A quiet but fast-accelerating change is reshaping a corner of competition law once thought to lie beyond its reach.
What began as a campaign against monopolies of goods and services has moved, inexorably, into the realm of labour. Across Europe, and increasingly across the globe, regulators are turning their attention to the markets for talent. The silent exchanges of salary, mobility, and opportunity that underpin the modern economy.
The shift began, almost imperceptibly, in the mid-2010s, when US and European authorities first trained their gaze upon no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. What had long been regarded as the unspoken etiquette of corporate stability, a gentleperson's understanding not to tempt a rival's engineers or coders, was suddenly recast as a restriction of competition itself.
Over the following decade, enforcement gathered momentum. By the early 2020s, investigations once confined to Silicon Valley had crossed the Atlantic, drawing in industries from logistics and technology to consulting and retail as well as players in leagues from basketball to football.
While antitrust once policed the price of oil or the dominance of digital platforms, it now peers into the far more intimate domain of hiring and pay. The transformation is striking. The boardroom battles of the 20th century have given way to a subtler theater of compliance, in which human resources (HR) strategies themselves have become objects of antitrust legal scrutiny. Here are our thoughts.
The Rise of Labour Market Antitrust
For decades, informal no-poach and wage-fixing agreements circulated quietly among companies. Some were formal pacts between rivals not to solicit each other's staff. Others were the product of mutual understanding, born of convenience. In an earlier age, such practices might have seemed prudent, a way to preserve stability and prevent the costly churn of talent.
Today, these agreements are treated as the new cartels. Unless clearly ancillary to legitimate collaboration, they are "naked" restraints under EU law, by object violations of the principle that markets, whether for goods, services, or labour, must remain open.
Europe's Coordinated Awakening
The shift is not rhetorical but institutional. In May 2024, the European Commission issued a landmark policy brief placing labour market conduct at the heart of antitrust enforcement. The Nordic authorities (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland) soon followed suit with their own joint report. Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection released guidance that summer, and in 2025, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority had aligned itself with the continental trend.
Conduct deemed unlawful in one jurisdiction now risks parallel sanction across others. For multinational employers, this heralds a new era of cross-border vigilance, one in which HR compliance is no longer domestic but global.
Labour Market Antitrust Enforcement Heats Up
If 2024 set the tone, 2025 has brought the reckoning.
The European Commission fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a combined €329 million for cartel conduct involving no-poach arrangements. France imposed nearly €30 million in penalties on consulting and IT services firms. Portugal has launched multiple cases in the technology and beverage sectors, while even smaller regulators, such as Slovakia, which fined its fuel industry association €10,000 for requiring members not to poach each other's employees, have joined the campaign.
What began as isolated enforcement has become a regulatory momentum. A global effort to redefine how labour markets function. No sector and no jurisdiction can now presume immunity.
AI and the New Risks of Efficiency
Yet as law advances, technology outpaces it. Artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the world of recruitment, promising efficiency, precision, and objectivity. But the same systems that streamline hiring can also amplify risk.
The EU AI Act classifies HR-related algorithms as "high risk." This is a reminder that the quest for efficiency must not come at the expense of compliance. Algorithms that determine salaries or filter candidates may, inadvertently, reproduce collusive outcomes. The next batch of antitrust cases may not arise from boardroom conspiracies but from the silent logic of AI.
The Perils of Conversation
Even communication, the lifeblood of business, is suspect. The exchange of salary data, hiring plans, or employment terms between companies can now be treated as wage fixing or market sharing. Informal discussions once seen as harmless benchmarking may constitute illegal coordination if data is not anonymised or aggregated.
In the eyes of today's regulators, employment information carries the same sensitivity as pricing. What was once a courtesy can now be seen as a violation of conversation.
HR and Corporate Due Diligence
The risks extend into M&A and joint ventures. Head count, retention, or post-deal staffing discussions, once routine in transaction planning, may be viewed as anticompetitive if they stray into hiring restrictions or coordinated pay structures. Regulators are increasingly scrutinizing employment clauses in deals. As enforcement intensifies, HR considerations must be fully integrated into antitrust due diligence.
Litigation and Liability
The legal threat is no longer purely administrative. Employees may bring private damages claims for depressed wages or lost opportunities, invoking the same principles once reserved for price-fixing victims. In some jurisdictions, such as France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain, senior executives may be held personally accountable.
The reputational dimension is equally profound. In talent-driven industries, being perceived as complicit in wage suppression can erode trust faster than any fine.
Embedding Compliance
The response must be structural. Companies should integrate antitrust safeguards into every layer of HR practice, from recruitment to performance management. Training, audits, and internal reporting systems must now cover employment data and AI tools, just as they do pricing and procurement.
The most forward-looking organisations treat compliance not as a defensive ritual but as a culture of ethical competitiveness, an investment in the long-term integrity of their brand.
The Global Ripple Effect
The US and Europe may have taken the lead, but the resonance is global. Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Turkey are tightening their own frameworks. Labour market enforcement has become part of a wider realignment, which means, for global businesses, a unified compliance strategy is no longer optional but essential.
Conclusion
Antitrust law has entered a new geography. It no longer governs only the exchange of goods and services but also the labour market. As enforcement becomes a core focus of competition authorities, companies must rethink how they approach hiring, compensation, and HR technology. No-poach and wage-fixing agreements, once seen as strategic, now carry significant legal and reputational risks, especially when enforcement is increasingly cross-border and sector agnostic. The rise of AI in HR adds further complexity, with algorithmic tools potentially facilitating unintended collusion. To pilot this evolving environment, businesses should embed antitrust compliance into workforce planning, scrutinise employment clauses in deals, and involve legal teams early. Fair competition for talent is no longer just good practice — it is a legal and strategic imperative.
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.