Luxembourg: A French media empire has lost the opening round of a legal fight that could redraw the boundaries of how far Brussels can reach into private communications when it polices a merger. On 3 June the European Union’s General Court dismissed, in their entirety, two challenges brought by Vivendi and Lagardere against a Commission demand for documents tied to an investigation into whether Vivendi closed its takeover of Lagardere before regulators had cleared it.
The case turns on a technical-sounding offence with serious consequences. So-called gun-jumping describes a buyer exercising control over a target before merger approval, and the Commission has been examining since 2023 whether Vivendi did exactly that. To build that case, investigators asked for a sweeping set of records, including messages held on executives’ personal devices and exchanges on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp and Signal. Vivendi argued the request was disproportionate and risked sweeping up material protected by rules shielding journalists’ sources, given Lagardere’s stable of newspapers and magazines.
The judges were unpersuaded. The Court held that the Commission may request all information necessary to verify whether the rules were broken, and found that Vivendi had not established that the demand was unlawful. Crucially, the ruling imposes no penalty and does not prejudge the merits of the gun-jumping probe itself; it decides only that the regulator was entitled to ask. Vivendi has said it will appeal to the Court of Justice, the bloc’s highest court, which means the final word is still some way off.
Why it matters reaches well beyond one French boardroom. Merger enforcement increasingly depends on what people wrote to each other in the weeks a deal was taking shape, and those conversations now live on phones and in encrypted chats rather than in formal memos. A ruling that confirms the Commission can compel access to that material strengthens its hand in every future investigation. Companies negotiating large acquisitions will have to assume that informal messaging is fair game.
The counter-argument, which Vivendi will press on appeal, is about limits. Encrypted personal messaging blends professional and private life, and a media group can plausibly claim that forced disclosure threatens confidential sources. Where the public interest in competition enforcement ends and the protection of private communication or press freedom begins is precisely the question the higher court may now have to answer.
For now the practical effect is narrow but real. The Commission keeps the documents it sought and its broader Lagardere inquiry continues, with the possibility of fines if gun-jumping is proven. The signal to the wider market is that Europe’s competition watchdog intends to follow the evidence onto personal devices, and that, at first instance, the courts are willing to let it.




