Response to call for feedback on Implementing Regulation for the Foreign Subsidies Regulation
Position Paper
6 Mar 2023
Competition

The Draft Implementing Regulation is a positive step towards clarifying the content, scope, and procedural aspects of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market – the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). As American businesses invested in Europe, we share our view on the Draft Implementing Regulation and its two Annexes (Draft FSR IR) to ensure that the final text provides for a balanced and proportionate application of the FSR. The main issues include:

Scope of reporting obligations: While the Draft FSR IR narrows to some extent the reporting obligations stemming from the FSR, the administrative burdens imposed on businesses are still significant. Exempting the disclosure of financial contributions which are clearly non-selective or market-based would reduce the compliance costs for businesses and ensure that the Commission can focus its resources on contributions most likely to distort the internal market, as outlined in article 5 of the FSR.

Avoiding risks and unintended consequences: The Commission should balance the effective implementation of the FSR against the need to limit risks for businesses, particularly in cases where compliance with the FSR is beyond their direct control . Therefore, the Commission should: (i) exempt the disclosure of classified information in line with existing international agreements; (ii) clarify the attributability of financial contributions to third countries; (iii) amend existing provisions requiring businesses to report information beyond their own participation in an M&A or public procurement procedure, and which is therefore not directly available to them; and (iv) establish an alternative mechanism whereby suppliers and subcontractors directly report commercially sensitive information to the Commission.

Concentrations: The Commission should limit the reporting obligation to those categories of foreign contributions that are most likely to distort the internal market, as listed in article 5.1 of the FSR. This would harmonise obligations in both Annexes and allow the Commission to focus on the most relevant financial contributions. In addition, in an acquisition, the reporting obligations relating to the financial contributions received by a target should be limited to those granted to the target because of the acquisition in question.

Public procurement: The Draft FSR IR fails to clearly define key concepts/mechanisms in the FSR’s procurement provisions, creating legal uncertainty for businesses. The Commission should clarify that: (i) reporting requirements in public procurement procedures only apply to contracts valued at or above €250M or €125M per lot; and (ii) a single notification form will be required where financial contributions exceed the de minimis thresholds in some countries but not in others. We also welcome clarity regarding: (i) the concept of ‘unduly advantageous offer’, which lacks case-law precedents; (ii) the operationalisation of the pre-notification period in procurement procedures; and (iii) the concepts of ‘economic share’ and ‘[subsidiaries] without commercial autonomy’.

Ex officio review: The Commission should provide further details on the likely parameters of its ex officio interventions. Given the broad scope of the Commission’s ex officio powers, companies are unable to plan for compliance with future requests, requiring them to pre-emptively track a disproportionate volume of information regarding financial contributions on the theoretical possibility that this information will be required.

Waivers: Businesses need additional guidance on the conditions under which the Commission will be likely to grant waivers. Without this clarity, the waiver system could paradoxically increase legal uncertainty and exacerbate administrative burdens.

Procedural transparency: Further clarifications regarding submission timelines and file access procedures are necessary to safeguard businesses’ rights of defence.

Related items

Position Paper
20 Jul 2026

Supporting competitiveness, innovation and investment through the Merger Guidelines

The revised Merger Guidelines1 (‘Guidelines’) should ensure that the EU merger control framework supports competitiveness, innovation and investment while preserving legal certainty, predictability and effective competition. The Guidelines should remain firmly anchored in the significant impediment of effective competition (SIEC) test, apply resilience and scale considerations in a headquarters-neutral and effects-based manner, and provide clearer analytical and evidentiary standards for resilience assessments and the new theories of harm.

The Guidelines should recognise the benefits of scale where these deliver demonstrable advantages for EU consumers, apply the innovation shield consistently across all acquirers, maintain appropriate safe harbours and ensure a balanced and symmetrical assessment of harms and benefits. The Guidelines should also strengthen predictability across overlapping transaction review regimes and provide greater certainty for both EU and non-EU investors. Together, these refinements would help ensure that merger control contributes to competitiveness, innovation and economic growth while maintaining a transparent and proportionate enforcement framework.

Competition
Read more
Read more about Supporting competitiveness, innovation and investment through the Merger Guidelines
Blog
3 Apr 2026

FSR compliance: ​complexity undermining competitiveness​

The EU proposed the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) in 2021 to address foreign subsidies distorting the Single Market. Operating as a screening instrument behind merger control, it requires companies to notify the European Commission of foreign financial contributions (FFCs) they may receive when participating in public procurement or mergers and acquisitions activity. Preventing FFCs from distorting the Single Market is an important goal – and one that must be achieved without creating its own disruptions.

Competition
Read more
Read more about FSR compliance: ​complexity undermining competitiveness​
News
3 Mar 2026

Delivering coherence in Europe’s foreign investment screening framework

Will Europe choose alignment or fragmentation in foreign investment screening? In a recent blog for fDi Intelligence, Malte Lohan, CEO, and Andrew Hill, Senior Policy Adviser, AmCham EU, examine how divergent national regimes have created legal uncertainty and unnecessary administrative burden for investors and authorities alike. Today’s patchwork encourages over-notification, overwhelms regulators with low-risk cases and introduces avoidable friction for capital. The revised EU Foreign Investment Screening Regulation presents an opportunity to enhance coherence and competitiveness. Its success will depend on consistent implementation across Member States. Convergence would streamline beneficial investment and strengthen the Single Market, while gold-plating risks renewed fragmentation. Read the full op-ed in fDi Intelligence’s Economic Security Watch.

Competition
Read more
Read more about Delivering coherence in Europe’s foreign investment screening framework