Impact of EC Antitrust Decisions on Labor Markets

€329 million fine. Not super recent news, but still very relevant. On June 2, 2025, the European Commission fined Delivery Hero (€223M) and Glovo (€106.7M) a combined €329M, the first formal EU penalty for a no-poach agreement in the labor market. It didn’t make major headlines, but the implications for HR, TA, and Legal teams are important to highlight. This wasn’t a merger. It wasn’t about consumers. • The companies agreed not to hire each other’s employees while one held a minority stake in the other • They shared sensitive internal information and divided markets • The Commission ruled this breached Article 101 TFEU, and no proof of harm was needed Why it matters? • Informal no-hire agreements between group entities or partners are now clearly in scope • Internal mobility blockers, hiring coordination, or overly broad non-competes may carry legal risk • Pay-setting or hiring freezes during M&A could require antitrust input—not just HR or finance approval Other recent examples France (June 2025) The French Competition Authority fined several consulting firms (including Randstad Digital and Alten) over €29.5M for HR-led no-poach arrangements between competitors. Portugal (Feb 2025) Inetum was fined €3.1M, alongside others in the IT sector, for collusive hiring practices. These were not related to M&A activity—just informal agreements between companies to avoid hiring from each other. What to do now? • Audit internal and affiliate hiring policies for no-poach or non-solicit language • Review non-compete clauses and internal mobility structures for scope and fairness • Align M&A and restructuring playbooks with current labor competition guidance • Train HR and TA teams on what’s acceptable—and what now falls under competition law • Get Legal involved early when planning cross-border or cross-entity hiring approached This isn’t about theory and scare tactics from EU commission anymore. We’re seeing consistent enforcement across Europe, from Brussels to national authorities, and across sectors, not just big tech or delivery platforms. For global TA and HR teams, hiring strategy is becoming a compliance subject in its own right.

Why your next HR decision could be an antitrust issue 👇   The European Commission last week published a policy brief assessing the harmful effects of #wagefixing and #nopoach agreements 🤝, and signalling their priority on its enforcement agenda. 'No-poach' agreements restrict companies from hiring each other's staff, while in 'wage-fixing' agreements employers agree to set wages at the monopsony level.   The Commission’s stance is that these agreements, typically, qualify as restrictions by #object under Article 101(1) TFEU 🚨 and are unlikely to be justified by a net efficiencies defense. The Commission regards labour market agreements as akin to a buyers’ #cartel, categorizing wage-fixing as purchase price fixing 💰 and no-poach as a form of supply-source sharing 🔗. It contends that even if legitimate objectives exist for such practices, they can be achieved by less #restrictive means such as NDAs or minimum employment commitments. The Commission concludes that these practices not only stifle competition but also #harm employees by suppressing wages and curtailing mobility, ultimately hindering innovation and economic growth 📉. This stance follows the Commission’s November raids on food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo for their involvement in no-poach agreements (although no decision has yet been adopted).🕵️♂️ 🍔   Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, on April 23, the Federal Trade Commission issued a bold rule #banning (!) non-compete clauses ⛔ across all sectors (except for the highest-paid executives), with the enforcement date set for 120 days following the rule's publication. This significant step forward, recognizing the anti-competitive effects of restrictions in labor markets in the US 🇺🇸, however, did not go unchallenged. Within less than 24 hours, it was met with #legal challenges from the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, which may delay the rule's enforcement.   At CompLaw: Advanced EU conference in London organized by Informa Competition Law which I had a pleasure to attend, amongst many expert discussions, the national competition authorities also highlighted their enforcement #priorities. The focus on labour markets was clear. The UK’s competition authority 🇬🇧 pointed out that no-poach agreements is focus priority (2 investigations opened in the television production sector 📺 and one in the fragrance sector, and further actions anticipated). Similarly, the Portuguese authority 🇵🇹 emphasized its ongoing commitment to labor markets, showcasing its past successes in reaching #settlement decisions in this matter.   Regulatory bodies worldwide are prepared to take significant actions to ensure fair competition in labor markets👷♂️🌍 . For companies this means a pressing need to reassess their HR strategies and #employment practices 📝. 

NO POACH AGREEMENTS IN THE WATSCHDOGS' FOCUS 🎯 European competition authorities continue to crack down on anti-competitive practices in labour markets, such as no-poach agreements. Antitrust watchdogs are interested in these agreements because they restrict competition for skilled workers and career mobility among employees, thereby leading to lower wages. Here are some recent examples: 1️⃣ The European Commission fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of EUR 329 million for a cartel in the online food delivery sector between 2018 and 2022. The companies had agreed not to poach each other's employees, to exchange sensitive business information and to divide up markets. Delivery Hero's minority stake and representation on Glovo's board of directors were to facilitate this. ➡️ This is the first time the EC has punished anti-competitive practices resulting from a minority stake and a no-poaching agreement. ➡️ The case highlights the increasing focus on cross-ownership and representation on competitors' boards (an issue that affects companies such as Prosus, which holds a significant stake in Delivery Hero and is seeking to merge with Just Eat Takeaway). Our recommendation is for the monitoring of such structures and the introduction of rules to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the event of their existence. 2️⃣ The French Competition Authority has imposed fines totalling EUR 29.5 million on Randstad Digital, Alten, Expleo and Bertrandt for entering into two extensive 'gentlemen's agreements' on no-poaching. The competitors agreed not to approach or employ each other's employees in sectors such as engineering, technology consulting, and IT services, where attracting top talent is crucial for competitiveness. The agreements, which lasted several years, were uncovered in part thanks to a leniency application by Randstad Digital, who avoided a fine as a result. 3️⃣ The Portuguese competition authority issued a statement of objections to an association of employment and human resources companies for including a clause in its code of ethics that prohibited employee poaching. From 1987 to March 2025, this prevented member companies from recruiting or employing temporary workers from other members, thereby restricting employee mobility. At the same time, the Portuguese competition authority announced that its priority was to combat the prohibition of employee poaching. ‼️ This overview shows that non-poaching agreements are simply widespread and that many competition authorities are prioritising their enforcement. It seems to us that this issue has not received sufficient attention among market participants. We therefore recommend to conduct an audit to identify and eliminate these risks, which have so far been under the radar. Competition team at HAVEL & PARTNERS would be happy to assist. Stay updated - read our competition blog. Petra Pipkova