On 2 June 2025, the European Commission (EC) fined Delivery Hero and Glovo, two major food delivery companies, a total of €329 million for participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector.
The infringement
In July 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a minority non-controlling stake in Glovo and progressively increased this stake through subsequent investments. In July 2022, the two became one company when Delivery Hero acquired sole control of Glovo.
The relationship created by the minority stake provided a channel through which the two companies could coordinate their operations and strategies. In fact, the EC found that, from July 2018 until July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo “progressively replaced competitive constraints between themselves with multi-layered anticompetitive coordination.” The investigation showed that the cartel gave rise to three infringements of EU competition law:
1. Not to poach each other’s employees
The original shareholders' agreements included reciprocal no-hire clauses for certain employees. A few months later the companies also reached a general agreement not to actively solicit each other's employees. These types of no-poach agreements stop companies competing for workers which in turn can suppress wages and reduce labour mobility. In the same way, they can prevent workers from moving to where they contribute most effectively to the economy, thereby negatively impacting productivity and innovation.
2. To exchange commercially sensitive information
Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo allowed the development of a close relationship between the two companies. Executive Vice-President Ribera remarked that “these ties went beyond what was required by Delivery Hero's monitoring of its financial investment in Glovo.” They resulted in the sharing of information, including data concerning pricing and commercial strategies. Subsequently, the companies were able to “align and influence their respective conduct on the market.”
3. To allocate geographic markets
Delivery Hero used its role as a shareholder to convince Glovo to divide among themselves the national markets for online food delivery in the EEA. Namely, the two companies removed all existing geographic overlaps between them, avoided entry into their respective national markets, and coordinated which of them should enter in markets where neither was present yet. This meant that consumers were unable to compare the products and prices in the Delivery Hero app and the Glovo app.
Both companies acknowledged their involvement in the cartel and admitted the infringement. In return for settling the case, their fines were reduced by the standard 10% to approximately €223 million for Delivery Hero and €106 million for Glovo.
What this means
This case sets an important precedent. It’s the first case of EC antitrust enforcement concerning how companies can misuse a minority stake to harm competition. Executive vice-president Ribera specifically stressed that “horizontal minority-ownership between competitors may raise risks if it facilitates anti-competitive conducts.” It is also the first time the EC has found a cartel in a labour market.
This case therefore serves as a reminder that:
The holding of a minority stake in a competitor can raise material competition risks. Information rights in particular require careful assessment and compliance measures should be put into place to ensure that the holding of a minority stake does not result in an unlawful exchange of commercially sensitive information or enable unlawful co-ordination of commercial conduct.
Competition issues in labour markets remain a “live” issue for competition authorities. Companies should understand how the competition rules apply to how they attract, hire and retain employees, and implement appropriate governance measures such as training and guidance.
Critically, this case shows the willingness of the EC to have an active role in ecommerce and consumer-facing industries. A strong focus is put on the fact that consumers should be able to order meals and groceries online in a market that benefits from competition, and employers should not have the power to limit the number and quality of opportunities for workers. In other words, it shows that “competition rules aren't just about keeping prices down; they also protect our freedom to choose, including where we want to work.”
How can we help
Navigating competition law issues can be complex. Implementing robust compliance programs and regularly reviewing practices can help protect companies against these risks. Similarly, companies should also implement steps to ensure that they understand their obligations under competition law.
Mills & Reeve’s competition team has extensive experience advising organisations, either on their governance and compliance procedures generally or on specific areas of concern. We have provided board and member level competition compliance training in diverse sectors.
If you have any specific questions or need further guidance, we’d be delighted to hear from you.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.