SAP Antitrust Appeal Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court
- The Court declined to hear SAP’s challenge, allowing Teradata’s antitrust claims to proceed toward trial in 2026.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an appeal by SAP, Europe’s largest software vendor, in a long-running antitrust dispute with American data analytics firm Teradata. The decision upholds a lower court ruling that permits Teradata to pursue claims alleging SAP unlawfully tied its business software to a proprietary database product. Teradata, based in San Diego, filed the lawsuit in 2018, accusing SAP of anti-competitive practices under U.S. law. A federal judge has scheduled the trial for April 2026, which will also address SAP’s counterclaim of patent infringement.
Legal Arguments and Court History
SAP initially prevailed in district court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Teradata’s case in 2024. The appellate court found that material disputes between the companies warranted a jury trial. SAP argued that the 9th Circuit applied an overly rigid version of the “per se rule,” which presumes certain conduct to be illegal without weighing its competitive merits. In contrast, SAP favored the “rule of reason,” which considers both anti- and pro-competitive effects.
In its Supreme Court filing, SAP claimed its software and database were integrated in a way that benefits customers and promotes market competition. The company also pointed to a 2001 antitrust ruling involving Microsoft, suggesting the 9th Circuit’s approach conflicted with precedent. Teradata rejected this interpretation, asserting that SAP’s products were not truly integrated and that no legal inconsistency existed across federal courts. Meta Platforms and Microsoft submitted a joint amicus brief supporting SAP’s position.
Market Context and Product Dynamics
SAP is known for its enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, which helps organizations manage operations such as finance, logistics, and supply chains. Teradata offers a competing analytics database capable of processing large volumes of business data. According to Teradata, SAP customers often relied on external providers like itself to analyze data generated by SAP’s applications. The lawsuit centers on SAP’s alleged effort to bundle its ERP software with a new database product that directly competes with Teradata’s offering.
Such bundling, if proven, could violate antitrust laws by limiting customer choice and stifling competition. SAP has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintains that its product strategy aligns with industry norms. The company expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case but reaffirmed its confidence in the upcoming trial. Teradata has not issued a public statement in response to the Court’s decision.
Antitrust Standards Still Evolving
The case highlights ongoing debates over how courts should evaluate alleged anti-competitive behavior in the tech sector. Legal scholars continue to examine the balance between innovation-driven integration and market exclusion. The “per se” and “rule of reason” standards remain central to antitrust analysis, yet their application varies across jurisdictions. As digital platforms and enterprise software ecosystems grow more complex, future rulings may further refine how these doctrines are interpreted.
