In a decision of 2 June 2025 in Case AT.40795 – Food Delivery Services, the European Commission imposed fines of 223.285 million euros and 105.732 million euros respectively on Delivery Hero and its subsidiary Glovo for participating over a 4-year period in a far-reaching antitrust infringement in the digital food delivery sector. The sanctioned conduct involved agreements not to hire or solicit each other's employees, market allocation across the European Economic Area (EEA), and exchanges of commercially sensitive information that distorted normal competitive dynamics.
Starting in 2022, the Commission had carried out several dawn raids at the companies' premises as part of an inquiry into possible collusion in the food delivery sector. Delivery Hero's ultimate acquisition of control over Glovo, approved by the Spanish competition authority in July 2022, had brought the infringements at issue to an end. It preceded the Commission's first unannounced inspections of June 2022 with respect to their past coordination.
The decision marks one of the Commission's most comprehensive actions against collusion in a digital platform industry and sends a clear signal that competition rules apply as rigorously to labour markets and minority investments as they do to traditional product cartels.
Background and industry context
Both Delivery Hero and Glovo operate online platforms that allow consumers to order food, groceries and other retail products through mobile apps or websites. These platforms manage the entire customer experience, from order placement to last-mile delivery, and compete across various EEA Member States.
During the infringement period, Delivery Hero held a minority but growing shareholding in Glovo, beginning with a 15% stake acquired in 2018 before ultimately acquiring full control in July 2022. The Commission found that the investment relationship created multiple channels for anticompetitive coordination, including board representation, access to strategic information, and formal shareholder agreements.
Key elements of the infringement
According to the Commission's decision, the infringement comprised three interconnected practices:
- No-poach agreements Starting in July 2018, Delivery Hero and Glovo agreed not to actively solicit each other's key employees or managers. These restrictions were formalised through "no-hire" clauses in four successive shareholder agreements concluded during Delivery Hero's incremental investments in Glovo. In addition to these clauses, the parties also entered into a broader informal "no-solicit" understanding, referred to in the decision as the "General No-Poach." This mutual understanding was not limited to senior or managerial staff, nor to particular jurisdictions. It applied across the EEA and to all categories of employees, with enforcement coordinated through internal communications across both firms. Notably, the Commission qualified these arrangements as a restriction of competition by object, harmful to competition by its nature, akin to a buyer cartel. This reflects a growing trend — both in the EU and globally — of treating labour market collusion as a serious competition law violation.
- Exchange of commercially sensitive information Between 2018 and 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo regularly exchanged commercially sensitive information through multiple channels, including emails, WhatsApp messages, board documents and informal discussions. Information shared included pricing strategies, customer acquisition costs, delivery fees, sales forecasts and future commercial strategy. The exchanges were facilitated, in part, by Delivery Hero's position on Glovo's board of directors. Board documents were forwarded by Delivery Hero's representatives to company executives, who in turn used this insight to calibrate their commercial strategies. The Commission concluded that this behaviour amounted to a horizontal information exchange that significantly reduced uncertainty between competitors and distorted competition throughout the EEA. This too was found to be a restriction by object.
- Market allocation From January 2020 onwards, Delivery Hero and Glovo reached an understanding not to compete in each other's core national markets. This led to coordinated decisions on whether and where to expand, including discussions about who would enter certain markets and who would refrain. The parties even reversed some overlapping operations, with Delivery Hero selling its businesses in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania to Glovo in 2021. The Commission found that this conduct removed competitive constraints between the firms and artificially segmented the market. As with the other conduct, the Commission treated the arrangement as a by-object infringement under Article 101 TFEU.
Minority shareholding as a facilitator of collusion
A key dimension of the case is the Commission's treatment of a minority shareholding and board access as potential enablers of collusion. While the holding of a non-controlling stake is not in itself illegal, the Commission found that Delivery Hero used its shareholding to gain access to Glovo's sensitive information and influence strategic decisions, including decisions not to compete.
This approach reflects a more expansive enforcement philosophy that recognises how strategic investments can function as vehicles for coordination, even absent formal control. In this case, the minority shareholding provided what the Commission called a "forum" for ongoing collusion. However, the decision does not put into question the legality of non-solicitation clauses that are ancillary to a concentration, i.e. when control is acquired.
Settlement procedure and fine calculation
The case was resolved through the Commission's settlement procedure, with both parties admitting liability in exchange for a (10%) reduction in fines. The final combined fine amount of approximately 329 million euros was calculated following the standard methodology: the value of sales in the relevant markets, adjusted for gravity, duration and a deterrence multiplier. An extra amount ("entry fee") of 17% was added to the base fine to ensure deterrence from entering into such agreements. The Commission also checked whether the fines imposed complied with the 10% turnover cap.
The decision sends a strong message that even under settlement, serious competition law violations involving collusion on hiring or market sharing will attract substantial financial penalties.
Legal and strategic implications
This case is notable for several reasons beyond the substantial amount of the fines.
First, it expands the scope of antitrust enforcement to labour markets in a more systematic way. No-poach and no-hire agreements are now firmly on the Commission's radar.
Second, it underscores the risks of information exchange and strategic coordination between companies with partially overlapping businesses, particularly when linked by a non-controlling financial participation or shared governance structures.
Finally, the decision reinforces the importance of robust compliance controls. Companies that invest in competitors or enter joint ventures must establish clear firewalls, avoid improper access to sensitive data and ensure that employee hiring practices comply with competition law.
Conclusion
The Commission's decision in Food Delivery Services is a landmark in the development of EU antitrust enforcement across labour markets and corporate governance dimensions. It reflects a broader shift towards more assertive scrutiny of conduct that undermines competition not only in traditional product markets, but also in the hiring of talent and the strategic deployment of capital.
Please do not hesitate to reach out to our experts in the EU & Competition Law team for support in all competition law matters, including preparing for and responding to dawn raids.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
