This article explores the jurisdictional issues underlying the decision of the European Commission to review Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL. It marked the first the time the Commission investigated an acquisition where the target had no activities in the EU; nor indeed any nexus to any individual Member State. The decision to review a concentration where the target had no EU revenues was premised on a re-interpretation of Article 22(1) of the EU Merger Regulation, which allows Member States to request the Commission to examine a concentration. This interpretation is intended to expand the jurisdictional reach of the regulation to capture transactions involving companies with low turnover, but high competitive potential in the internal market, in cases where neither EU nor any Member State merger control thresholds are met. The General Court upheld the Commission’s position on Article 22 jurisdiction, but the judgment is on appeal to the Court of Justice. This article argues that the Court should overturn the earlier ruling on the basis that the GC was mistaken in its approach to Article 22, in view of its history and purpose. It also considers that flaws in the conduct of the procedure which deprived the merging parties of due process warranted an annulment of the decision to open an investigation. Moreover, this article calls out the incompatibility of the Commission’s application of Article 22 in Illumina/GRAIL with international law concepts of comity, fairness and sovereignty.