Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsCelonis filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against SAP on March 13, 2025, alleging that SAP used control over its enterprise-resource-planning (ERP) ecosystem and customer-data access rules to disadvantage Celonis and favor SAP Signavio, its competing process-transformation platform. The case is active, but no court has found that SAP violated antitrust law.
The dispute concerns access mechanisms, licensing, support rules and competitive effects—not a finding that SAP owns customers’ underlying business records or that it permanently blocked every third-party tool.
What the lawsuit is about
Celonis SE and Celonis, Inc. sued SAP SE and SAP America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case 3:25-cv-02519-VC. Celonis’s complaint characterizes SAP’s conduct as an effort to exclude third-party application and technology providers from the SAP ecosystem.
According to the complaint, SAP controls important ERP systems where customers’ operational data is generated and stored. Celonis alleges that SAP combined that control with technical and contractual extraction rules, customer communications and promotion of Signavio to make independent process-mining products less attractive or more difficult to use.
#1 Best Overall
The original redacted complaint is available at this court filing. The federal case page is maintained by the Northern District of California.
Why ERP data access matters to process mining
Process-mining software reconstructs how work moves through an organization by analyzing event logs. Typical records include purchase orders, invoices, sales orders, deliveries, production events, service tickets and approval steps.
In an SAP environment, those records may be distributed across database tables, transactions, interfaces and application layers. A process-mining product generally needs access that is sufficiently granular, reliable and timely to connect events into a usable process model.
- Data freshness: Delayed or infrequent extraction can make dashboards and alerts less useful.
- Completeness: Missing fields or events can distort cycle-time, compliance and bottleneck analysis.
- Cost: Connector, license or additional-support requirements can change the economics of a deployment.
- Risk: Unsupported methods may create security, performance, upgrade or support concerns.
- Choice: Restrictions can affect a customer’s ability to compare Celonis, Signavio and other vendors on equal terms.
The legal dispute therefore concerns who may use which access mechanisms, under what conditions, and with what competitive consequences. It is not simply a dispute over ownership of customer data.
What Celonis alleges SAP did
Restrictions on extraction
Celonis alleges that SAP used legal and technical requirements governing extractors and SAP ERP access to make third-party extraction more difficult or risky. Celonis argues that the practical effect was to steer customers toward Signavio. The June 2025 dismissal order discussed SAP Note 3255746 in connection with Celonis’s allegations, but the existence of a policy or note does not by itself establish an antitrust violation.
Rank #2
Customer interference and communications
The complaint alleges that SAP interfered with customer or prospective-customer relationships and made misleading statements about its policies and the market. Those assertions remain allegations in Celonis’s pleading.
Bundling and pricing theories
Celonis filed an amended complaint in July 2025. It expanded the case to include allegations involving bundling, below-cost or “predatory” pricing, and a broader theory that SAP controlled access to customer ERP data. The amended complaint is available here. These are pleaded theories, not established facts.
Why Signavio is central to the dispute
SAP acquired Signavio and incorporated its process-transformation tools into SAP’s portfolio. Celonis says SAP’s position creates a potential conflict: SAP controls a major source of enterprise data while also selling a competing process-mining product.
- SAP controls a major ERP platform and related data-access pathways.
- Celonis and other vendors need dependable access to that data.
- SAP offers Signavio as an alternative process-transformation and process-mining product.
- Celonis alleges that SAP’s rules and commercial conduct made independent products less attractive.
- Customers could consequently face higher costs, reduced choice or switching risk.
That theory is not the same as proving that SAP illegally bundled Signavio. In its June 30, 2025 order, the court found that the original complaint did not adequately explain how Signavio was tied to ERP-data access and dismissed the tying theory as pleaded at that stage.
The legal theories—and what the judge actually decided
| theory | Celonis’s position | Procedural status |
|---|---|---|
| Monopolization or attempted monopolization | SAP allegedly used its ERP and data-access position to exclude process-mining rivals. | Part of the continuing litigation; no finding of liability. |
| Tying or bundling | Access to ERP data or related support was allegedly connected to Signavio. | The original tying theory was dismissed as insufficiently pleaded. |
| Predatory pricing | The amended complaint alleges Signavio was offered below cost or effectively free in some situations to foreclose competitors. | Alleged in the amended complaint; not adjudicated on the merits. |
| Tortious interference | SAP allegedly interfered with customer or prospective-customer relationships. | Subject to the claims and rulings in the operative pleadings; no final merits ruling established here. |
| False advertising or misleading communications | SAP allegedly made problematic statements about its policies and market conduct. | Alleged, not proven. |
The court’s June 30, 2025 order granted SAP’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The order is available through Justia and is also discussed at Midpage. A refusal to dismiss a claim means only that the claim may proceed; it is not a finding that the alleged conduct was unlawful.
