The Nvidia General Court ruling due on 16 December will decide how far the European Commission can reach into deals that national merger rules never covered. MLex reported on 5 November that the court in Luxembourg will rule in Case T-15/25, which Nvidia filed on 10 January 2025. The case concerns the Commission’s review of the US chipmaker’s acquisition of AI startup Run:ai.

The Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally on 20 December 2024 in case M.11766, so the judgment will not unwind the deal. Reuters reported when Nvidia filed that the action has no impact on the acquisition itself. What matters is the route the Commission used to gain jurisdiction.

Run:ai’s turnover was too low to meet the regular thresholds of Italy’s merger rules. Italy’s competition authority, the AGCM, nevertheless used new call-in powers that let it require notification of a deal that may harm competition. The authority then asked the Commission to take the case under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, and the Commission accepted.

Nvidia argues that the Commission unlawfully accepted that referral. In its filing, the company calls the AGCM’s call-in power loosely defined, ex post and discretionary. It also invokes institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality and equal treatment.

The legal backdrop is the Court of Justice’s Illumina/Grail judgment of 3 September 2024 in Case C-611/22 P. That ruling held that the Commission cannot accept an Article 22 referral unless the referring authority has jurisdiction under its own national law, or no national merger regime exists. Nvidia says the Run:ai referral does not fit that decision, and the Nvidia General Court ruling will test that claim.

Italy is not alone in building its own tools. A Crowell & Moring analysis notes that Italy, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden, Latvia and Slovenia have call-in powers with lower-threshold criteria, while Ireland, Lithuania and Cyprus have call-ins without extra thresholds. Many of these regimes now serve as the gateway for catching so-called killer acquisitions, in which large firms buy startups to shut them down.

The Nvidia General Court ruling therefore carries weight beyond one chip deal. A judgment favouring Nvidia could curb the Commission’s power to take over reviews from national enforcers, as Reuters noted when the case began. A judgment backing the Commission would confirm that Article 22 survived Illumina/Grail to some extent.

The timing matters for regulators as well. The Commission has said it worries about killer acquisitions, and Article 22 referrals offer one tool against them. The Nvidia General Court ruling will show whether that tool still works when a national authority relies on a newly introduced call-in power.

Either outcome shapes how technology groups structure their acquisitions. Buyers of young AI and software firms often assume that a deal below every turnover threshold escapes review. The Nvidia General Court ruling will show whether national call-in powers, combined with an Article 22 referral, can close that gap.

Companies planning acquisitions of young technology firms should watch the 16 December date closely. Until the Nvidia General Court ruling arrives, small deals below every turnover threshold still carry some risk of a call-in. The judgment will tell deal lawyers whether that risk is real or fading.