First sanction of no-poach agreements by the FCA
On 11 June 2025, the French Competition Authority (FCA) rendered a landmark decision by imposing fines totalling €29.5 million on three companies active in the engineering, technology consulting, and IT services sectors for engaging in by-object anti-competitive practices through no-poach agreements.
The sanctioning of gentlemen agreements
The companies involved had established general gentlemen agreements to mutually refrain from soliciting and hiring each other's employees. These agreements were considered by the FCA to stifle the hiring of human resources on the labour markets for the engineering, technology consulting and IT services sectors. The FCA notes that human resources is a key competitive parameter, particularly in the digital sector.
Two agreements were sanctioned on those grounds:
a first agreement between Ausy and Alten, in effect from 2007 to 2016, which aimed to prevent the poaching and hiring of business managers for each of the companies. This agreement was generalised, did not have a time limit and applied to all business managers regardless of their assignments or clients.
a second agreement between Bertrandt and Expleo, active between February and September 2018, which prevented the poaching and hiring of both company's employees, including in cases of spontaneous applications.
For these practices, Alten was fined €24 million, Bertrandt €3.6 million, and Expleo €1.9 million.
The "Non-Lieu" or dismissal decisions regarding non-solicitation clauses in partnership contracts
The FCA also conducted a detailed analysis of non-solicitation clauses in partnership contracts concluded between the companies concerned.
After analysing the content and objectives of the clauses as well as the economic and legal context in which they were created, the FCA considered that they could not be qualified as restricting competition by object, notably given their limited temporal and material scope.
FCA's first sanction against no-poach agreements
This decision marks a significant precedent in the FCA's enforcement record. It is the first decision of the FCA solely dedicated to sanctioning no-poach agreements as anti-competitive practices by object. The FCA emphasised that such agreements, even when isolated, remain anti-competitive, particularly when implemented in broad and indefinite general agreements.
Key takeaways
The FCA states in its press release that specific clauses with limited scope and duration (even if they have been formalized in writing) have less chance of being regarded as anticompetitive by object than general, open-ended agreements that have a broad and imprecise scope.
However, the FCA recalls that this analysis does not prejudge the possibility that specific clauses might be considered as anticompetitive by object in future cases.
In particular, the FCA's publications explicitly state that it intends to maintain a high level of vigilance regarding human resources agreements, particularly in the digital sector which is characterized by the scarcity and importance of human resources.
This approach confirms that no-poach agreements will be thoroughly looked at by competition authorities as standalone anticompetitive practices and aligns with the broader European trend of scrutinising anti-competitive practices in labour markets, as evidenced by the European Commission's recent decision of 2 June 2025 in which Delivery Hero and Glovo, two major players in the online food delivery sector, were fined €329 million (see our article here).
Both these decisions reflect a growing commitment of competition authorities to ensure fair competition in labour markets, to protect worker mobility and prevent collusion among companies on the human resources competitive parameter.
