The European Commission has launched a formal antitrust investigation into Red Bull over suspicions that the company abused its dominant position on the EU energy drink market.
The Austrian company is being investigated for incentives given to its off-trade customers and misuse of a supplier’s “category management” role. “We want to see if these practices may be keeping prices high and limiting choice of energy drinks for consumers,” said competition chief Teresa Ribera.
This investigation is significant, as it is the first comprehensive EU probe specifically addressing the alleged misuse of a category management position by a supplier to limit or disadvantage competing products.
In March 2023, the European Commission, with the assistance of national competition authorities, conducted unannounced inspections (“dawn raids”) at Red Bull’s headquarters and its EEA subsidiaries. These inspections were prompted by concerns that the company may have breached EU antitrust rules, specifically those prohibiting cartels and restrictive practices under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and those prohibiting abuse of a dominant market position under Article 102 TFEU.
In response, Red Bull brought an action before the General Court of the EU challenging the Commission’s decision authorizing the inspections and simultaneously sought interim measures to suspend the continuation of the inspection. In September 2023, the President of the General Court dismissed the request for suspension.
Subsequently, in October 2025, the General Court rejected Red Bull’s challenge to the inspection decision in its entirety. It confirmed that the Commission had relied on sufficiently serious indicia, and that the decision was well founded.
After examining evidence collected, the Commission decided to open a formal antitrust investigation into Red Bull’s conduct.
On November 13, 2025, the European Commission announced that it opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Red Bull has abused its dominant position, by restricting competition in the EU energy drink market.
According to the Commission’s preliminary findings, Red Bull may have implemented a broader, EEA-wide strategy aimed at limiting competitive pressure. This particularly from energy drinks sold in cans larger than 250ml in targeted sales points where drinks are bought for consumption elsewhere, such as supermarkets and petrol station shops (the so-called off-trade sales channel).
The investigation focuses on two main categories of potentially anti-competitive conduct:
The Commission is assessing whether Red Bull offered monetary and non-monetary incentives to its off-trade customers to induce them to:
A key focus of the investigation is whether Red Bull abused its category manager position in certain retail chains. Under category management arrangements, the retailer entrusted Red Bull with category management of energy drinks. This entailed advising on product assortment, shelf layout of energy drinks, and promotional strategy for an entire product category including competitors’ products.
The Commission suspects that Red Bull may have used its role to influence or control:
This marks the first time the European Commission has launched a formal investigation into a potential abuse of dominance derived from the misuse of category management functions by a supplier.
Although the suspected practices may have occurred across the EEA, the Commission specifically highlighted the Netherlands. Namely, Red Bull “appears to hold a dominant position” in the wholesale supply of branded energy drinks in this market.
With this landmark investigation the European Commission is sending a clear message. It is serious about enforcing competition rules and vigilant in looking at potentially anti-competitive practices, especially in consumer goods sectors.
The Commission’s intent is to move beyond textbook abuse of dominance. It shifts focus from obvious exclusionary practices to more sophisticated ones. Category management arrangements represent a much subtler form of vertical exclusion. The Commission, up until recently, regarded this as legitimate vertical cooperation rather than a unilateral conduct issue.
What are the implications for EU candidates from the Western Balkan countries? For countries that have concluded SAAs with the EU, core EU competition rules already apply in practice.
These countries already routinely look to the European Commission’s decisions and guidance as their primary interpretive benchmark. This investigation could have a twofold effect.
Firstly, competition authorities within the region are likely to take note of the Commission’s move. They may well themselves decide to check Red Bull’s behavior in their jurisdictions.
Secondly, they are likely to take inspiration from the nature of the alleged infringement. They may actively look for similar potentially illegal behavior by other market players in their countries. Complainants may feel emboldened to file complaints based on the same theory of harm about a competitor in these countries.
Newer, subtler forms of vertical exclusion are likely to be investigated. Competition authorities in the Western Balkans will understand that they can add to their tool kit the scrutiny of more sophisticated forms of misconduct.
It’s worth remembering that abuses of a dominant position can take many forms. Article 101 TFEU is relatively broad. It gives the European Commission and national competition regulators, both in the EU and in accession countries, the scope to “discover” or focus in on behaviors which previously may have flown under the radar. Any company holding a dominant position in one or more markets will always have a special responsibility. In creating marketing campaigns designed to steal market share from competitors, it will always pay for a dominant company to run such plans past a competition lawyer before proceeding.
Authors: Anastasija Radanović, Nađa Gogić
