Competition in Labor Markets: Current Approaches to No-Poaching Agreements
Recently, labor markets and the conditions of competition in these markets have attracted considerable attention from competition authorities. In particular, concerns such as no-poach agreements, wage-fixing practices, and the exchange of sensitive employment information have become subjects of investigation in various jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. In Türkiye, it is likewise observed that the Competition Authority is closely monitoring developments in this area and that its interest has been growing significantly. These developments clearly demonstrate that undertakings are required to exercise utmost care not only in their conduct within goods and services markets but also in their practices related to employment relationships, within the framework of competition law.
I. Guidelines
1. Antitrust Guidelines on Business Activities Affecting Workers
The Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers (Guidelines) jointly published by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on January 16, 2025, set forth important regulations concerning business practices that affect competition in labor markets.
The Guidelines outline the current framework for the application of antitrust law to human resources practices. The key points concerning no-poaching practices as provided in the Guidelines are summarized below:
- The Guidelines state that practices such as no-poaching, non-solicitation, or refraining from extending job offers constitute per se violations of competition law when conducted between actual or potential competitors.
- It is emphasized that regardless of whether such agreements are written, oral, explicit, or implicit, allegations that the parties acted with the intent to restrict competition are sufficient for the case to proceed.
- In the context of franchising, clauses between the franchisor and franchisee or among franchisees that mutually prohibit the solicitation or hiring of employees are considered direct restraints of competition.
- The exchange of competitively sensitive information between undertakings competing for labor, including indirect sharing through third parties or intermediaries, is also deemed unlawful. In this regard, the sharing of data through algorithms or software used by third parties to recommend wages or fringe benefits may be considered anticompetitive even if undertakings do not follow the recommendations.
- Contractual provisions that restrict employees’ freedom to resign from their current job may also be considered unlawful under antitrust law. In this context, non-compete clauses that prevent employees from working for competing or potentially competing employers, starting a new business, or impose penalties for resignation may raise competition law concerns.
- The fact that undertakings do not operate in the same product market or are engaged in different forms of economic cooperation (e.g. joint ventures) does not necessarily eliminate their status as competitors in labor markets. Accordingly, competition for labor supply may still be relevant.
You may access the full text of the Guidelines here.
2. Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labor Markets
On 3 December 2024, the Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) published its Guidelines on Competition Infringements in Labor Markets (Guidelines).
Key assessments in the Guidelines regarding no-poaching agreements are summarized below:
- The Guidelines define no-poaching agreements as arrangements, either direct or indirect, whereby one undertaking agrees not to solicit or hire the employees of another undertaking.
- The Guidelines emphasize that the absence of an explicit prohibition on hiring employees is not, by itself, sufficient to conclude that no-poaching has not occurred. For example, requiring approval from another undertaking prior to recruitment may also be deemed a no-poaching arrangement.
- The Guidelines clarify that such agreements may cover not only current employees but also former employees. The decisive factor is whether there is a mutual understanding between competing undertakings that restricts employee mobility.
- The Guidelines state that no-poaching agreements constitute a restriction of competition by means of market allocation under Article 4(1)(b) of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Law No. 4054).
- Accordingly, no-poaching agreements will be treated within the same legal framework as supplier or customer allocation agreements, and if they aim to restrict competition, they will be qualified as cartels.
- The Guidelines clarify that no-poaching agreements need not be concluded directly between the parties; they may also be concluded through a third party and still constitute a competition violation. In such cases, third parties may also be considered as parties to the violation, depending on the specific circumstances.
You may access the full text of the Guidelines here.
II. Notable Recent Decisions
A. Global Decisions
1. The Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc. Decision Dated 09.04.2025
In the case of Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., heard in the United States, the court evaluated whether the no-hire provisions agreed upon between Burger King Corporation (Burger King) and its franchisees constituted a restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The relevant clause, included in franchise agreements, prohibited a Burger King franchisee from hiring another franchisee’s current employee or any employee who had left within the past six months, unless the former employer provided written consent.
The claimants alleged that Burger King entered into agreements not to compete in the labor market with the intent of depressing wages and limiting job opportunities. They argued that such arrangements amounted to a “per se” violation of antitrust law. In contrast, Burger King contended that the agreements did not constitute a “per se” violation and should instead be assessed under the “rule of reason” standard. Burger King further asserted that the agreements were vertical in nature and therefore did not amount to an antitrust violation.
U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez denied Burger King's motion to dismiss. The court held that the claimants’ allegations, asserting that each defendant knowingly joined the agreement and acted with the purpose of restricting the market, were sufficient for the case to proceed.
