Skip to content
Sun. Jun 22nd, 2025
Image showing the three infringements by Delivery Hero and Glovo
How Delivery Hero and Glovo infringed EU competition law. Source: EU Commission

Brussels, 2 June 2025

The EU Commission has 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. In particular, the two companies

  1. agreed not to poach each other’s employees;
  2. exchanged commercially sensitive information; and
  3. allocated geographic markets.

The infringement covered the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) and lasted four years. Cartels like this reduce choice for consumers and business partners, reduce opportunities for employees and reduce incentives to compete and innovate.

Both companies admitted their involvement in the cartel and agreed to settle the case. This is the first decision where the Commission finds a cartel in the labour market and the first time it sanctions the anti-competitive use of a minority share in a competing business.

The infringement

Delivery Hero and Glovo are two of the largest food delivery companies in Europe. They deliver food (prepared by a restaurant or a professional kitchen), grocery and other retail (non-food) products to customers ordering from an app or a website.

In July 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a minority non-controlling stake in Glovo and progressively increased this stake through subsequent investments. In July 2022, Delivery Hero acquired sole control of Glovo.

The Commission has found that, from July 2018 until July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo progressively removed competitive constraints between the two companies and replaced competition with multi-layered anticompetitive coordination. In particular, the two companies agreed:

  • Not to poach each other’s employees. The shareholders’ agreement signed at the time Delivery Hero acquired a minority non-controlling stake in Glovo included limited reciprocal no-hire clauses for certain employees. Shortly thereafter this arrangement was expanded to a general agreement not to actively approach each other’s employees.
  • To exchange commercially sensitive information. Exchanging commercially sensitive information (e.g., on commercial strategies, prices, capacity, costs and product characteristics) enabled the companies to align and influence their respective market conduct.
  • To allocate geographic markets. In particular, the two companies agreed to divide among themselves the national markets for online food delivery in the EEA, by removing all existing geographic overlaps between them, by avoiding entry into their respective national markets, and by coordinating which of them should enter in markets where neither was present yet.

All the abovementioned practices were facilitated by Delivery Hero’s minority shareholding in Glovo. Owning a stake in a competitor is not in itself illegal, but in this specific case it enabled anti-competitive contacts between the two rival companies at several levels. It also allowed Delivery Hero to obtain access to commercially sensitive information and to influence decision-making processes in Glovo, and ultimately to align the two companies’ respective business strategies. This shows that horizontal cross-ownership between competitors may raise antitrust risks and should be handled carefully.

The Commission has considered that the three anti-competitive practices constitute a single and continuous infringement, covering the EEA and amounting to an infringement by object under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

Fines

The fines imposed on both companies were set on the basis of the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on fines. In setting the fines, the Commission considered various elements, including the multifaceted nature of the cartel, the fact that it covered the entire EEA, its overall duration, and the cartel’s evolution over time, with periods of lesser cartel intensity. In addition, the Commission applied a standard reduction of 10% to the fines, in line with the Commission’s 2008 Settlement Notice, as both companies acknowledged their participation in the cartel and their liability.

The breakdown of the fines imposed on each party is as follows:

  • Delivery Hero SE: €223 285 000
  • Glovoapp23 SA: €105 732 000
The parties

Delivery Hero, headquartered in Germany, is a company active in the food delivery business. It is currently present in more than 70 countries worldwide, of which 16 are situated in the EEA. It partners with hundreds of thousands of restaurants. Delivery Hero is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

Glovo, headquartered in Spain, is also a company active in the food delivery business. It is currently present in more than 20 countries around the globe, of which 8 are situated in the EEA.

In July 2022, Delivery Hero acquired the majority of Glovo’s shares, and Glovo became Delivery Hero’s subsidiary.

The investigation

Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement prohibit agreements and other restrictive business practices that may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition within the Single Market.

In June 2022 and November 2023, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of Delivery Hero and Glovo. The investigation was a Commission’s own-initiative inquiry into possible collusion in the food delivery sector that was launched following a market monitoring exercise, which itself had been prompted by information received from a national competition authority and via the anonymous whistleblower tool. The investigation was formally opened in July 2024.

This investigation has been a part of the Commission’s efforts to ensure choice and reasonable prices for consumers’ grocery shopping. In a young and dynamic market such as the online food delivery sector where operators often seek to lead or else quit the market, anticompetitive agreements and restrictive business practices, in particular market allocation cartels, may lead to hidden market consolidation, with potential negative effects on competition.

