1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |EU Antitrust Regulators Raid Intel's Germany Offices

EU Antitrust Regulators Raid Intel's Germany Offices

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.13.08

Antitrust regulators for the European Union raided Intel Corp.'s Munich, Germany, offices, as well as the offices of several retailers selling Intel products. EU officers carried out unannounced inspections on Tuesday February 12, 2008 at Intel, German-based retailer Media Markt and Britain's DSG Group, owner of Dixons, Currys, PC City and PC World. The commission said it had reason to believe the companies “may have violated EC Treaty rules on restrictive business practices and/or abuse of a dominant market position.”

The raids come as Intel prepares for a hearing in Brussels in March to answer allegations that it abused its dominance of the market for central processing units (CPUs), a major component in personal computers. Intel's response will contest a statement of objections that Europe’s antitrust watchdog fired off against Intel in late July. The EC alleged that the company tried to elbow smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc. out of the chip industry by enticing computer hardware makers with illegal cash payments, discounts and rebates to choose its chips over AMD’s products.

Regulators accused the company of violating commission rules on abuse of dominant position. The commission said that Intel, which controls 80% of the global market for CPU microchips, engaged in three types of market abuse. “First, Intel has provided substantial rebates to various original equipment manufacturers conditional on them obtaining all or the great majority of their CPU requirements from Intel,” the commission said in July. “Secondly, in a number of instances, Intel made payments in order to induce an OEM to either delay or cancel the launch of a product line incorporating an AMD-based CPU. Thirdly, in the context of bids against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server segment of the market, Intel has offered CPUs on average below cost.”

Intel may face a fine of as much as 10% of its yearly revenue and a requirement to revise its business practices. The company has denied any wrongdoing and called the EC's statement of objections riddled with errors.

In the United States, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched a formal investigation in January into whether the company lured customers away from AMD. Cuomo’s office revealed that the attorney general had served a “wide-ranging” subpoena on Intel, seeking documents and information about whether the company violated New York state and federal antitrust laws by “coercing customers” to exclude AMD from the worldwide market of x86 CPUs. Specifically, Cuomo’s subpoena seeks information about Intel’s pricing practices and any attempts to exclude competitors from the market using its dominant position.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....