Commission fines Delivery Hero and Glovo 329 million for an online delivery cartel.

The Commission has fined Delivery Hero and Glovo, two large food delivery companies, a total amount of €329 million following their participation in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. In particular, the two companies (i) agreed not to take away each other’s employees; (ii) exchanged commercially sensitive information; and (iii) agreed to share geographic markets. The infringement covered the European Economic Area (EEA) and lasted four years. These cartels restrict supply to consumers and business partners, limit 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 in which the Commission has found the existence of a cartel in the labour market and the first time it has sanctioned the anti-competitive use of a minority shareholding in a competing company.

The infringement

Delivery Hero and Glovo are two of the largest food delivery companies in Europe. They deliver food (prepared by a restaurant or professional kitchen), groceries and other retail (non-food) products to customers who order them from an app or 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, between July 2018 and July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo progressively eliminated the existing competitive constraints between the two companies and replaced competition with anti-competitive coordination at several levels. In particular, the two companies agreed to:

• Non-recruitment of each other’s employees. The shareholders’ agreement signed when Delivery Hero acquired a non-controlling minority stake in Glovo included limited reciprocal non-recruitment clauses for certain employees. Shortly thereafter, this pact was extended to a general agreement not to actively approach each other’s employees.
• Exchanging commercially sensitive information. The exchange of commercially sensitive information (e.g. on commercial strategies, prices, capacity, costs and product characteristics) enabled the companies to coordinate and influence each other’s market behaviour.
• Sharing of geographic markets: In particular, the two companies agreed to share the national markets for online food delivery in the EEA, eliminating all existing geographic overlaps between them, avoiding entry into each other’s national markets and coordinating which of them should enter markets where neither of them was yet present.

All of the above 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 particular case it facilitated anti-competitive contacts between the two competing companies at various levels. It also enabled Delivery Hero to gain access to commercially sensitive information and to influence Glovo’s decision-making processes and ultimately align the respective business strategies of the two companies. This demonstrates that horizontal cross-ownership between competitors may increase the risks of non-compliance with competition rules and should be treated with care.

The Commission has found that the three anti-competitive practices form a single and continuous infringement, which is EEA-wide and constitutes 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 Fining Guidelines. In setting the fines, the Commission took into account a number of elements, including the multi-faceted nature of the cartel, the fact that it was EEA-wide, its overall duration and the evolution of the cartel over time, with periods of reduced intensity. In addition, the Commission applied a standard reduction of 10 % to the fines, in line with the Commission’s 2008 Leniency Notice, as both undertakings acknowledged their participation in the cartel and admitted their liability.

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

• Delivery Hero SE: EUR 223 285 000
• Glovoapp23 SA: EUR 105 732 000

Background

The parties

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

Glovo, based in Spain, is also a company operating in the food delivery sector. It is currently present in more than 20 countries worldwide, of which 8 are located in the EEA.

In July 2022, Delivery Hero acquired a majority stake in Glovo and Glovo became a subsidiary of Delivery Hero.

The investigation

Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement prohibit agreements and other restrictive business practices which 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 Commission’s own-initiative investigation into possible collusion in the food delivery sector was launched following a market monitoring exercise, itself prompted by information received from a national competition authority and through the anonymous whistleblower tool. The investigation was formally launched in July 2024.

This investigation is part of the Commission’s efforts to ensure consumers a wide choice and reasonable prices when purchasing food. In a young and dynamic market such as the online grocery delivery sector, where operators often try to lead the market or leave it if they fail, anti-competitive agreements and restrictive business practices, in particular market-sharing cartels, can lead to hidden market consolidation, with possible negative effects on competition.

This research also contributes to ensuring a fair labour market in which employers do not pact to limit the number and quality of opportunities for workers, but compete for talent.

More information on this case will be available under the 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 the settlement procedure in a cartel case, the parties acknowledge their participation in the cartel and their liability for it. They also accept the maximum amount of the fine that the Commission intends to impose. Settlement procedures in cartel cases are based on Regulation 1/2003 and allow the Commission to apply a simplified and shortened procedure to the benefit of consumers and taxpayers, as they reduce costs. They also contribute to the enforcement of antitrust law, as these procedures free up resources. Finally, the parties themselves benefit from speedier decision-making and a 10% reduction in fines. Today’s decision is the 44th settlement since the introduction of this cartel procedure.

Leniency programme

The Commission’s leniency programme offers companies the opportunity to disclose their participation in a cartel and to cooperate with the Commission during the investigation. A successful application either avoids a potentially heavy fine altogether or reduces the fine considerably. More information on the Commission’s leniency programme, including a Frequently Asked Questions document, can be found here.

Anonymous whistleblowing tool

The Commission has developed a tool that makes it easier for individuals or companies to report anti-competitive behaviour while maintaining anonymity. This tool protects the anonymity of whistleblowers through an encrypted messaging system specifically designed to allow two-way communication. The tool can be accessed through this link.

Actions for damages

Any person or undertaking affected by the anti-competitive behaviour described in this case may bring an action for damages before the courts of the Member States. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Council Regulation 1/2003 confirm that, in cases before national courts, a Commission decision constitutes binding proof that the behaviour has taken place and is illegal. The fact that the Commission has imposed fines on the companies involved does not preclude national courts from also awarding damages, without any reduction of damages as a result of the imposition of fines by the Commission.

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

More information: European Commission