By Grace Kim

The EU's General Court has rejected Vivendi's challenge against information requests issued by the European Commission during its probe of the Lagardère transaction. The ruling leaves the Commission's investigative demands intact and clears the way for the merger review to proceed.

The Luxembourg-based General Court, the EU's second-highest tribunal, dismissed the challenge brought by the French media group. At issue were the Commission's requests for information — the formal demands regulators issue when scrutinizing whether a deal complies with EU merger rules.

Vivendi had contested the requests tied to the Commission's examination of its position involving Lagardère, the French publishing and travel retail group. The court found against the company and upheld the Commission's authority to seek the material.

What does the ruling change?

For practitioners, the judgment confirms a simple point. Parties and third parties facing Commission information requests in merger proceedings cannot easily defer or block them through litigation while the review runs.

The practical consequences:

• Companies must respond to Commission information requests on the regulator's timetable, not a court's.
• Challenging such requests at the General Court now carries a confirmed risk of failure in this fact pattern.
• Counsel advising on multi-jurisdictional media deals should treat compliance planning as the default strategy.

Information requests are a standard enforcement tool. The Commission uses them to build the factual record in merger reviews. When a target or counterparty resists, the probe slows but rarely stops.

The decision matters beyond Vivendi. Any party to a notified transaction — or an interested third party — faces the same instrument. The takeaway: respond, or bring a narrowly framed objection with realistic expectations.

Why the Lagardère file matters

The Lagardère transaction drew Commission attention because of the media and retail footprint at stake. Vivendi, controlled by billionaire investor Vincent Bolloré's group, built its position amid a contested corporate battle for the French publisher.

The Commission's review focused on whether the arrangement met EU merger control thresholds and what competitive effects might follow. Information requests formed part of that examination.

The General Court's dismissal keeps that examination moving on the Commission's terms. Vivendi retains the option to appeal to the Court of Justice, the EU's highest court, on points of law.

What should lawyers do now?

Merger counsel should brief clients early on document preservation and response timelines the moment a Commission request arrives. Litigation as a delay tactic has now failed in this instance, and the cost of that failure includes time, fees and regulatory friction.

The ruling also signals judicial deference to the Commission's fact-gathering in sector-specific probes. Courts will police abuse, but the burden sits firmly with the challenger.

In plain words: the Commission asked, Vivendi objected, and the court said the Commission may keep asking.