On 11 June 2025, the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence) announced sanctions against four companies—Alten, Expleo, Bertrandt, and Ausy (now Randstad Digital)—for engaging in anti-competitive no-poaching agreements. These agreements, considered horizontal restraints, took the form of informal “gentlemen’s agreements” whereby the companies committed not to solicit or hire each other’s employees, a critical element of competition in the labor markets of the affected sectors.
The Authority identified two distinct bilateral agreements: one between Ausy and Alten, and another between Expleo and Bertrandt. These arrangements prohibited the direct solicitation and hiring of personnel, particularly targeting business managers, without time limitation or specification of project or client. The agreement between Ausy and Alten, in force from 2007 to 2016, was brought to light through a leniency application submitted by Ausy in April 2018 and supported by evidence collected during dawn raids conducted in November 2018. Similarly, the Bertrandt-Expleo agreement, which lasted from February to September 2018, also extended to spontaneous job applications and was documented through internal communications that explicitly reiterated adherence to the informal pact to avoid a “war for talent.“
As a result of these findings, the Authority imposed fines amounting to €29.5 million on Alten (€24 million), Bertrandt (€3.6 million), and Expleo (€1.9 million), while granting full immunity to Ausy under its leniency program. Additionally, the Authority ordered the sanctioned companies to publish a summary of the decision on LinkedIn and in both print and online editions of Le Monde Informatique.
This fine came just after the European Commission fined Delivery Hero with €329 million precisely for the same no-poaching practice with Glovo. The French authority emphasized that general no-poaching agreements are inherently anti-competitive in nature. Even in the absence of broader cartel behavior, such stand-alone agreements restrict the mobility of workers and can limit opportunities for improved working conditions and career advancement.
Although the investigation also examined alleged anti-competitive conduct related to non-solicitation clauses in partnership contracts, the Authority ultimately found that these did not constitute restrictions by object in the specific circumstances of the case. It concluded that the clauses were limited in scope and served legitimate objectives, though it left open the possibility that similar clauses could be deemed anti-competitive in other contexts.
Furthermore, a third allegation involving a purported “non-aggression pact” between Ausy and Atos was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
This decision marks a moment for the enforcement of competition law in labor markets and reflects the Authority’s continued scrutiny of horizontal agreements that can distort competition by suppressing employee mobility and weakening competitive dynamics. The full text of Decision No. 25-D-03 will be published once business confidentiality claims have been processed.