Under the franchise structure at issue, more than 99% of Burger King restaurants are operated by independent franchisees. These franchisees are subject to no-hire clauses included in standard franchise agreements with Burger King. Referring to the American Needle v. NFL decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court noted that the no-hire agreement eliminated independent hiring decisions among franchisees and therefore centralized decision-making in the labor market. Furthermore, the court emphasized that each franchisee maintains its own hiring process and that there is no relationship of trust among the franchisees. The no-hire provision undermines this independence and restricts competition in the labor market.
The court also stated that the applicable legal standard (per se or rule of reason) would be clarified based on the evidence collected during the course of the proceedings.
You may access the decision here.
2. The Delivery Hero – Glovo Decision Dated 02.06.2025
The European Commission (Commission) concluded its investigation into Delivery Hero SE (Delivery Hero) and Glovoapp23, S.L. (Glovo) concerning their alleged gentlemen’s agreement not to hire each other’s employees in the online food delivery sector. The Commission found that the parties violated EU competition rules by agreeing not to compete in the labor market between July 2018 and July 2022 — during a period in which Delivery Hero only held a minority stake in Glovo.
Under the no-poach agreement, the undertakings committed not to hire each other’s employees, which limited job opportunities, wage levels, and career development for workers. In addition, the Commission established that the undertakings engaged in the exchange of competitively sensitive information and allocated markets among themselves.
The Commission found that the conduct was coordinated through Delivery Hero’s minority shareholding in Glovo. In this respect, the decision constitutes not only the first fine imposed at the EU level for a no-poach agreement but also the first enforcement action based on a competition violation facilitated through a minority shareholding in a rival undertaking.
Both undertakings acknowledged their participation in the no-poach agreement and cooperated with the Commission under the settlement procedure. As a result of the settlement, the Commission imposed administrative fines of EUR 223 million on Delivery Hero and EUR 106 million on Glovo. The Commission emphasized that the decision sets an important precedent for the protection of free competition in labor markets and underlined the importance of encouraging employers to compete for talent.
You may access the decision here.
B. Turkish Competition Board Decisions
1. Kocaeli Private Schools Decision Dated 18.04.2024
In the investigation conducted by the Board concerning private schools operating in Kocaeli, it was determined that the schools jointly set tuition and meal fees and entered into agreements not to poach each other’s employees. As a result of the examinations, it was revealed that the schools acted in coordination through WhatsApp groups and meetings in order to prevent teacher transfers and to jointly determine employee wages. In the decision, these practices — including refraining from transferring teachers from competing schools, not making job offers, and rejecting applications — were assessed by the Board as no-poach and wage-fixing agreements, and were considered a violation of Article 4 of Law No. 4054.
The Board classified these practices related to the labor market as a cartel; and for some undertakings that accepted the violation, a 25% reduction in administrative fines was applied following the settlement procedure.
You may access the decision here.
2. Decision on French Private Schools Dated 24.04.2024
Within the scope of the investigation conducted concerning the labor market practices of French high schools operating in Istanbul, the Board obtained correspondences and findings indicating that school administrators came together to jointly determine school tuition fees and teacher salaries. The Board evaluated that these decisions were implemented in a similar manner by all schools, resulting in the elimination of independent pricing decisions and leading the undertakings to act in a coordinated manner.
The Board assessed that the conduct of jointly determining school tuition fees — both directly and indirectly — constituted a “cartel” under the Regulation on Administrative Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition and Abuses of Dominant Position (Fines Regulation). In addition, the Board concluded that administrative fines should also be imposed on the undertakings in question under the “cartel” category of the Fines Regulation due to their joint determination of teacher salaries.
You may access the decision here.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
On 06.03.2025, the Turkish Competition Authority (Authority) published the Impact Analysis Report (Report) 2023-2024. The Report analyzes the impact of the Competition Board’s (Board) decisions regarding cartels, resale price maintenance, abuse of dominant position, and conditional merger/acquisition...
The Turkish Competition Authority (Authority) published the Guidelines on Fines to be Applied in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Restricting Competition and Abuse of Dominant Position (Guidelines) on 19.02.2025...
On 06.02.2025, the Advertising Board (Board) 2024 Annual Report (Report) was published. The significant issues in the Report are summarized below:The Report covers prominent issues in the Board’s decisions, the Board’s activities in 2024 and the Board’s data for 2024...
On 06.02.2025, the Advertising Board (Board) 2024 Annual Report (Report) was published. The Report discusses the Board’s approach and activities regarding advertisements containing deceptive or unsubstantiated environmental claims in a separate section. In this context, the significant issues highlighted in the...
The Regulation on Fines to Apply in Cases of Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Limiting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (Regulation on Fines) entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette dated 27.12.2024 and numbered 32765. Through the Regulation on Fines...
On 16.09.2024, the Competition Authority (Authority) published the Draft Guidelines on Competition Violations in Labor Markets (Draft Guidelines) and submitted it for public comment...
