The SAP ERP maintenance and support case (Case AT.40823) was an antitrust investigation by the European Commission into how SAP sold maintenance and support for its on-premises Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. The Commission opened proceedings on 25 September 2025 and preliminarily found that SAP was dominant in the market for maintenance and support of its own on-premises ERP software in the European Economic Area (EEA).[1] On 9 July 2026 it made commitments offered by SAP legally binding. They cover splitting the SAP landscape between support providers, terminating unused licences and their support fees, the initial licence term, and reinstatement and back-maintenance fees.[3]
Background
The Commission describes SAP as a German-based multinational that develops ERP software, which supports functions such as corporate finance, human resources and project management. The software can run on-premises on the customer’s own servers or in the cloud on SAP’s servers. SAP also sells maintenance and support for the on-premises software, consisting of regular updates and technical assistance. According to the Commission, other companies also provide maintenance and support for SAP’s on-premises ERP software in competition with SAP, “often against better commercial conditions, such as price”.[1]
The dispute
On 25 September 2025 the Commission opened formal proceedings and, at the same time, adopted a Preliminary Assessment, the step that allows a company to offer commitments under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003.[1] The Preliminary Assessment took issue with four practices in the EEA aftermarket for maintenance and support of SAP’s on-premises ERP software:[1]
| Practice identified by the Commission | Concern |
|---|---|
| Requiring customers to take SAP support for all their SAP on-premises ERP software, and to choose the same type of support under the same pricing conditions for all of it | Prevented customers from “mixing and matching” support from different suppliers at different price and support levels |
| Preventing customers from terminating support for unused licences | Customers could end up paying for unwanted services |
| Systematically extending the initial term of on-premises ERP licences | Support could not be terminated during that term |
| Charging reinstatement and back-maintenance fees to customers returning to SAP support after a period of absence | In some cases the fees matched what the customer would have paid had it stayed with SAP throughout |
The Commission was concerned both that these practices restricted competition from third-party support providers and that they were “exploitative conduct” towards SAP’s customers that might amount to unfair trading conditions.[1]
On 14 November 2025 the Commission invited comments on SAP’s proposed commitments. The proposal would reduce back-maintenance fees to 50% of the support fees the customer would have paid had it not gone off support, capped at the amount for a six-month period. It would also fully waive back maintenance for a list of products no longer supported by SAP and not covered by a cross-product licence.[2] The market test ran in November and December 2025, and SAP adjusted its proposal in the light of the results.[3]
Decision or outcome
On 9 July 2026 the Commission accepted the final commitments and made them legally binding. Under them SAP will:[3]
- clarify the conditions for splitting a customer’s SAP landscape into separate parts, so that each part can have a different support provider, a different level of SAP support, or no SAP support at all;
- allow customers to terminate licences and the related support fees for products in the final support stage, where SAP provides reduced services; for failed implementation projects where SAP is responsible for the failure; in case of the customer’s insolvency or bankruptcy; for 10% of licences after a workforce reduction of 10% or more over two years; and on the divestiture of a business, when the customer may transfer the licences to the buyer, transfer part and terminate the rest, or terminate all of them if the buyer has no need for SAP software;
- give wider access to single-metric contracts, an alternative basis for calculating the licence fees on which support fees are in turn calculated;
- clarify the initial licence term, during which support cannot be terminated, and not restart it with every additional licence purchase;
- abolish reinstatement fees and reduce back-maintenance fees for customers returning to SAP support; and
- create an internal clearing structure for customers who consider that SAP is not applying the commitments correctly.
The commitments remain in force globally for ten years and are monitored by a monitoring trustee who reports to the Commission.[3] The November 2025 proposal had stated that they would apply to all current and future customers worldwide.[2] An Article 9 decision does not conclude whether there was an infringement of EU antitrust rules. If SAP breaches the commitments, the Commission may fine it up to 10% of its worldwide annual turnover without having to find an infringement, or impose a periodic penalty payment of 5% of its daily turnover for every day of non-compliance.[3]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case concerns the link between licences and support that many on-premises vendors use. Under the practices the Commission described, a customer could not stop paying support for licences it no longer used, could not move part of its estate to a third-party provider, and faced fees on return that could equal the support it had skipped.[1] The commitments change those levers for SAP on-premises ERP customers. They add defined termination rights, a route for shelfware, and a cap on the cost of coming back to SAP support.[2][3] The full text of the commitments is to be published in the Commission’s case register under AT.40823. The precise conditions, for example how a landscape may be split, are set by that text rather than by the press releases.[3]
The case concerned maintenance and support for on-premises ERP software only, and the Commission made no finding that SAP broke the law.[1][3] For a wider view of support terms, see software maintenance and support.
Lessons learned
- Review support part by part. SAP committed to clarify how a customer may split its landscape and choose a different support provider or level, or none, for each part.[3] A support review can now ask which parts of the estate need SAP support, rather than treating the estate as one block.
- Shelfware has an exit. The proposed commitments let customers place unused licences in a separate part and end SAP support for that part.[2] The final commitments add termination rights for divestitures, insolvency, failed SAP-caused implementations, products in final-stage support and workforce reductions of 10% or more.[3] An effective licence position that records which licences are actually used shows where these rights apply.
- The cost of returning is lower. Reinstatement fees are abolished and back maintenance is reduced. The proposal put the reduction at 50% of the missed fees, capped at six months.[2][3] This changes the risk of moving to third-party support and later coming back.
- Check the initial term. SAP committed to clarify the initial licence term and not restart it with each additional licence purchase.[3] Customers should record the start and end of the initial term for each contract.
- Use the enforcement channels. The commitments are policed by a monitoring trustee and an internal SAP clearing structure, and a breach can lead to fines without proof of an infringement.[3] Disputes about how SAP applies them should be documented and raised through those channels.