On 11 June 2025, the French Competition Authority ('FCA') fined three companies active in the engineering, technology consulting, and IT services sectors, Alten, Bertrandt, and Expleo, a total of €29.5 million for participating in bilateral informal no-poach agreements. These sanctions were accompanied by unprecedented orders requiring the infringing parties to publish a summary of the FCA's decision, including on LinkedIn, underlining the reputational as well as legal risks associated with such practices. Notably, this decision marks the first time the FCA has imposed fines for standalone anticompetitive restrictions in labour markets, confirming that generalised no-poach agreements, even when assessed in isolation and without any coordination between companies on price or output, may amount to infringements under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU'). The FCA learned of these practices through a leniency application submitted by a fourth participant, Ausy (now Randstad Digital), in April 2018. Ausy was granted full immunity from fines, and the investigation led to dawn raids on the remaining three companies in late 2018. This decision represents an important milestone in the EU's emerging antitrust enforcement trend targeting human resources practices that restrict competition. It follows the European Commission decision earlier this month, fining companies active in online food delivery, Delivery Hero and Glovo, a total of €329 million for limited reciprocal no-hire clauses in the context of a minority investment, which subsequently expanded into a general agreement not to poach each other's staff.
Generalised hiring restrictions and antitrust risks
The FCA found that between 2007 and 2016, Ausy and Alten maintained a broad informal understanding not to recruit each other's business managers, including both active solicitation bans and restrictions on hiring unsolicited candidates. A similar so-called "gentleman's agreement" was concluded between Bertrandt and Expleo in early 2018.
The FCA found these unwritten arrangements were unlimited in time, and applied in a broad and imprecise manner, resulting in a systemic restriction on workforce mobility. Internal communications confirmed the existence of the agreements and revealed coordination between HR departments regarding candidate screening. For example, in the investigation the FCA found items which referred to "a gentlemen's agreement not to chase each other's management teams" and referencing the need to avoid a "hiring war".
The FCA classified these hiring restrictions as by object infringements, i.e., restrictions which, by their nature, objective, and legal and economic context, reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition, without the need to examine their actual effects on the market, comparable to buyer cartels targeting skilled labour. It relied on Article 101(1)(c) TFEU, which prohibits market allocation, interpreted in this context as the allocation of "sources of supply", namely human resources.
In parallel, the FCA conducted a first-time assessment of non-solicitation clauses included in commercial partnership contracts. While these clauses were reviewed, no infringement was found due to their limited scope, specific duration, and clear contractual framing. However, this finding is specific to the particular context and does not exclude the possibility of future enforcement against similar limited contractual non-solicitation clauses in other contexts.
Compliance implications and future enforcement outlook
This decision sends a clear message: labour mobility is a competition parameter, and coordination between competitors on hiring practices, even if informal or unwritten, can trigger antitrust liability. It follows a broader enforcement trend observed at the EU level (see above Delivery Hero / Glovo, and Client Alert, 9 June 2025) and across national authorities. For instance, between 2024 and February 2025, the Portuguese Competition Authority fined three multinational and one national technology consulting firms a total of €7.17 million for entering into bilateral no-poach agreements involving mutual commitments not to recruit or solicit each other's employees, following multiple complaints and a formal investigation. Also in the UK, the CMA issued guidance in February 2023 reminding employers of their legal obligations to avoid collusion on pay, working conditions, and hiring, followed in March by its first ever labour markets decision relating to freelance workers in the production, creation and broadcasting of sports content, with four broadcasters receiving fines totalling £4 million. This growing body of enforcement in Europe underlines the importance of anti-trust oversight of any proposed agreements with third parties which include restrictions on hiring each other's employees, as well as inclusion of HR/labour market practices in companies' compliance policies and training programmes.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Mounir Younes, legal intern at Baker Botts.
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.
