On 9 September 2025, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published the ‘Competing for Talent’ guide (the Guidance) advising businesses on how to avoid anticompetitive behaviour in the labour market. This represents the latest guidance that the CMA has issued. The CMA previously published advice focused on cartels in employment1 and how employers can avoid anticompetitive behaviour.2 The CMA also issued a microeconomic unit report3 which discusses how employer power affects the labour market. CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell reiterated the findings of the microeconomic unit report in a 25 January 2024 speech.4 However, the new Guidance is the clearest message yet from the CMA, outlining that businesses are deemed competitors where they compete for the same talent.
Types of anticompetitive behaviour
Anticompetitive agreements relating to employment are considered restrictions by object, meaning that their mere existence will breach competition law. Such agreements will be anticompetitive even if the parties do not act upon them.
The CMA highlights three types of anticompetitive behaviour in the labour market.
(1) No-poaching agreements
A no-poaching agreement is an agreement between employers not to poach each other’s employees on an ongoing basis. Such agreements do not have to be mutual to constitute anticompetitive behaviour. A no-poaching agreement is considered anticompetitive because it reduces market mobility, affects employees’ abilities to negotiate higher salaries, and impacts career development.
The Guidance distinguishes between no-poaching agreements and time-limited non-solicitation agreements. A non-solicitation agreement prohibits a party from soliciting a business’ clients, customers, or employees for a set period. Such an agreement may not be anticompetitive if it is proportionate, if its duration does not go beyond what is reasonable, and if it is necessary to achieve the agreement’s objective.
(2) Wage-fixing agreements
A wage-fixing agreement is an agreement between businesses that compete for the same talent in which they agree to fix or cap salaries and/or employee benefits. Wage-fixing is anticompetitive even when conducted indirectly through a third party – for example, a trade association circulating a list with recommended pay rates for roles in the industry.
(3) Information-sharing
The exchange of competitively sensitive information between businesses is anticompetitive, including any information that may influence the ‘competitive strategy’ of another business, such as information concerning future pay or benefits. Forward-looking, company-specific information carries a higher risk of breaching competition laws, whereas anonymised historical data remains low-risk.
Collective bargaining
Collective bargaining is a process in which employees negotiate terms and conditions of employment with employers through a third-party representative, such as a trade union. The Guidance marks a shift from the traditional position as it recognises that self-employed workers may also engage in collective bargaining – either independently or through an organisation.
Competition law will not be enforced where employers and organisations exchange information for the purpose of genuine collective bargaining. However, employers must not exchange competitively sensitive information between themselves unless it is necessary and the purpose of the exchange cannot be achieved by less intrusive means.
Why this matters for businesses
The CMA has now sent a clear message that the review of employment practices is an enforcement priority and that it can impose punitive sanctions for anticompetitive behaviour. The Guidance also provides a case example in which five broadcasting companies exchanged competitively sensitive information regarding the salaries of freelance staff, including day rates and pay rises. Four of the five companies involved were collectively fined £4 million, while one company was not fined due to a leniency application.
Therefore, businesses must review their existing agreements for clauses that may breach competition law, appropriately train their human resources and recruitment staff, and remain vigilant when implementing compliance measures to prevent potential breaches.
- The ‘Cheating or Competing’ web page includes a specific section on cartels in employment and focuses on no-poaching and wage-fixing agreements in this context. The new Guidance expands on these points and demonstrates how the CMA continues to monitor anticompetitive behaviour in the labour market.
- This guidance focuses on collusive behaviour between employers and how employers can avoid such behaviour.
- The CMA issued the Microeconomics Unit report in January 2024. It highlighted that an estimated 26% of workers are covered by non-compete clauses.
- Sarah Cardell’s speech reiterates that there is a high percentage of workers with non-competes, but non-competes need to be distinguished from no-poaching agreements.
Client Alert 2025-249
