Brussels probes Sanofi for disparaging rival vaccine

The European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation on 26 June into whether Sanofi abused its market power by portraying a competitor's flu vaccine as scientifically inferior, using claims that may have contradicted European and national health authorities (European Commission). At stake are two enhanced influenza vaccines for elderly and vulnerable patients: Sanofi's Efluelda and CSL Seqirus's Fluad. The alleged conduct focused on France and Germany (CNBC, Reuters).

The accusation is specific. Sanofi allegedly told doctors that Fluad's evidence base was weaker than Efluelda's, and that Germany's national recommendation for Fluad faced unresolved scientific objections. The Commission says these claims may have contradicted assessments by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and national advisory bodies in both countries (European Sting). Sanofi says it complied fully with competition law and is cooperating (Morningstar).

Opening a formal investigation is not a finding of guilt. It means the Commission saw enough after dawn raids at Sanofi's premises in September 2025 to dig deeper (CNBC).

How words move public money

Patients don't pick flu vaccines off a shelf. Doctors prescribe them, national vaccination committees recommend them, and public health systems pay for them. In Germany, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommends enhanced flu vaccines for people over 60. Once a vaccine enters that recommendation, statutory health insurance covers it and regional medical associations handle procurement (KV Nordrhein). The decision chain is professional and institutional. Patients rarely know why they received one vaccine over another.

That is what makes the alleged conduct economically powerful. If a dominant company tells doctors that a rival product has shaky science, the rival doesn't lose a checkout-counter sale. It loses a place on clinic order lists, a slot in procurement routines, a share of publicly financed budgets.

The legal basis is Article 102 of the EU Treaty, which bars companies with dominant market positions (firms powerful enough to act largely independently of competitors) from abusing that power (EUR-Lex). If a dominant firm misleads doctors about a rival's product, EU law can treat that as abuse. The Commission tested this approach in 2024, fining Teva €462.6 million for abusing dominance in the multiple-sclerosis drug Copaxone, partly through misleading claims about a competitor (CRA).

Who pays, who gains

If the Commission's theory holds, Sanofi gained demand for Efluelda without competing on price or supply. CSL Seqirus, the direct loser, spent resources correcting the record instead of competing on clinical evidence (STAT). Public health systems and patients are the less visible losers: they may have funded or received a narrower range of vaccines than the science supported.

The vulnerability is not limited to France and Germany. Across the EU, prescription medicines cannot be advertised directly to patients. Influence runs through professionals and institutions. In Spain, public drug financing depends on assessments of therapeutic value and available alternatives (BOE). Distort the comparative claims that feed those assessments, and you distort the outcome.

What we don't know

The case could end with a fine of up to 10% of Sanofi's global turnover, with binding corrective commitments, or with no infringement finding at all (EUR-Lex). We still lack the actual texts used in the alleged campaign, the procurement volumes at stake, the price gap between the two vaccines, and evidence that prescriptions measurably shifted.

The Commission must prove two things. First, that Sanofi held a dominant position in a precisely defined market. Second, that its messaging didn't just promote Efluelda aggressively but actively shut Fluad out of demand.

The fine matters less than the principle being tested. In markets where public money buys medicines and doctors rely on official evidence, controlling the narrative around that evidence may itself lock out competitors. The open question is where promotion crosses into manipulation.