On 11 June 2025, the French Competition Authority (FCA) announced its Decision No. 25-D-03, in which it imposed fines totaling €29.5 million on three companies in the engineering, technology consulting and IT services (Entreprises de Services du Numérique or “ESN”, formerly known as “SSII”, short for Société de Services en Ingénierie Informatique) for engaging in unlawful no-poach agreements. 

On the day of finalization of this article, the decision was not yet published, but the fines were announced in the FCA's press release and presentation deck. 

General no-poach agreements between companies aimed at prohibiting the companies involved from soliciting and hiring each other’s employees are anticompetitive practices by object.

This decision is unprecedented in French competition law: for the first time, no-poach agreements are sanctioned as standalone infringements, in contrast with earlier cases, such as decision no. 17-D-20 or decision no. 24-D-06, where no-poach provisions were only mentioned as part of broader restrictive agreements. The FCA’s decision explicitly acknowledges that no-poach agreements can constitute standone by-object restrictions of competition.

In this case, human resources were not merely an operational input, they were the key competitive asset. The market concerned - which includes industries like IT and engineering consulting - is indeed one where the ability to attract and retain skilled professionals, such as business managers, is central to competitive advantage. Restricting employee mobility in such a context amounts to a serious distortion of market dynamics, as explicitly noted by the FCA.

The facts: a web of gentlemen’s agreements

The case began with a leniency application by Ausy (now Randstad Digital) in April 2018, revealing a wide-ranging agreement with Alten. Dawn raids later revealed a second, similar arrangement between Bertrandt and Expleo. 

In the end, the FCA uncovered:

• A long-term no-poach agreement between Ausy and Alten, covering direct solicitation and even spontaneous applications, concerning all business managers, regardless of the mission or customer to which they were assigned;
• A shorter, but equally anticompetitive, understanding between Bertrandt and Expleo, evidenced by internal communications, notably seeking to “reiterate the message” about respecting the deal and not engaging in a “hiring war”.

The FCA also examined non-solicitation clauses included in certain contracts between Bertrandt and Expleo and between Ausy and Atos. Based on the content of the case file, and after assessing the legal and economic context and the objectives of the clauses, it concluded that they did not constitute restrictions by object, and that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate anticompetitive effects.

The Authority imposed fines of €29.5 million in total. 

While Ausy was granted full immunity under the leniency program, fines were imposed as follows:

• €24 million on Alten;
• €3.6 million on Bertrandt;
• €1.9 million on Expleo.

Beyond the monetary sanctions, the FCA also mandated publication of a summary of the decision in Le Monde Informatique and, for the first time, on LinkedIn, highlighting its intent to send a public and preventive message.

This decision reinforces the FCA’s broader message: competition law applies just as rigorously to labour markets as it does to product markets. As the FCA explained, these agreements distorted the normal operation of hiring processes, reduced job opportunities, and undermined wage-setting mechanisms.

With this decision, the FCA follows the EU Commission’s lead: in its 2024 Policy Brief on Antitrust in Labour Markets, the Commission reaffirmed that no-poach agreements typically qualify as restrictions by object under Article 101(1) TFEU, requiring no demonstration of actual harm. In its very recent Glovo/Delivery Hero decision, it also imposed important fines on food delivery platforms for entering into anticompetitive no-poach agreements (see our article on this topic).

A case to watch

While this French decision will be a clear enforcement milestone, it is not the final word. At least one of the sanctioned parties has announced that it will appeal the decision. It will be for the Paris Court of Appeal to confirm, or potentially limit, the FCA’s approach. As such, this area of law remains in flux, and the legal qualifications of informal HR practices will likely be tested further.

In this context, companies operating legitimate cooperation frameworks (e.g. joint ventures, R&D alliances) must carefully assess whether any hiring restrictions could be viewed as “ancillary” to their collaboration. As outlined in our article regarding ancillary no-poach agreements, only narrowly tailored, proportionate clauses tied directly to the implementation of a broader pro-competitive project can escape prohibition.

Key takeaways 

The implications of this decision are wide-ranging, and not limited to France. Legal teams must be ready to:

• Review all informal and formal hiring protocols involving competitors;
• Train HR and operational staff to spot red flags in staffing discussions;
• Avoid any blanket hiring restrictions, even verbal ones, absent a solid legal basis;
• Prepare for increased scrutiny in merger control, joint ventures and service contracts involving staff sharing or secondments.

In today’s enforcement landscape, respecting labour mobility is not only good HR, it’s essential compliance.

For more information, please contact Elsa Mandel Benichou and Thomas Oster.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION & EU HOMEPAGE