Why China Blocked Cooperation With the EU’s JD.com–Ceconomy Subsidy Probe

China’s announcement did not merely object to the subject of the EU investigation. Its central complaint was the method of obtaining evidence: Chinese authorities said the Commission sought information and records located in China that were extensive, unnecessary or unrelated to the investigation. Beijing said the requests violated sovereignty, non-interference and international rule-of-law principles governing cross-border evidence gathering. Those are China’s stated legal and policy positions, not an adjudicated international-law finding.

China called on the EU to correct what it described as wrong practices and said it would take necessary measures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies. The immediate practical consequence is a potential conflict of laws: Chinese parties are instructed not to assist with the designated measures, while JD.com remains subject to the Commission’s live regulatory process.

How the dispute is tied to the Ceconomy acquisition

JD.com’s proposed transaction is valued at roughly €2.2 billion, or about $2.5 billion. Ceconomy is a German electronics retailer whose businesses include MediaMarkt and Saturn. Germany’s Federal Cartel Office cleared JD.com’s acquisition of control in September 2025, but that decision addressed the transaction’s competitive effects under German merger law.

The EU’s FSR review addresses a different question: whether financial contributions from a non-EU government gave a company an advantage capable of distorting the EU internal market. The regulation allows the Commission to investigate such contributions to companies operating in the EU and has applied since July 2023.

JD.com formally notified the Ceconomy transaction to the Commission on April 17, 2026. The Commission opened an in-depth investigation on May 28, citing concerns that JD.com may have received foreign subsidies, including financing on preferential terms, tax advantages or other support that could have affected its ability to make the offer.

On July 22, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections, setting out preliminary concerns rather than a final decision that the deal breached EU law. The Commission’s concerns included whether possible Chinese state support enabled JD.com to pay a high premium and distorted competition in the EU market.

What happens next in the EU review

The Commission’s public case register lists October 2, 2026 as the provisional deadline for its decision. That date is not necessarily the end of the process: JD.com has submitted proposed remedies, but the public filing did not disclose what they contain.

The outcome could determine whether the acquisition proceeds as proposed, proceeds subject to binding remedies, or is blocked if the Commission concludes that a distortion exists and cannot be adequately addressed. The China order may complicate that assessment by limiting access to evidence the Commission says it needs, increasing the risk of delay and a more difficult remedies process.

Why the Nuctech case matters

The JD.com order is not an isolated dispute. In May 2026, China used the same general approach in response to the Commission’s FSR investigation of Nuctech, a Chinese security-inspection equipment company. Beijing said the EU’s requests for information from Chinese entities were unnecessarily broad and barred organizations and individuals from assisting with the designated investigative measures.

The two cases are significant because they test the boundary between the EU’s ability to investigate conduct affecting its internal market and China’s ability to restrict cooperation by entities located in China. China introduced its newer counter-extraterritoriality framework in April 2026, and the Nuctech and JD.com matters represent prominent applications of that framework against EU FSR evidence gathering.

The broader significance

The Ceconomy review is therefore both a transaction case and a jurisdictional test. For the EU, the question is whether its foreign-subsidy rules can be enforced when relevant financing and corporate records are held in China. For China, the question is whether those requests improperly impose EU regulatory authority beyond the bloc’s borders.

Until the Commission reaches a decision, three issues will matter most: whether JD.com’s proposed remedies address the Commission’s concerns, whether the evidence dispute delays the review, and whether Beijing and Brussels find a way to resolve the competing cooperation demands. The immediate issue is not a final finding on JD.com’s subsidies, but whether the regulators can complete the investigation while each side applies its own rules.