The boundaries of corporate privacy in the European Union have shifted following a important ruling by the EU General Court. In its judgments for Cases T-1097/23 and T-1119/23, the Court ruled that the European Commission has the legal authority to demand the disclosure of documents stored on personal communication devices, such as private smartphones and tablets, provided those devices have been used for professional purposes.
This decision is a critical turning point in how antitrust investigations are conducted in the digital age, establishing that the enforcement of competition law can justify substantial intrusions into private life.
The Genesis of the Dispute: A Premature Merger Suspected
The case stems from October 2022, when the French media giant Vivendi notified the European Commission of its plans to acquire sole control of Lagardère, another major player in the media and publishing sectors. While the Commission ultimately authorized the merger in June 2023 under certain conditions, it subsequently suspected that the two companies had engaged in “gun-jumping”—implementing the merger prematurely before receiving official regulatory clearance.
To investigate these suspicions, the Commission issued strict requests for information in September 2023. The antitrust regulator demanded the production of documents based on specific themes, designated personnel, and precise search terms. Crucially, the scope included communications sent or received on both professional and personal electronic devices, as long as the personal devices had been used at least once for business matters.
Vivendi and Lagardère immediately challenged the decisions before the General Court of the European Union, seeking an annulment on the grounds that the requests severely infringed upon the fundamental right to respect for private life.
The Court’s Ruling: Public Interest Outweighs Privacy Grievances
In its judgments, the General Court dismissed the actions brought by the two media groups. The Court openly acknowledged that the Commission’s demands constituted a serious interference with the right to privacy. However, it concluded that this restriction is entirely justified under European Union law.
According to the Court, the Commission’s invasive requests met all the necessary legal thresholds to override standard privacy protections:
- Clear Legal Basis: The requests were grounded in sufficiently clear and precise EU antitrust regulations.
- Objective of General Interest: The measures directly pursue the critical objective of ensuring that EU competition rules are effectively applied and not circumvented.
- Proportionality and Safeguards: The scope of the search was strictly limited to specific individuals, designated timeframes, and predefined search criteria. Furthermore, the Court noted that any collection of purely private information would only happen incidentally during the pursuit of commercial data, and that adequate safeguards were in place to protect highly sensitive or confidential information.
Preventing Regulatory Ineffectiveness
A central pillar of the Court’s reasoning was the preservation of regulatory power. The General Court emphasized that if companies could shield relevant evidence simply by conducting business on personal devices, the Commission’s investigative powers would risk being rendered entirely ineffective. In an era where the lines between remote work, personal text applications, and corporate operations are heavily blurred, the ruling ensures that regulators can follow the digital trail wherever it leads.
For businesses operating within the EU, the judgment serves as a stark reminder of the reach of antitrust enforcement. It establishes a clear precedent: using personal devices for professional communication brings those devices under the jurisdiction of EU regulators during a competition probe, provided the search is targeted, justified, and subject to ultimate review by the EU courts.
