Global interest in labor markets continues
In Europe, most enforcement of anticompetitive labor market agreements—primarily taking the form of wage fixing and no-poach provisions—is still currently taking place at EU member state level, as well as in Turkey. However, European Commission (EC) enforcement is on the cards: the EC formally initiated its first no-poach investigation in July 2024 in the online food delivery sector, and in November announced it had conducted dawn raids in the data center construction sector over possible no-poach collusion. At the national level, the Belgian antitrust authority secured a settlement of over EUR47million with private security firms in its first-ever case involving no-poach arrangements; the sanctioned conduct also including price-fixing minimum hourly rates for security guards. Slovakia launched its first labor market cartel probe focusing on whether a national trade association restricted competition when hiring through a provision in its code of ethics, and a no-poach case was opened in the forestry sector in Czechia. The Portuguese antitrust authority sanctioned companies in the technology consultancy sector for entering into no-poach agreements.
No-poach agreements were also a focus in the U.S. and the U.K. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had a healthy pipeline of investigations and leniency applications and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken enforcement action against building service contractors to stop them enforcing no-hire agreements that limited the ability of employees to negotiate higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions. The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also been continuing its investigation into the consumer fragrances industry, in January 2024 widening its scope to cover suspected unlawful no-poach agreements. The investigation is ongoing and an update is expected in April 2025.
Some uncertainty on regulatory approach
In the U.S., the FTC’s nationwide prohibition on employers imposing non-compete restrictions on their employees was permanently blocked by a Texas federal judge four months after its introduction. The court found the FTC’s prohibition to be “capricious and arbitrary.” The FTC’s appeal of the decision has been stayed as of early 2025, leaving the future of non-competes in the balance for now. In the meantime, early in 2025, the DOJ and FTC jointly released new antitrust guidelines on business practices that impact workers. The FTC also launched a Joint Labor Task Force to, amongst other things, prioritize investigation and prosecution of deceptive, unfair, or anticompetitive labor market conduct and coordinate work across its competition and consumer protection bureaus. In addition, an FTC policy statement has affirmed that independent contractors, including gig workers, are protected from antitrust liability when engaging in collective bargaining and organizing activities aimed at improving wages and working conditions.
Several other regulators have also acknowledged the blurred boundaries between antitrust and employment law. The CMA, for example, has noted that, given their prevalence across all types of industries, non-competes potentially merit further attention and—in the same way as no-poach agreements—are capable of reducing worker mobility and the reallocation of labor towards more efficient firms. However, it has also indicated that such clauses are typically a matter for employment law. The EU has set a clear line that no poach agreements (and wage-fixing) are by object infringements under EU antitrust law.
Similarly, the Brazilian antitrust authority (CADE) stated it would approach issues in labor markets with caution and ensure that its actions remain within its jurisdiction. Where investigations have been initiated which appear labor-market-focused—including three investigations involving the potential exchange of sensitive information on salaries and benefits between competitors’ HR departments—CADE has been explicit that these are focused on antitrust law as a form of unlawful information exchange or price-fixing, and not employment law.
Further legislation and guidance on the way
The increasing amount of legislation and guidelines introduced by governments and regulators indicates that antitrust authorities will continue to keep labor markets in their sights.
In Australia, the government has been considering whether to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) power to clamp down on no-poach agreements, a review that is potentially being extended to cover co-worker non-solicitation clauses and wage-fixing agreements.
Canada’s Competition Bureau also updated its leniency regime in June 2024 to include wage-fixing and no-poach cartels, building on 2023 legislation that created these new offenses (see last year’s report for further detail).
Also in APAC, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has announced plans to issue guidelines in 2025. Its work in labor markets has been prompted by a study that found that talent agencies often employ anticompetitive practices such as restricting performers from switching managers or becoming independent.
The Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) ended an active year—in which several no-poach probes in the pharmaceuticals and education sectors, concluded in fines and settlement agreements—by finalizing its labor market guidelines in December 2024. The guidelines clarify that the TCA will treat no-poach and wage-fixing agreements as particularly egregious “by object” infringements as well as how the risk of anticompetitive exchange of employment-related information can be mitigated.
Finally, the U.K. CMA has described labor markets as one of its four “areas of focus” for 2025 which, alongside developments in other jurisdictions, suggests that antitrust authorities are unlikely to be turning their attention away from labor markets any time soon.
