EU Opens Antitrust Probe into SAP’s Aftermarket Support for On-Premise ERP

What the Commission is investigating

On 28 September 2025 the European Commission announced a probe into whether SAP has engaged in anti-competitive practices in the aftermarket services it provides for its on‑premise enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. The investigation focuses on the market for post‑sale services — such as technical support, updates, patches, and compatibility assistance — that customers rely on to operate and maintain on‑premise ERP installations.

The probe examines whether SAP’s commercial or technical practices may unfairly disadvantage third‑party service providers, limit interoperability, or otherwise lock customers into SAP’s own support ecosystem in a way that harms competition and customers in the EU market. The Commission’s intervention is part of its broader focus on competition issues in digital and software markets.

Background and context: why this matters

ERP systems are mission‑critical for many enterprises and public sector organisations. On‑premise ERP installations often represent large sunk costs: customisations, integrations with other systems, and long testing cycles make migrations time consuming and expensive. That creates a strong incentive for vendors to maintain long‑term relationships through support and maintenance services.

• Aftermarket services include bug fixes, security patches, compatibility updates, and operational support that keep ERP systems running and compliant.
• When a primary vendor controls key technical information, update mechanisms, or licensing terms, third‑party maintenance providers can be excluded from offering competitive alternatives.
• Regulators view restricted access to aftermarkets as a potential source of lock‑in: customers can be forced to accept higher prices or inferior service because switching costs are prohibitive.

European competition authorities have a long record of scrutinising practices that create or exploit market power in technology markets. The SAP probe is significant because it targets the intersection of legacy on‑premise software — still widely used across industries — and aftermarket control points that can shape long‑term competition and innovation in enterprise IT services.

Expert analysis for practitioners

For legal, procurement, and IT professionals, the Commission’s investigation highlights several technical and contractual areas to watch:

• Contractual terms and renewal mechanics. Vendors may include clauses that restrict the use of third‑party maintenance or impose de‑facto requirements to purchase vendor updates to retain support eligibility. Procurement teams should scrutinise auto‑renewal, renewal price escalation, and exclusivity clauses.
• Technical interoperability and documentation. Access to diagnostic interfaces, update channels, and sufficient documentation for third‑party maintenance is central. Technical gatekeeping — for example, withholding APIs or signing key processes — can prevent independent providers from safely delivering patches or compatibility fixes.
• Security and compliance trade‑offs. Organisations must weigh the operational risk of unauthorised support against the commercial risk of vendor lock‑in. Independent maintenance is possible in many cases but requires access to vetted technical artefacts and clear liability frameworks.
• Evidence gathering for complaints or internal risk assessments. Maintain records of communications with vendors, instances where third‑party maintenance was denied, and the operational impact of vendor practices. This information is useful both for internal decision‑making and for regulatory submissions.

Aftermarket control points — contractual, technical, or procedural — are often where switching costs crystallise. Customers and regulators pay close attention to whether those controls are necessary for security and quality, or are being used to exclude rivals.

Comparable cases and enforcement precedents

While the Commission’s focus on ERP aftermarket services is specific, the broader legal framework and past antitrust actions provide context. European and international competition authorities have pursued several high‑profile technology cases that established precedents for remedies and fines when dominant firms abused market power:

• Microsoft: The EU and other jurisdictions litigated Microsoft over tying and interoperability issues in the 2000s, leading to remedies on interoperability and conduct.
• Intel, Qualcomm and others: Regulators have enforced against dominant chip and platform vendors for exclusionary rebates, exclusivity, or contractual clauses that foreclosed rivals.
• Recent digital platform enforcement: Competition authorities have increasingly targeted how platform rules and technical interfaces affect competition in adjacent services and marketplaces.

These precedents show regulators can require behavioural remedies (changes to contracts or technical access), structural remedies in extreme cases, and levy fines where conduct is found unlawful. Remedies frequently aim to restore access and competitive provision of complementary services.

Risks, implications, and actionable recommendations

The investigation raises practical risks and decisions for several stakeholders — customers running on‑premise ERP, independent service providers, system integrators, and SAP itself.

• For customers:
  • Risk: Potential short‑term disruption if vendors change support models or if litigation prompts interim restrictions.
  • Action: Conduct a contractual audit of support and maintenance clauses, clarify rights to use third‑party maintenance, and document instances of denied access or restrictive practices.
  • Action: Develop migration and contingency plans: evaluate phased moves to cloud alternatives where feasible, but don’t assume cloud eliminates all lock‑in risks.
• For third‑party maintainers and partners:
  • Risk: Being excluded or constrained from servicing legacy ERP instances.
  • Action: Preserve detailed records of technical barriers and commercial refusals; liaise with customers to provide evidence of foreclosure for regulatory complaints where appropriate.
• For procurement and legal teams:
  • Action: Refine RFPs to require interoperability, access to diagnostic tools, escrow of critical code or keys where appropriate, and clear exit clauses to reduce switching costs.
  • Action: Include service level agreements (SLAs) and penalties tied to response times, patch cadence, and security updates to reduce operational exposure.
• For regulators and policymakers:
  • Implication: The case will inform how competition law applies to software aftermarkets and may influence guidance on when technical access must be provided to third parties.

Possible outcomes and what to watch next

The investigation may lead to a variety of outcomes, depending on the evidence the Commission uncovers. Potential paths include:

• Closure without action, if the Commission determines there is insufficient evidence of anti‑competitive conduct.
• Commitments or remedies, where SAP could offer changes to contractual terms, increased technical access, or other behavioural commitments to address competitive concerns.
• Formal charges and fines, if unlawful conduct is found; outcomes could also include orders requiring SAP to change business practices or provide access to technical interfaces.

Practitioners should monitor notifications from the Commission, any statements from SAP, and subsequent filings from affected customers or competitors. Regulatory timetables for antitrust probes can extend over months or years, and interim market effects can appear sooner as stakeholders adapt contracts and operational plans.

Conclusion

Key takeaways:

• The European Commission has opened a probe into whether SAP’s aftermarket support practices for on‑premise ERP systems harm competition by restricting third‑party maintenance or locking customers into vendor services.
• The inquiry underscores the regulatory focus on aftermarkets and interoperability in enterprise software, where switching costs and technical gatekeeping can entrench market power.
• Organisations running legacy ERP should review contracts, document access denials, and prepare contingency and migration plans; independent maintainers should preserve evidence of exclusionary conduct.
• Past competition enforcement in technology markets shows regulators can require behavioural changes or impose fines, so stakeholders should follow developments closely and adjust procurement and operational strategies accordingly.

Source: www.bleepingcomputer.com