On 27.06.2017, the European Commission (Commission) imposed a fine of €2.4 billion on Google for abusing its dominant position in online search markets by favoring its own comparison shopping service...
The Competition Authority (Authority) has prepared five-year strategic plans since 2014. The Authority’s strategic plan for the period of 2024-2028 (Strategic Plan) has been published on 29.08.2024...
The annual report (Report) regarding the activities of the Turkish Competition Authority (Authority) for the year 2023 was published on the official website of the Authority. The Report examines the main elements of the Authority’s activities, strategic objectives, its mission and vision, its role in the national economy...
Law No. 7511 on Amendments to the Turkish Commercial Code and Certain Laws (Law) was published in the Official Gazette dated 29.05.2024 and numbered 32560. Law amended (Amendment) various articles of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Law No. 4054). The relevant provisions of the Law...
The Protocol on Cooperation and Exchange of Information (Protocol) was signed between the Personal Data Protection Authority and the Competition Authority. The cooperation between the authorities aims to prevent practices that may harm both the privacy of personal data and the establishment of...
The Regulation on Foreign Subsidies Distorting the Internal Market (Regulation), which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU) dated 23.12.2022 and numbered L/330 entered into force on 12.01.2023, and became applicable as of 12.07.2023...
The Bundeskartellamt decided on June 26, 2023 that (Decision) several practices and contractual clauses used by the German national railway company Deutsche Bahn (DB) in relation to rival mobility platforms constitute an abuse of market power in the mobility services market...
Turkish Competition Board (Board) announced its final decision (Decision) as a result of the investigation conducted against certain undertakings through gentlemen’s agreement pursuant to the Board decisions dated 01.04.2021 and numbered 21-18/213-M, dated 05.08.2021 and numbered 21-37/527-M, dated...
In its judgment of July 4, 2023 (Decision), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that the national competition authorities may rely on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in their investigation in respect of abuse of dominant position...
The investigation initiated against DSM Grup Danışmanlık İletişim ve Satış Ticaret A.Ş. (Trendyol) with the Competition Board (Board) decision dated 23.09.2021 and numbered 21-44/650-M is concluded. In this context, the Board decided in its short decision (Decision) that...
The German Parliament (Bundestag) has adopted the 11th GWB amendment on July 6, 2023. (Wettbewerbsdurchsetzungsgesetz) After being approved by the Bundesrat, Germany’s second legislative body, the legislative procedure will be completed, approximately by the end of September. The amendment proposal...
The Constitutional Court (CC), in its decision dated 23.03.2023 and numbered 2019/40991 (CC Decision), stated that workplaces such as the headquarters, branches and facilities are considered as domicile within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and ruled that the competence granted to competition...
The Competition Authority presented its important studies on various sectors to the public. The reports, which address the competition law implications of the transformation in digital markets, and include findings and assessments on the fast-moving consumer goods retailing and online advertising sectors...
Through the Law No. 7440 on Restructuring of Certain Receivables and Amending Certain Laws (Law No. 7440) published in the Official Gazette dated 12.03.2023 and No. 32130, procedures and principles regarding restructuring of the certain public receivables are regulated...
The General Court of the European Union ("General Court") annulled the decision of the European Commission ("Commission"), which found that Qualcomm, the world's largest LTE baseband chipset (“chipset”) supplier, had abused its dominant position in the said market and imposed a fine of €997 million...
Turkish Competition Board (“The Board”), with its decision numbered 22-24/385-M has decided to initiate an investigation against DSM Grup Danışmanlık İletişim ve Satış Ticaret A.Ş. (“Trendyol”)...
European Commission adopted the new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”) accompanied by the New Vertical Guidelines on May 10, 2022. The new rules are simpler and clearer, which enables companies to assess the compatibility of...
Pursuant to the Communiqué Amending Communiqué Concerning the Mergers and Acquisitions Calling for the Authorization of the Competition Board (“Amending Communiqué”) published in the Official Gazette...
Competition Authority Published the Guideline on Examining Digital Data During On-Site Inspections
Competition Board Decision regarding implementation of administrative fines for some banks due to not providing the information requested by the Competition Authority
Competition Board conditionally approved the Merger Transaction of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and Peugeot S.A.
Competition Board initiated an Investigation against Facebook and Whatsapp
The Competition Board Rejected the Request for Exemption to the Agreement Between Johnson & Johnson and Pharmaceutical Warehouses
Competition Board's Interim Measure Decision on WhatsApp has been published
Competition Board's Investigation against Google concluded
Competition Board initiated an Investigation against 32 Undertakings concerning the Labor Market
The Decision of the Ankara 3rd Administrative Court Clarifying That Competition Board May Request Information and Documents from Undertakings Whose Headquarters Located Abroad by Notifying Their Subsidiaries in Turkey
The Regulation on Settlement is published
Significant Amendments are Introduced to the Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements