LEGAL DIGEST

ANTITRUST REGULATION

JULY 2026

AGENDA

EU
China
Russia
EAEU
Contacts

DELIVERY HERO / GLOVO – EUROPEAN COMMISSION DECISION ON ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT IN THE LABOUR MARKET

Background

The online food delivery sector has experienced significant growth in recent years and is characterised by intense competition for customers, market share and qualified employees. Against this backdrop, relationships between competing platform operators have increasingly attracted the attention of competition authorities, particularly where cooperation arrangements may have the effect of restricting competition.

The European Commission investigated the conduct of the food delivery companies Delivery Hero and Glovo. By decision of 2 June 2025, the Commission imposed fines totalling EUR 329 million on the two companies. According to the Commission, Delivery Hero and Glovo infringed Article 101 TFEU over a number of years by unlawfully restricting competition both in the food delivery market and in the labour market.

In particular, the Commission identified three forms of anticompetitive conduct. First, the companies entered into a so-called "no-poach" agreement under which they agreed not to actively recruit each other's employees. Second, they exchanged competitively sensitive information, including information relating to business strategies, pricing, capacity and market conduct. Third, the companies coordinated their geographic expansion and market entry strategies in several European countries, thereby engaging in market allocation.

Particular significance was attached to the fact that Delivery Hero held a minority shareholding in Glovo prior to its full acquisition of the company. The Commission found that this corporate link was used to facilitate the exchange of competitively sensitive information and to reduce competitive pressure between the two platforms.

According to the Commission, these practices pursued the common objective of limiting competition between the parties and reducing competitive pressure in the relevant markets.

Development in competition law enforcement

The decision represents a significant milestone in European competition law enforcement. For the first time, the European Commission has expressly sanctioned anticompetitive agreements affecting the labour market, thereby confirming that labour market restrictions between competitors may fall within the scope of Article 101 TFEU.

Particularly noteworthy is the Commission's assessment of the no-poach agreement. While competition authorities in several jurisdictions have been scrutinising labour market restrictions for a number of years, the European Commission had not previously adopted a standalone decision addressing such arrangements. The decision now makes clear that agreements between competitors restricting employee mobility may constitute a distinct infringement of competition law.

According to the Commission, no-poach agreements restrict competition for skilled labour by limiting employees' opportunities to change employers and reducing competition for talent. Such restrictions may negatively affect wages, career opportunities and working conditions. The Commission emphasises that both employees and businesses benefit from effective competition and that competition law protection is not limited to traditional product or service markets.

The decision also highlights the competition law risks associated with information exchanges between competitors. Corporate shareholdings or strategic partnerships do not justify the exchange of competitively sensitive information where such exchanges undermine the parties' commercial independence. The Commission therefore reiterates the importance of maintaining strict safeguards around sensitive information and implementing effective compliance structures within corporate groups and shareholding agreements.

Consequences for companies

The Delivery Hero / Glovo decision marks another step towards a broader application of competition law and reflects an increasing focus by competition authorities on labour market restrictions. It demonstrates that enforcement efforts are not confined to traditional price-fixing, market-sharing or customer allocation arrangements, but will also encompass practices that restrict competition for employees.

For businesses, the decision underscores the need to review their compliance with competition law and to pay closer attention to labour market issues from a competition law perspective. In particular, agreements relating to recruitment practices, employment conditions or the exchange of workforce-related market information between competitors should be carefully assessed. The decision sends a clear signal that labour market restrictions are an important area of competition law enforcement across the European Union.

CHINA

SAMR INVESTIGATES ALLEGED ABUSE OF DOMINANT MARKET POSITION BY CTRIP GROUP

Background

The State Administration for Market Regulation of China ("SAMR") launched a special investigation into the online travel agency (OTA) sector after receiving numerous complaints from hotel and homestay merchants across the country over an extended period. The investigation focuses on whether Ctrip Group, a leading player in China’s online travel market, engaged in a series of practices that may constitute an abuse of dominant market position under the Anti-Monopoly Law of China. Ctrip and its affiliated platforms, including Qunar, reportedly account for approximately 56% to 70% of the domestic online hotel and travel service market, placing the group in a leading position within the industry.

Relevant merchants alleged that Ctrip adopted multiple measures restricting their operational autonomy, including requiring hotels and homestays to accept exclusive cooperation arrangements (the "either-or" practice), influencing merchant pricing through algorithm-based tools, unilaterally increasing platform commissions and imposing restrictive operating rules. Local market supervision authorities in various regions across China, including Yunnan Province, Guizhou Province and Zhengzhou Municipality, reportedly interviewed Ctrip on multiple occasions since 2025 regarding these concerns, although the effectiveness of the rectification measures remained subject to debate.

On 14 January 2026, SAMR officially opened an investigation into Ctrip Group for suspected abuse of dominant market position under the Anti-Monopoly Law and dispatched an investigation team to conduct on-site inspections at Ctrip’s headquarters and collect evidence from merchants, consumers and internal operating data.

Regulatory Implications

Building upon prior local regulatory actions, SAMR’s investigation reflects a broader antitrust review of platform business practices. According to publicly available information, the authority is examining whether practices such as the "either-or" requirement, algorithm-driven price intervention, traffic allocation mechanisms and unilateral commission increases may constitute an abuse of dominant market position under the Anti-Monopoly Law.

The investigation suggests that competition authorities may increasingly scrutinize platform operating rules, algorithm settings, traffic allocation mechanisms and commission structures. In particular, regulators appear to be focusing on whether platform operators use their technological capabilities, traffic advantages or market position in a manner that may restrict competition or impair merchants’ operational autonomy.

