SAP is currently facing significant antitrust lawsuits in the United States and a formal investigation by the European Union. For SAP customers — organizations that have long felt the pressure of opaque licensing, forced migrations, and punishing reinstatement fees — this legal scrutiny creates a rare and meaningful window of opportunity.
Understanding what's happening in these cases, and why it matters to your contract negotiations, could save your organization millions.
The Pain Points SAP Customers Know Too Well
Before looking at the legal landscape, it's worth naming the frustrations that these cases are built around — because most SAP customers have experienced them firsthand.
Forced Migration Pressure
Organizations report being effectively coerced into expensive S/4HANA transitions through the threat of discontinued ECC support. SAP has set hard deadlines that leave customers facing a choice between an unwanted, costly migration or the risk of running unsupported systems. For organizations with heavily customized ECC environments that still perform exactly as required, this pressure feels less like product evolution and more like forced obsolescence.
Digital Access Licensing Complexity
SAP's Digital Access licensing model was introduced to address third-party tools accessing SAP data — but in practice, it has created unpredictable costs for organizations sharing SAP data with analytics platforms, custom applications, and integration layers they've built over years. The model is structured in a way that makes it nearly impossible to predict costs before they materialize.
Database Restrictions
S/4HANA implementations are architected around SAP HANA as the primary database. While HANA is a capable platform, mandating it effectively eliminates competitive alternatives that some organizations would prefer for cost or operational reasons. Customers who ask why they can't use a different database often receive answers that amount to "because SAP says so."
Legacy System Abandonment
Long-established, deeply customized ECC environments face increasing pressure to migrate despite continued functional adequacy. For organizations that built significant competitive advantages on their ECC implementations, the forced migration narrative ignores the real business value of what they've built.
The Active Legal Cases
Teradata v. SAP
Teradata's lawsuit challenges SAP on two fronts: database tying — the allegation that S/4HANA is structured to require HANA — and alleged trade secret misappropriation. The database tying claim is particularly significant because it directly questions whether SAP's product architecture constitutes an anticompetitive practice that harms customers by eliminating database choice.
Celonis v. SAP
Celonis, one of the most prominent process mining platforms, has challenged SAP's control over data access. The case examines whether SAP's licensing model for third-party data access constitutes monopolistic control over data that customers generated themselves. This case has direct implications for any organization using analytics, RPA, or integration tools alongside SAP.
EU Commission Investigation
The European Commission's formal investigation examines punitive reinstatement fees — the charges SAP imposes on customers who lapse on support and then seek to reinstate it — and support exclusivity mandates. The EU investigation carries particular weight because European regulators have a strong track record of acting meaningfully on enterprise software competition concerns.
What This Means for Your Negotiations
The legal pressure SAP is facing changes the negotiating dynamic in ways that may not be immediately obvious — but are strategically important.
"SAP's legal exposure is a negotiating asset for every customer sitting across the table from a SAP account executive. The question is whether you know how to use it."
Specifically, we recommend SAP customers consider the following:
- Renegotiate maintenance terms. The reinstatement fee structure under EU scrutiny gives customers grounds to push back on punitive maintenance terms. Document your concerns explicitly in negotiations.
- Challenge Digital Access fees. If you're being billed for third-party tools accessing SAP data, request detailed justification for each charge. Vague Digital Access invoices have been successfully challenged.
- Question mandatory HANA adoption. If you're being told S/4HANA requires HANA, ask for that requirement in writing and have it reviewed by independent technical counsel. The Teradata case has surfaced this as a contestable position.
- Document forced migration pressure. If SAP representatives are communicating urgency about ECC end-of-life in ways that feel coercive, document those communications. They may be relevant context for contract disputes.
The Honest Bottom Line
None of this means SAP is going away or that these lawsuits will produce quick relief for customers. SAP remains a dominant enterprise platform with genuine technical capability, and for many organizations the relationship is worth managing carefully rather than disrupting.
But the legal landscape has shifted the balance of power — modestly, but meaningfully. SAP is under scrutiny it hasn't faced before. Regulators and courts are taking seriously the arguments that customers have been making informally for years.
If you're in a SAP contract negotiation, a renewal cycle, or evaluating whether to migrate to S/4HANA, this is the moment to engage independent advisors who understand both the technical and commercial dimensions of what you're navigating. The leverage exists. The question is whether you use it.
Need Help with Your SAP Strategy or Licensing?
We provide independent SAP Basis consulting — not tied to SAP's sales agenda. Get an honest assessment of your options from a senior architect with 25+ years of experience.