or not) that make them more likely to favour Red Bull, or to reduce space for other brands can restrict rivals’ ability to reach customers and distort the normal competitive process.

The category management issue is more legally novel. While category management is a common retail practice that is not unlawful in itself, the role becomes sensitive when held by a dominant supplier. A category manager is expected to optimise the retailer’s product category by providing objective advice based on available market data and consumer preferences. When the same company acts as both a stock promoter and an adviser, having access to the retailer’s sales data, the lines can blur and there is a risk that the advice will not be neutral but self-serving, favouring its own products rather than optimising the category as a whole. In Red Bull’s case, the Commission is examining whether the company used this position to influence key decisions on shelf space and product placement in a way that not only favoured its own products but also limited the visibility of other brands. In a market where in-store visibility strongly affects consumer choice, such practices can make it harder for competitors to reach consumers and may lead to foreclosure of rival brands. If proven, this would amount to a form of exclusionary conduct by a dominant firm and could be deemed anticompetitive under Article 102 TFEU.

The third line of inquiry involves potential coordination through EDE, the industry’s trade association. If Red Bull and other members jointly acted with the object or effect of limiting the availability of energy drinks in cans larger than 250 ml, this could fall under Article 101 as a concerted practice. The legal risk would be heightened if Red Bull played an active role in shaping or promoting the alleged strategy, as both a dominant market player and a potentially influential voice within the association.

The Challenge on Dawn Raid Decision

Red Bull brought a legal challenge[5] before the Court. It sought, first, the annulment of the Commission’s dawn raid decision, and second, the annulment of all measures taken during the dawn raid. The Court struck out the second claim as inadmissible. It noted that Red Bull’s filings gave no specific details of any contested act, referring only to “any measure … taken in the course of the inspection”, so the plea was too vague to be judicially reviewed. Identifying specific raid measures “was not its task,” and under Article 263 TFEU the Court cannot issue broad declaratory orders on how the raid was conducted.

On the first claim, Red Bull raised five arguments. It argued that the inspection decision was unsupported by evidence, manifestly unfounded, vague, disproportionate, and in breach of procedural rights. The Court dismissed each in turn.[6]

On evidence, the Court acknowledged that the Commission’s decision relied heavily on Monster Energy’s complaint, but held that this complaint, supported by internal documents and emails, offered “sufficiently serious clues” of a possible infringement. Citing European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) precedent, the Court emphasized that at this pre-inspection stage the Commission only needs to possess “sufficiently sound evidence” and not conclusive proof of an infringement. Hard proof was not required at this point, only reasonable grounds for the search.

Red Bull also claimed that the Commission had no real basis to suspect any infringement. The Court rejected this, holding that the conduct described in the inspection order could “not be ruled out” as an abuse of a dominant position or a restriction of competition. In short, the allegations (if proven) might very well infringe Articles 101 or 102 TFEU, so the decision was not manifestly without legal foundation.

The Court also rejected the vagueness argument. It found the inspection order met the requirements of Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003 by setting out the subject matter and scope of the raid clearly enough. Words like ‘in particular’ or ‘potentially’ did not make the decision anticompetitive.

Red Bull also contended that the raid was disproportionate. First, it argued that the Commission should have sought information by less intrusive means (e.g. an information request) before resorting to a dawn raid. The Court rejected this, emphasizing the Commission’s wide discretion. Even if substantial circumstantial evidence already exists, the Commission may “rightly consider it necessary to order additional checks” by way of inspection. A search is inherently more effective than a voluntary document request. Second, Red Bull complained that the extended duration and intrusiveness of the continued inspection (a six‑week follow-up in Brussels) was excessive. The Court held that such post-decision events could not invalidate the inspection order: by settled case‑law, legality is judged on the facts as of the decision date. This means the proportionality objection cannot annul the decision itself.

Finally, the Court declined to assess Red Bull’s allegations of aggressive inspector conduct or violations of legal privilege. It reasoned that even if Red Bull’s allegations were true, they would “not call into question the legality of the contested decision”. Rough conduct by inspectors could not taint the legal basis for ordering the search.

In sum, the Court dismissed every plea. It concluded that the inspection order satisfied the statutory requirements and was supported by sufficient evidence to suspect an antitrust violation. The Commission’s dawn-raid decision was upheld in full. All of Red Bull’s challenges were rejected, and the Court confirmed the legality of the inspection order.

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

The Red Bull investigation is significant on both substance and procedure. Substantively, the Commission is testing a novel Article 102 theory: whether a supplier’s role as category manager can amount to exclusionary conduct. If Red Bull used its advisory position to reduce competitors’ shelf visibility or restrict larger can formats, the case could reshape the Commission’s approach to supplier retailer relations in consumer goods.

A second angle concerns potential coordination. The inquiry into whether Red Bull and other members of EDE agreed to limit large-format cans introduces a possible Article 101 dimension, adding cartel-type concerns to what is primarily a dominance case.

Procedurally, the General Court reinforced the Commission’s wide inspection powers. It held that dawn raids may rely on complaints and circumstantial evidence, so long as the Commission has sufficiently serious indications of a potential infringement. Legality is assessed at the moment the inspection is ordered, not in hindsight.

Overall, the case signals two developments: the Commission is expanding its enforcement theories in retail distribution, and EU courts continue to grant it broad discretion at the investigative stage. Dominant suppliers, particularly those acting as category managers, should reassess practices that could be viewed as foreclosing rivals, while competitors are encouraged to document restrictive conduct. The ruling also confirms how difficult it is to overturn a dawn raid in the absence of clear defects in the Commission’s decision.

• [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2671 
• [2] http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6167/oj
• [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1802
• [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02016ME/TXT-20250315
• [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023TO0306
• [6]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AC_202506167&utm_source=chatgpt.com#ntr1-C_202506167EN.000101-E0001