Payments for unused licences, reinstatement and back-maintenance charges, extended support lock-ins or prevented third-party savings may warrant a confidential legal and economic review.
We will review the information and contact you at the business email address provided.
The Commission investigated whether SAP abused what it provisionally considered a dominant position in maintenance and support for on-premise ERP. The case focused on contract terms that may have restricted third-party providers and forced customers to make unnecessary or higher payments.
SAP on-premise ERP is often embedded in finance, HR, production and compliance processes. Replacing it can take considerable time and money. Maintenance and support can, however, also be provided by independent specialists, often at lower prices.
The Commission's preliminary view was that SAP's terms could prevent customers from ending support for parts of their landscape, choosing different service levels or moving to a third-party provider.
The terms may have led to continued payments, reinstatement and back-maintenance charges or savings that customers could not realise. Whether this happened depends on each company's contracts, alternatives and actual decisions.
The key question is whether one of these terms led to an additional payment or prevented a specific saving.
Maintenance and support could not be ended for unused software licences, so payments continued for services no longer needed.
After a support interruption, SAP charged or quoted reinstatement fees and payments relating to the period without support.
Purchasing additional licences restarted or prolonged the initial term during which support could not be cancelled.
The whole on-premise ERP portfolio had to use SAP support of the same type and on the same pricing terms, preventing a mix of providers or support levels.
These practices may in particular have caused users the following losses:
Improperly levied payments for maintenance and support of unused software licences.
Payments of improperly levied reinstatement and back-maintenance fees.
Foregone savings caused by the exclusion of termination during automatically renewed contract terms.
Foregone savings due to a lack of competition or separate price negotiations for parts of the maintenance and support or software package.
The commitments cover, among other things, landscape splitting, termination rights, initial licence terms and reinstatement charges.
For earlier periods, the decision proves neither an infringement nor a loss. A claim requires review of the specific contract term, how it was applied, its link to a payment or foregone saving, and limitation.
Read the official Commission releaseThe Commission set out four preliminary competition concerns.
They apply worldwide for ten years and are monitored by an independent trustee.
Contracts, invoices and real business decisions determine whether a historic claim may exist.
For the first enquiry, you do not need to upload anything. For a later review, keep the relevant contracts, SAP correspondence and all maintenance and support payment records.
Contracts and termsLicence agreements, support schedules, add-on orders and termination notices
Payments and chargesInvoices, credit notes, ledger entries and reinstatement quotes
Requests and responsesRequests to reduce, terminate or split support and SAP's response
The alternative you consideredThird-party quote, architecture review, internal decision paper or budget
Tell us which SAP on-premise support issue may apply. No files are needed yet.
If the facts look relevant, we provide secure instructions for a focused set of records.
Counsel and specialists assess eligibility, limitation, causation and potential loss.
If the review supports a claim, compare individual or coordinated enforcement and any suitable third-party funding route.
The initial review is free. Funding is separate and always conditional. If a funding partner accepts the case and a funding agreement is signed, the funder bears the costs and risks defined in that agreement. If enforcement fails, those funded costs remain with the funder; only a successful outcome triggers the agreed participation.
Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP, an established litigation funder and Litigation Financing & Capital GmbH work together with clearly defined roles to assess and pursue potential claims.
Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP is one of the leading firms for antitrust and competition disputes in Germany and internationally. Its team represents businesses in complex competition damages proceedings before German and European courts and has substantial experience with large, third-party-funded cases.
Following a successful initial review, an experienced litigation funder can assess the case and make a separate funding offer. If an agreement is concluded, the funder bears the agreed costs and litigation risks.
Litigation Financing & Capital GmbH, based in Frankfurt am Main, specialises in identifying and preparing third-party damages claims. LFC coordinates the project between claimants, lawyers, experts and the litigation funder.
Its expertise includes structured case identification, implementation using modern IT infrastructure and the management of complex proceedings. Since 2018, the founding team has combined experience in managing large claims projects and in the economic assessment of damages.
Still unsure whether the case fits? A short initial conversation can clarify what is worth preserving.
Contact us directlyDepending on the facts, sections 33a(1) and 33(1) GWB together with Article 102 TFEU may be considered. The commitments decision does not create automatic liability or a binding infringement finding, so the legal basis and evidence must be assessed for each claimant.
It may be taken into account, but it does not replace individual proof. The Court of Justice has described a preliminary assessment in a commitments decision as a possible indication or prima facie evidence—not as a binding infringement finding.
The starting point is actual contracts, invoices and payments together with a documented alternative. Market-wide estimates or flat percentages do not replace that evidence. Interest may be relevant depending on the applicable law and payment dates.
The current assessment is focused on maintenance and support for SAP on-premise ERP software. A cloud-only issue is outside this case unless its facts independently overlap with the relevant on-premise practices.
A documented request, quote or decision record can strengthen causation, but the absence of a formal complaint does not automatically end the review. The surrounding contracts, payments and contemporaneous evidence still matter.
Yes. An estate may hold historic claims, subject to appointment, ownership, records and any necessary approvals. Please identify the estate and your authority in the initial contact.
Not through this first-stage check. If the facts appear relevant, we will provide confidentiality, data-protection and secure transfer instructions before requesting documents.
Potentially. Funding requires a separate case review, a funder's approval and an individual agreement. That agreement determines which legal, court, expert, security, enforcement and possible adverse-party costs are covered, as well as the funder's success participation.
Potential claims may be subject to limitation periods that depend on the contract, jurisdiction, events and knowledge. Early legal review is important; this page cannot determine an individual deadline.