Avoiding a Turf War: a reminder of the dangers of anticompetitive information exchange when negotiating the acquisition of a minority shareholding

On 21 May 2026, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections concerning suspected anticompetitive conduct between competitors in the synthetic turf sector. The case considers interesting issues based on the various practices under scrutiny. In particular, the competition law concerns relate to:

• the exchange of confidential and strategic information between competitors when discussing a potential cross-acquisition of minority shareholdings;
• collusion between competitors with the aim of strengthening their own market position and implementing policies designed to exclude competition; and
• the hijacking of sustainability-related objectives to achieve anticompetitive aims.

An infringement decision would likely result in heavy fines and potential follow-on damages actions for the companies involved.

This case offers some practical insights for companies:

1. companies must treat pre-transaction discussions with competitors as high-risk and ensure safeguards are in place (e.g. clean teams and information barriers) regardless of whether a deal is ultimately concluded;
2. minority shareholdings and joint ventures between actual or potential competitors will always be subject to competition law scrutiny, particularly where such structures may facilitate strategic alignment; and
3. it remains critical to implement appropriate safeguards when collaborating with competitors even if the overarching aim is to achieve a societal benefit (e.g. improve the environment).

Background

In recent years, the recycling of synthetic turf has increased in importance, with a heightened focus on making the industry more environmentally friendly. For example, the disposal costs of end-of-life turf for sports pitches have become an important parameter of competition in tenders to carry out such work.

In this context, the Commission has preliminary concerns that:

1. Since 2019, the creation of a Dutch recycling company (“GBN-AGR”) facilitated a price fixing arrangement, ensuring that producers and installers of synthetic turf (a) did not compete over recycling services, (b) exclusively recycled through GBN-AGR, and (c) fixed GBN-AGR’s pricing to benefit themselves and disadvantage third parties.

   The arrangement included minority shareholdings for some producers in GBN-AGR and is also suspected of being aimed at preserving the producers’ position in the adjacent market for turf installation, as well as excluding competitors in the upstream market for the supply of turf.

2. Between 2020 and 2023, a Dutch and a German-based producer engaged in anti-competitive behaviour while discussing a potential collaboration (including a possible cross-acquisition of minority shareholdings) for the recycling of synthetic turf in Germany, despite the deal ultimately not going ahead.

   In particular, the Commission believes that the parties may have exchanged competitively sensitive information (e.g. current and future prices and production capacities) without having appropriate safeguards in place and later coordinated a key pricing element (referred to as a “gate fee”) for turf recycling.

The role of minority shareholdings bears some similarities to the Commission’s 2025 infringement decision in Delivery Hero/Glovo which involved anticompetitive conduct in the online delivery sector. The Commission also took issue with collusion and information exchange in the context of an acquisition of a minority shareholding in a competing business.

This case is also likely to be of interest as it continues a recent focus by authorities and the Commission on sustainability practices. Last April, the Commission fined 15 car manufacturers around €458 million for collusive behaviour concerning end-of-life vehicle recycling. In parallel, the CMA fined 10 manufacturers and two trade associations over £77 million on similar grounds.

Clearly authorities are placing increased scrutiny on ‘green’ initiatives and are particularly live to the concern that companies will attempt to exploit environmental aims to distort competition.