This investigation also contributes to ensuring a fair labour market where employers do not collude to limit the number and quality of opportunities for workers but compete for talent.

More information on this case will be available under case number AT.40795 in the public case register on the Commission’s competition website once confidentiality issues have been resolved. For more information on the Commission’s action against cartels, see its cartels website.

The settlement procedure

The settlement procedure for cartels was introduced in June 2008. In a cartel settlement, parties acknowledge their participation in a cartel and their liability for it. They also accept the maximum amount of the fine which the Commission intends to impose. Cartel settlements are based on Regulation 1/2003, and allow the Commission to apply a simplified and shortened procedure. This benefits consumers and taxpayers as it reduces costs. It also benefits antitrust enforcement as it frees up resources. Finally, the parties themselves benefit in terms of quicker decisions and a 10% reduction in fines. Today’s decision is the 44th settlement since the introduction of this procedure for cartels.

Leniency programme

The Commission’s leniency programme gives companies the opportunity to disclose their participation in a cartel and cooperate with the Commission during an investigation. A successful leniency applicant will either completely avoid a potentially high fine or receive a substantial reduction from it. Further information about the Commission’s leniency programme, including a Frequently Asked Questions document, can be found here.

Whistleblower tool

The Commission has set up a tool to make it easier for individuals or companies to alert it about anticompetitive behaviour while maintaining their anonymity. This tool protects whistleblowers’ anonymity through a specifically designed encrypted messaging system that allows two-way communications. The tool is accessible via this link.

Action for damages

Any person or company affected by the anti-competitive behaviour described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Council Regulation 1/2003 both confirm that in cases before national courts, a Commission decision constitutes binding proof that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Even though the Commission has fined the companies concerned, damages may be awarded by national courts without being reduced on account of the Commission fine.

The Antitrust Damages Directive makes it easier for victims of anti-competitive practices to obtain damages. More information on antitrust damages actions, including a practical guide on how to quantify antitrust harm, is available here.

Today, we fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of €329 million for participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. The parties agreed not to poach each other’s employees, exchanged insight information, and allocated geographic markets within the EEA. This case is important because these practices were facilitated through an anticompetitive use of Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo. It is also the first time the Commission is sanctioning a no-poach agreement, where companies stop competing for the best talent and reduce opportunities for workers.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition

Source – EU Commission

 


Remarks by Executive Vice-President Ribera on the adoption of a cartel settlement decision against Delivery Hero and Glovo

Brussels, 2 June 2025

Today the Commission has adopted a decision stating that Delivery Hero and Glovo have infringed EU competition rules by participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. In this decision, the Commission also fines the companies a total of EUR  329 million.

Both companies, which are well-known brands in this sector, admitted their participation in the cartel and agreed to settle the case.

The importance of this case is that this is the first time that the Commission is fining companies over a “no-poach agreement”. These are agreements where the companies agree not to hire or solicit each other’s employees.

This is also the first decision that shows how companies can misuse a small stake in a rival company for anti-competitive reasons. And importantly, today’s decision shows once again that competition rules matter to citizens’ daily life.

These rules matter because they sanction anticompetitive conducts relating to the meals that we order on our apps, and to our online grocery shopping.

These are rules that also matter to citizens as employees. They help us ensure a fair labour market. A market where employers compete for talent and do not collude to limit the number and quality of opportunities for workers.

In other words, this investigation shows that competition rules aren’t just about keeping prices down. They also protect our freedom to choose, including where we want to work.

Allow me to tell you a bit more about this case.

In July 2018, Delivery Hero acquired a minority non-controlling stake in Glovo. Over time, that stake grew. Ultimately, the two formed one company when Glovo became a subsidiary of Delivery Hero in July 2022.

The relationship created by the minority stake provided the two companies with a channel to coordinate their operations and strategies.

The investigation showed that the parties’ used this channel to align their business strategies and exchange commercially sensitive information.

They exchanged sensitive information beyond what was needed for a corporate investor to protect a financial investment decision.

Of course, owning a stake in a competitor is not illegal in itself. But it may be problematic when that stake is used to gain insight information and influence decisions in ways that can harm competition.

The investigation showed that the cartel included three interlinked illegal practices. All these practices are prohibited under Article 101 of the Treaty.

The first practice is an agreement/concerted practice not to hire or actively approach each other’s employees (the so called “no-poach agreement”).

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. This covered all employees, but not the riders.

These types of no-poach agreements are a form of purchasing cartel. In such a cartel, the companies restrict competition for a specific input, in this case the input is labour.

