What is a no-poach agreement?
In no-poach agreements, employers agree not to “steal” employees from each other. Under such agreements, companies agree not to hire or solicit the current or potential employees of other parties to the agreement, as detailed by the Commission in a May 2024 policy brief. Such agreements can be sector-wide or involve only a few parties, and can be reciprocal or unilateral.
The European Commission considers no-poach agreements to be “cartels” or by-object horizontal restrictions under article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In other words, they reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition such that there is no need to examine their effects on the relevant market.
According to the policy brief, in this case, the cartelists were deemed to be agreeing on the supply source – the employees.
Companies that compete to hire or retain employees with the same skill set are competitors in the employment market, regardless of whether they make the same products or compete to provide the same services. Therefore, regardless of the market in which they operate, they should not enter into no-poach agreements.
Heightened enforcement by competition authorities
Multiple national competition authorities have already enforced no-poach prohibitions across diverse sectors. Instances include Portugal in sport and technology consulting, and Turkey in health care (Private Hospitals Cartel case, 22-10/152-62, February 22, 2022).
The French Competition Authority (FCA) imposed on June 11, 2025, fines totaling €29.5 million on four companies operating in the engineering, technology consulting, and IT services sectors for engaging in anti-competitive no-poach agreements (see press release). This is the FCA’s first substantive decision focusing exclusively on anti-poaching practices. The FCA considered that no-poach agreements, which in this case were informal, unwritten, and of indefinite duration, constituted restrictions of competition by object. On the other hand, the FCA dismissed objections related to non-solicitation clauses inserted in partnership agreements, targeting specific categories of personnel or projects, considering them limited in scope and duration and therefore not inherently anti-competitive. Nonetheless, the FCA emphasized that such clauses may still be considered anti-competitive in future cases, depending on context and implementation.
The FCA had already sanctioned no-poach agreement as part of a broader cartel enforcement decision in the pre-cast concrete products sector (see press release). In that case, the FCA considered that the no-poach agreements had contributed to two cartel members deciding together on all aspects of the economic life, which constituted an anti-competitive practice.
The European Commission published in 2024 a new policy brief explaining its enforcement approach to antitrust issues in the labor markets, maintaining coordination with national competition authorities within the European Competition Network. On June 2nd, 2025, the European Commission sanctioned two food delivery services €329 million for cartel practices, which included a no-hire reciprocal agreement, followed by a general agreement not to actively approach each other’s employees. The European Commission stated that this led to fewer job opportunities for employees, restricting competition (see press release).
Increased scrutiny of tech giants’ hiring policy
The tech sector has been hit particularly hard by this increased antitrust enforcement of labor practices. Highly skilled employees with sought-after training and expertise (such as software engineers and developers) clearly represent a competitive advantage for companies.
Beyond no-poach prohibitions, competition authorities have started looking into “acqui-hires” – large companies buying start-ups with the primary goal of accessing their employees’ skills or knowledge.
Such operations might be considered mergers subject to control. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and German Bundeskartellamt (BDK) have decided as such.
According to the CMA, the team responsible for development is “at the core of any business seeking to develop foundation models (FMs) or chatbots” (see summary). In this context, the CMA considered that acquiring a team with relevant know-how – even without further assets – may fall within the CMA’s merger control jurisdiction.
In Germany, the transaction was ultimately held not to be notifiable to the BDK because the target was not engaging in substantial activities within Germany at the time of acquisition.
In the UK, the CMA cleared the transaction, as it did not give rise to a substantial lessening of competition.