Should SAMR ultimately determine that violations have occurred, the Anti-Monopoly Law authorizes the authority to impose administrative penalties, including fines calculated on the basis of the undertaking’s turnover, and to order the cessation of unlawful conduct and implementation of corrective measures.

Rectification Actions of Ctrip and Follow-up Supervision Progress

Following the initiation of the investigation, Ctrip stated that it would fully cooperate with the regulatory review and actively implement rectification measures. The platform subsequently removed the special "Gold Medal" label that had attracted regulatory attention and discontinued the "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool, which had been criticized for potentially interfering with merchants’ pricing decisions.

However, subsequent feedback from merchants in Guangdong, Zhejiang, Yunnan and other regions suggested that certain concerns relating to traffic allocation mechanisms and pricing practices had not been fully resolved. These issues remain subject to further review and verification by the competent authorities.

As of the date of writing, the investigation remains ongoing and no final decision or administrative penalty has been announced by SAMR.

Conclusion

The investigation into Ctrip Group reflects China's continued focus on antitrust enforcement in the platform economy and signals heightened regulatory scrutiny of online travel service platforms. Although the outcome of the investigation remains uncertain, the case highlights the increasing attention being paid by competition authorities to platform governance, algorithm management, merchant relations and pricing mechanisms.

For platform operators with significant market positions, the case serves as a reminder to regularly review their business practices, platform rules and commercial arrangements from an antitrust compliance perspective. As China’s antitrust enforcement regime continues to evolve, compliance management is likely to remain a key regulatory priority for large digital platforms.

RUSSIA

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: ADMISSIBILITY OF CHALLENGING A CARTEL AS AN ANTI-SOCIAL TRANSACTION AND APPLYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS INVALIDITY

Background

A regional office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (hereinafter the "FAS Office") established that an anticompetitive cartel agreement (hereinafter the "cartel") had been created verbally between the participants in a state procurement. The actual conclusion of the cartel agreement was confirmed by a number of pieces of indirect evidence, in particular, the use of a single IP address, e-mail address, similar headcount, the financial connections of the participants, and the use of bad-faith antitrust practices. The FAS Office’s decision was declared legal and substantiated in court.

The region’s deputy prosecutor later filed a petition in court to have the cartel declared an invalid transaction concluded with a goal that was patently contrary to the principles of public policy and morality and to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction by recovering the illegal income generated by the agreement, in an amount exceeding RUB 314 million (EUR 3.8 million), jointly and severally from the respondents as state revenue.

Position of the lower courts

The courts dismissed the prosecutor’s petition, concluding that the wrong legal remedy had been selected to protect the infringed right, as a cartel is not a transaction, but an offence where the goal is not to create civil rights, but instead to gain a competitive advantage on a product market. A similar position had previously been expounded in 2024 in the ruling on a case by the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Russian Supreme Court.

New legal position of the Russian Supreme Court

Overturning the orders of the lower courts, the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases of the Russian Supreme Court clarified the following:

The legal classification of a cartel as a transaction is admissible, since the cartel between market participants was de facto realised through the conclusion of contracts which were executed at the expense of the state budget. The performance of contractual obligations adversely affected public interest, inter alia, in connection with the ineffective expenditure of budget funds and distortions to the competitive environment.
The income from the concluded state contracts is illegal, and the prosecutor’s office is accordingly authorised to take measures to recover such income by challenging the cartel as a transaction concluded with a goal that contravenes the principles of public policy.
The joint and several recovery of income is admissible, taking into account the concerted practices, shared intent, and common illegal goal of the cartel’s participants.

Conclusion

This position of the Russian Supreme Court represents a materially greater severity in the state’s approach to countering cartels. Antitrust compliance is increasingly significant for the participants of state procurements, given the risk of the joint and several recovery of income in favour of the state even if the contract has been performed.

EAEU

COURT OF THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION: BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING COMPETITION AND THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION

Background

From 2019 to 2022 an individual entrepreneur sent the Russian and Kazakhstani distributors of the products of a Belarusian company a series of claims that sales of water-purification chemicals with a disputed trademark were illegal. In 2024 in Decision No. 94, the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (the "Board") ruled that the entrepreneur’s actions amounted to unfair competition in the form of the dissemination of false, inaccurate, or distorted information that could cause losses to or harm the business reputation of a competitor.

The entrepreneur filed a claim with the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, asking that the Board’s Decision be found in violation of the EAEU Treaty. The EAEU Court issued a decision on 23 December 2024 dismissing the claim. The Court concluded that the entrepreneur’s actions were aimed at obtaining advantages by disseminating information discrediting a competitor. The entrepreneur disagreed with this decision and filed an appeal with the Chamber of Appeal of the EAEU Court.

Position of the Chamber of Appeal of the EAEU Court

The Chamber of Appeal overturned the decision of the Judicial Panel of the EAEU Court and granted the petition, stating as follows:

the entrepreneur sent the claims with the aim of complying with the mandatory pre-action procedure and subsequently exercising their right to effective judicial protection;
the conclusions finding signs of unfair competition were made without any reliable evidence that the entrepreneur’s actions were in fact aimed at obtaining unjustified advantages and at inflicting harm on the business reputation of the Belarusian company.

Dissenting opinion of a judge of the Chamber of Appeal

A dissenting judge asserted that the decision of the Judicial Panel of the EAEU Court should be upheld unchanged, emphasising that the obligation to follow the pre-action procedure for dispute resolution did not in itself constitute grounds and did not create the right for a person to disseminate false, inaccurate or distorted information that was not corroborated lawfully regarding the performance by competitors of unlawful actions, if this information became known to third parties, and was also aimed at obtaining advantages in business activity.

Conclusion