SAP’s legal position
The court materials show SAP’s central argument that a company generally has no antitrust duty to let competitors access its databases through the competitors’ preferred methods. SAP’s position can be understood through several defenses:
- Supported interfaces and extraction methods may protect system security, integrity and performance.
- Customer data is distinct from an entitlement by a rival vendor to use SAP’s proprietary interfaces or databases.
- SAP may define supportable methods and licensing terms, subject to applicable law and contracts.
- Competition law does not normally require a platform owner to provide unlimited access to competitors.
- Customers may choose SAP or third-party tools subject to technical, security and contractual conditions.
- Signavio’s commercial success, bundling or low price would not alone prove illegal exclusion or predatory pricing.
Whether those arguments prevail depends on evidence about the relevant markets, the precise rules, how they were enforced, alternatives available to customers and their actual competitive effects.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWhat customers received in the interim
On June 5, 2025, SAP agreed not to interfere with customers’ use of the Celonis data extractor to access their own data and not to impose additional fees or licenses on customers for that use while the litigation continued. Celonis withdrew its motion for a preliminary injunction after the stipulation. Celonis’s announcement is available at celonis.com.
This was interim relief by stipulation, not a final injunction, permanent policy change or ruling on the antitrust merits. Customers should confirm the agreement’s current applicability to their deployment and date of use.
Current procedural posture
The public docket shows the following sequence:
- March 13, 2025: Celonis filed the federal lawsuit in San Francisco.
- June 5, 2025: SAP and Celonis entered the extractor stipulation; Celonis withdrew its preliminary-injunction motion.
- June 30, 2025: The court granted SAP’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- July 2025: Celonis filed an amended complaint with broader bundling, pricing and ecosystem theories.
- July 16, 2026: The court issued an order concerning motions to seal discovery-related materials and motions to compel.
That July 2026 order indicates continuing discovery and motion practice. The available materials do not establish a final trial judgment, settlement or final merits determination as of August 18, 2026. The order is posted at Justia.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What SAP customers should evaluate
1. Your SAP environment
Identify whether the relevant system is S/4HANA, ECC, a cloud service or another SAP product. Extraction rights and technical options can differ by product, architecture and contract.
2. The actual extraction method
Document whether the project uses supported APIs, SAP extractors, replication tools, direct database access or another method. Ask both vendors which methods are supported and how frequently data can be refreshed.
3. Contract and support terms
Review SAP licenses, support documents and order forms for restrictions, fees, audit rights and upgrade obligations. Obtain written confirmation rather than relying on a sales statement.
4. Security and operations
Assess role-based access, auditability, data residency, system performance and whether the configuration remains supportable during upgrades.
5. Portability and vendor dependence
Ask how process models, metrics, event logs and documentation can be exported if you change vendors. Compare the cost of a technically narrow tool with the cost of a broader automation suite.
Recommended Free Tools
6. The temporary stipulation
Do not assume the June 2025 arrangement applies indefinitely or to every configuration. Confirm its status for the specific SAP products, extractor version and implementation date involved.
What the case could mean for enterprise-software competition
The case tests a recurring platform question: when a company controls a critical enterprise system and competes with independent applications that rely on that system’s data, how should access rules be evaluated?
Customers may ultimately care less about a doctrinal label than about practical outcomes: predictable connectors, transparent fees, reliable refreshes, support during upgrades and the ability to compare vendors without hidden switching costs. A ruling for either side could influence how ERP providers define supported interfaces and how third-party vendors negotiate data portability.
Several legal boundaries remain important. Platform control does not automatically establish legally relevant monopoly power. Owning an ERP platform and competing downstream does not make every access restriction unlawful. A customer’s right to use its own records is not identical to a competitor’s right to a proprietary interface. And software described as “free” or bundled is not automatically predatory pricing.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Separate patent lawsuits
Later patent cases between SAP and Celonis are separate from the California antitrust action. SAP filed SAP SE v. Celonis SE et al. in Delaware on October 3, 2025; the docket is at Justia. Celonis filed a patent case against SAP in the Eastern District of Texas on October 10, 2025; its docket is at Justia. Those proceedings involve different legal claims and should not be treated as rulings in the antitrust case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did a court find that SAP violated antitrust law?
No. The June 30, 2025 order partially dismissed SAP’s motion and allowed litigation to continue on some theories, but it did not decide that SAP engaged in illegal anticompetitive conduct.
Can SAP customers still use Celonis with SAP systems?
The June 5, 2025 stipulation said SAP would not interfere with customers’ use of the Celonis data extractor to access their own data or impose additional fees or licenses for that use while the case continued. Customers should verify the arrangement’s current scope and their contractual and technical requirements.
Is the SAP-Celonis dispute about who owns customer data?
Not primarily. The allegations concern extraction methods, licensing, support, technical restrictions and competitive effects. Ownership of a customer’s underlying business records is a different question.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