In other words, companies stop directly competing for workers. This is not good for workers, as it is the type of agreement that suppresses wages and reduces labour mobility.

In the same way, they prevent workers from moving where they can contribute most effectively to the economy. Therefore, no-poach agreements can also be bad for the affected sector, as they may have a negative impact also on productivity and innovation.

The second infringement concerns exchanges of commercially sensitive information. Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo allowed the development of a close relationship between the executive teams of the two companies.

These ties went beyond what was required by Delivery Hero’s monitoring of its financial investment in Glovo.  This resulted in sharing of documents, including strategy papers, and holding meetings to share knowledge.

The information exchanged included data concerning current pricing and future pricing intentions. It also included current or future commercial strategies, including new offers.

The exchanges of this commercially sensitive information were two-sided. They enabled the companies to align and influence their respective conduct on the market.

Basically, instead of competing because of the uncertainty around their respective market behaviours, the two companies sought to remain in a “comfort zone” with no incentives to improve the quality or prices of their services.

The third infringement concerns how Delivery Hero and Glovo divided among themselves the national markets for online food delivery in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’).

Delivery Hero used its role as a shareholder to convince Glovo to share markets in the EEA in two ways: (i)  directly, by using or threatening to use its approval rights over specific decisions, and (ii) indirectly, by influencing other Glovo shareholders.

In particular, the investigation showed that:

The companies discussed and agreed which of them would enter markets where neither had a presence. They also refrained from entering national markets where the other was present.

They removed their geographic overlaps by selling to each other their businesses in certain markets. This means that in a number of EEA countries, if consumers were hoping to compare the products and prices in the Delivery Hero app and the Glovo app, they would not be able to do so.

Based on the links between these three behaviours, the Commission sees them as a single and continuous infringement the case that I have just descried. This lasted 4 years, between July 2018 and July 2022, and covered the whole EEA.

Our decision fines Delivery Hero approximately EUR 223 million and Glovo EUR 106 million. Both companies settled the investigation. This means that they admitted the infringement and their responsibility. At the same time, they waived certain procedural rights, leading to a speedier and streamlined decision.

In exchange for settling the case, their fines were reduced by the standard 10%.

Today’s decision shows our determination to taking actions against all forms of cartels.

It also shows our willingness to have an active role in this consumer-facing sector. Consumers should have the benefits of competition when ordering meals or groceries online.

We want to stress once again that horizontal minority-ownership between competitors may raise risks if it facilitates anti-competitive conducts.

Moving forward, we will continue to closely monitor potential anti-competitive business practices in consumer facing industries.

As you know, as we have repeated in many occasions, our objective is to ensure that effective competition is maintained to benefit European consumers and companies that compete fairly to serve them.

Thank you.

Source – EU Commission

 


Statement by Delivery Hero: Delivery Hero resolves European Commission investigation with settlement, reinforces commitment to compliance

Berlin, June 2, 2025

Delivery Hero today confirmed it has reached a settlement agreement with the European Commission on an antitrust investigation. This settlement pertains to the inspection that began in June 2022 which focused on agreements to allocate geographic markets, exchanges of commercially sensitive information and no-poach agreements between Delivery Hero and Glovo in the EEA prior to Delivery Hero’s acquisition of Glovo.

Delivery Hero has fully cooperated with the European Commission throughout the investigation. The settlement agreement, which includes a fine of 329 million euros, formally concludes the process.

Delivery Hero had previously set aside a provision of 400 million euros for the investigation. The final settlement amount of 329 million euros is nearly 20% lower than anticipated, and reflects, among other things, that the Commission acknowledged a lower intensity of the issues investigated for some periods. The remaining provision will be released and normalized through management adjustments without impacting the company’s Adjusted EBITDA for the period.

Today’s settlement allows Delivery Hero to address the European Commission’s concerns while allowing stakeholders to move on swiftly. Delivery Hero reiterates its commitment to continuing a culture of compliance throughout its organization and operating in a responsible and ethical manner in the highly competitive industry in which it operates.

Delivery Hero is the world’s leading local delivery platform, operating its service in around 70 countries across Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. The Company started as a food delivery service in 2011 and today runs its own delivery platform on four continents. Additionally, Delivery Hero is pioneering quick commerce, the next generation of e-commerce, aiming to bring groceries and household goods to customers in under one hour and often in 20 to 30 minutes. Headquartered in Berlin, Germany, Delivery Hero has been listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange since 2017 and is part of the MDAX stock market index.

For more information, please visit www.deliveryhero.com

 

Forward to your friends
Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner