EU Court Rules US Law Firms Lack Privilege Protection in Brussels Antitrust Probes

EU court rules US attorney correspondence lacks privilege in EU antitrust cases, boosting Commission's power to demand documents in cross-border deals.

Transatlantic legal privilege just hit a hard boundary. The General Court of the European Union has decided that correspondence between companies and their American attorneys does not enjoy the same confidentiality shield as communications with EU-qualified lawyers — a ruling that hands Brussels regulators a sharper edge in cross-border merger investigations.

The judgment, delivered on 3 August 2026, came in response to an emergency application filed by chipmaker Broadcom. The company had sought to suspend a Commission order compelling it to hand over US-prepared legal documents during the EU's review of its 2023 acquisition of software group VMware. That request was rejected, and the company must now cooperate fully with the disclosure demand.

At the heart of the dispute sits a question regulators have wrestled with for years: who decides what evidence is relevant in a cartel or merger probe? The court answered decisively. During an ongoing investigation, the European Commission holds the sole discretion to determine which materials are necessary for its case. Companies cannot unilaterally narrow that scope by invoking foreign legal customs or professional norms.

The ruling draws a firm line around the legal professional privilege as it operates in EU competition proceedings. Protection applies to advice from lawyers registered in any member state of the European Economic Area. Outside that circle — including counsel admitted in the United States — the privilege does not extend. Documents generated by such firms, no matter how sensitive or central to the transaction, remain accessible to EU investigators.

For multinational corporations, the practical implications are immediate. Legal teams structuring cross-border deals must now anticipate that internal analyses and attorney correspondence produced by US firms may be subject to compulsory production in Brussels. The court's confirmation of the Commission's evidentiary authority effectively lowers the barrier to obtaining such materials in complex antitrust cases.

The Broadcom/VMware matter had already drawn attention in legal circles as a test case for how far EU regulators could push into foreign legal communications. That uncertainty has now been resolved — and the direction of travel is clear. Companies pursuing acquisitions that trigger EU scrutiny will need to recalibrate how they document legal advice, particularly when that advice originates outside the European Economic Area.

The decision does not eliminate privilege for US counsel outright in all circumstances. But within the specific context of EU cartel and merger procedures, the geographic and professional limits are now explicit. The Commission's investigative autonomy has been affirmed, and with it, a more assertive stance toward the disclosure of transatlantic legal work product.