Commission makes Sanofi’s commitments on communications about rival flu vaccine Fluad binding

The European Commission has closed its antitrust investigation into Sanofi’s possible denigration of Fluad, a flu vaccine produced by Seqirus, after making the commitments offered by the company binding. Sanofi must correct certain communications addressed to healthcare professionals and avoid similar conduct in the future, while some restrictions will remain in place until 2030. The decision is not a fine and does not establish that Sanofi definitively breached EU competition rules.

The European Commission has made binding the commitments requiring Sanofi to correct certain communications about the rival flu vaccine Fluad and avoid repeating the conduct that triggered the antitrust investigation. The decision closes the proceedings without a fine and without a definitive finding that the manufacturer abused a dominant position, but turns the measures offered by the company into obligations enforceable under European competition law.

In brief
The Commission investigated whether Sanofi used potentially misleading messages to weaken Fluad’s position and favor its own vaccine, Efluelda.

The commitments provide for a corrective communication campaign in France and Germany and restrictions on certain future conduct.

Some communication obligations apply for 24 months, while restrictions on the disputed conduct extend until March 2030.

The Commission’s concerns included how national vaccination recommendations were presented to healthcare professionals.

The commitments decision closes the investigation without a fine and without a finding of an infringement, but Sanofi’s commitments become binding.

The Commission suspected that information sent by Sanofi to doctors and other professionals in France and Germany could cast doubt on the scientific basis of Fluad, produced by Seqirus, and could present national recommendations in a way favorable to Efluelda. Some messages could have created the impression that authorities recommended Sanofi’s product exclusively or preferentially, even though the recommendations examined by the Commission placed the two vaccines on an equal footing. For a category of products in which the patient’s decision is strongly influenced by the doctor’s recommendation, information sent to professionals can directly alter the conditions of competition between manufacturers.

The investigation did not seek to establish the general medical superiority of either vaccine. The Commission was examining whether a company with a strong market position could use claims about scientific evidence or authorities’ recommendations to diminish a competitor’s credibility. Unannounced inspections took place in October 2025, and the formal investigation was opened in 2026, before Sanofi offered commitments intended to address the antitrust concerns.

Under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, the Commission may accept commitments proposed by a company and turn them into legally binding obligations without taking the investigation through to a decision establishing an infringement. In Sanofi’s case, this procedure allows the matter to be closed within a shorter timeframe, but the company must implement the measures set out in the decision, and failure to comply may trigger the enforcement tools available to the Commission.

In France and Germany, Sanofi must publish communications correcting the elements identified during the proceedings and clarify how the evidence base for Fluad and the national authorities’ recommendations are presented. In Germany, the obligation also extends to healthcare professionals or medical opinion leaders who had previously received the communications concerned, ensuring that the correction reaches the same professional audience and is not limited to the publication of a note on the company’s website.

The commitments also regulate future conduct. Until March 2030, Sanofi must avoid the types of messages challenged by the Commission, including claims that could create, without sufficient basis, the impression that Fluad has weaker evidence or that Efluelda benefits from an exclusive or superior recommendation by the authorities. In Germany, the relevant promotional materials must visibly present the current recommendation of the competent national body, so that commercial information does not alter the meaning of the health authority’s position.

The binding nature of these measures does not change the legal character of the decision. The Commission did not establish that Sanofi definitively committed an abuse of a dominant position and did not impose a fine for the conduct investigated. Closing the case on the basis of commitments means that the EU executive considers the measures sufficient to eliminate the competition concerns without continuing the proceedings to a finding of infringement.

The case forms part of a broader Commission practice concerning the denigration of competing medicines, following cases such as Vifor and Teva. Commercial claims about a product’s safety, efficacy or scientific basis may become relevant under competition law when they are used by a dominant company in a way capable of affecting rivals’ access to the market. In the pharmaceutical sector, the impact may go beyond the relationship between companies because product choice affects patients, prescribing and public healthcare budgets.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for competition policy, placed the decision in this context, citing the need for doctors, pharmacists and patients to be able to trust information about vaccines. According to figures presented by the Commission, medicines account for approximately 13% of healthcare spending in the EU, while Germany and France together spend approximately €100 billion annually on medicines, amplifying the potential impact of conduct that artificially alters the choice between competing products.

For patients, the decision does not change medical indications or health authorities’ vaccination recommendations. It limits how a company may use commercial communications about a rival product and requires Sanofi to correct the information under the conditions set by the Commission. Effective implementation of these commitments and compliance with them until the deadlines expire will determine whether the case remains closed without renewed antitrust intervention.