Landmark €329m Fine for Delivery Hero & Glovo

On 2 June 2025, the European Commission (“EC”) imposed fines of €329 million on Delivery Hero and Glovo for participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. The case is noteworthy as the first EC decision to sanction no-poach agreements and the first to link collusion to risks stemming from a minority shareholding in a competitor.

Background

In 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a 16% minority stake in Glovo, including the right to appoint a board member. The EC found that this enabled access to Glovo’s sensitive business information and alignment of competitive strategies. The infringement lasted until 2022, when Delivery Hero acquired sole control of Glovo, a transaction cleared by the Spanish authority. Both companies settled the case, securing a 10% fine reduction.

Infringing Conduct

The EC sanctioned three main types of conduct:

1. No-poach clauses – Reciprocal restrictions on hiring or soliciting each other’s employees, initially included in the share purchase agreement and subsequently expanded.
2. Information exchanges – Sharing of commercially sensitive data, including prices, capacities, costs, strategies, and product features.
3. Market allocation – An agreement to divide national markets for online food delivery services within the EEA.

Minority Shareholdings as a New Antitrust Risk

The Commission stressed that minority shareholdings are not unlawful per se but may create avenues for anticompetitive coordination where they confer governance rights or access to confidential information.

This case demonstrates that even without control, a board seat linked to a minority stake can:

• expose the holder to sensitive competitor data, and
• facilitate the alignment of business strategies.

The ruling highlights EC’s willingness to examine cross-shareholdings outside the context of merger control under Article 101 TFEU.

No-Poach Agreements in the Spotlight

This is the first fine issued by the EC against no-poach agreements, one year after the publication of its Policy Brief on Antitrust and Labour Markets.

• The clauses in question evolved from narrow reciprocal no-hire provisions to a broader agreement not to approach each other’s employees.
• While the EC qualified such provisions as restrictions “by object”, it remains to be seen whether all no-poach agreements will be treated equally strictly.

Practical Implications for Businesses

The Delivery Hero/Glovo decision signals a significant broadening of EU antitrust enforcement:

1. Minority Shareholdings = New Risk Factor: Considering that the EC highlighted how minority stakes can facilitate collusion (e.g. via board access, information flows), investors should anticipate stricter scrutiny outside merger control.
2. HR practices under antitrust scrutiny: Agreements between competitors restricting recruitment or hiring are now treated as hardcore cartels. Standard HR clauses (non-solicit, no-hire) may carry antitrust risk if not carefully framed.
3. Information Exchange Beyond Pricing: Even exchanges on operational or HR matters may be deemed sensitive. Informal discussions, WhatsApp chats, or industry group exchanges can raise red flags.
4. Expanded Compliance Needs: Competition law training should no longer focus only on sales/marketing. HR, Strategy, and Investment teams must be integrated into compliance programmes.

What Companies Should Do

• Audit HR agreements (employment contracts, shareholder agreements, JV docs) for restrictive covenants.
• Train HR & Management teams on competition law “dos and don’ts”.
• Review minority shareholding structures for potential competitive overlaps.
• Update compliance policies to include non-traditional risks (labour, data, information exchange).