Curbing anti-competitive conduct in UK labour markets

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (‟CMA”) is making it abundantly clear that anti-competitive conduct in labour markets is not only within its enforcement remit, but a strategic priority. Following its 2023 publication of guidance and initiation of several high-profile investigations, we now have clearer signals of how the regulator is tackling collusion in freelance-heavy and service-based sectors. This article follows up on Crefovi’s earlier analysis ‟Competition law & labour markets: the CMA springs into action” and provides an update on three key cases, as well as practical takeaways for UK employers.

1. Sports broadcasting investigation: first infringement decision

On 21 March 2025, the CMA issued a landmark infringement decision against five major broadcasters and production companies: the BBC, BT, ITV, IMG and Sky [CMA Decision: Case 51156, ‟Anti-competitive behaviour relating to the purchase of freelance services supporting the production and broadcasting of sports content”].

The decision found that between March 2014 and October 2021, these companies participated in 15 separate infringements by exchanging competitively sensitive information about freelancer pay rates. Each of these exchanges was found to have the object of restricting competition, constituting a breach of Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. The CMA imposed fines totalling £4.2 million, though Sky received full immunity for its leniency application in 2021 [CMA Decision, para. 1.2; 6.B.VII].

Notably, the CMA held that even informal email or WhatsApp discussions between competitors about pay rates could constitute a concerted practice with anti-competitive object [Decision, para. 4.8(c) and (e)]. This marks the first formal decision by the CMA applying competition law to labour market conduct.

2. TV production (non-sports): investigation closed without findings

A parallel investigation, launched in 2023, examined potential collusion in the market for freelance and employed labour supporting the production of non-sports television content. The CMA sent notices of investigation to a number of production houses, including Hartswood Films, Tiger Aspect, Sister Pictures, and Hat Trick Productions.

However, in March 2025, the CMA closed this investigation without a finding of infringement, citing “administrative priorities” [CMA Case 51226, Closure Notice dated 21 March 2025]. While this may suggest limited evidence or resource constraints, the CMA was clear in its public statements that it reserves the right to reopen the case if further evidence emerges.

3. Fragrance suppliers: an expanding probe into no-poach practices

The third and still ongoing case relates to fragrance suppliers, where the CMA is investigating suspected collusion among Firmenich, Givaudan and IFF in the supply of fragrance and fragrance ingredients to manufacturers.

Initially opened in March 2023, this investigation was expanded in January 2024 to include potential no-poach and recruitment coordination practices among the firms [CMA Case 51257, Fragrances & Fragrance Ingredients: Case Page]. Symrise, initially under investigation, was dropped from the case in May 2025 following reprioritisation. The CMA is working in coordination with the European Commission, the US Department of Justice, and the Swiss Competition Commission.

If proven, such no-poach agreements would constitute a breach of competition law by reducing job mobility and depressing wages. The CMA has indicated that it may issue a Statement of Objections—a formal notice setting out its provisional findings and allegations of infringement—in due course.

4. Lessons from the CMA’s labour market cases (so far)

Several practical insights can be drawn from these cases:

Labour market collusion is a serious offence: The CMA now treats wage-fixing and no-poach agreements as by-object infringements, placing them in the same category as price-fixing or market-sharing [CMA Decision, Chapter 3.11-3.24].

Freelance and creative sectors are in the spotlight: The CMA is targeting sectors with high concentrations of freelance workers, limited transparency, and historic informal practices.

Freelance and creative sectors are in the spotlight: The CMA is targeting sectors with high concentrations of freelance workers, limited transparency, and historic informal practices.

Informality is no defence: WhatsApp messages, casual calls, and informal emails can still be evidence of a concerted practice if they reduce uncertainty and replace competition.

Self-reporting can significantly reduce penalties: Sky avoided all penalties through its Type A leniency application; others (IMG, ITV, BT) received discounts under Type C leniency and settlement mechanisms [Decision, 6.C.VI].

5. What’s next for the CMA? Anticipating further action

The CMA’s Annual Plan 2024/25 confirmed that ‟ensuring that people are paid fairly for their work” remains a key enforcement priority. We expect:

Further investigations in the live events, music, advertising, and design sectors.

Publication of updated guidance on competition risks in labour markets, building on its February 2023 ‟Statement on Competition and Labour Markets”.

Collaboration with international regulators to align enforcement standards.

Employers in the creative industries should assume that informal benchmarking, no-hire pacts, or coordinated rate cards are now high-risk conduct under UK competition law.

6. Compliance guidance for UK employers to avoid anti-competitive conduct in UK labour markets

To reduce legal risk, UK employers—particularly those in the media, fashion, design, and tech sectors—should:

Avoid sharing pay or rate information with competitors.

Implement clear internal protocols on how rate cards or salaries are set.

Train HR, production, and management teams on competition law risks.

Review and update contracts to ensure they do not contain clauses that restrict recruitment or poaching.

Consider CMA’s leniency policy if past conduct might have breached competition law.

The CMA’s activity in the labour markets is not symbolic—it is substantive and widening. These early cases serve as both warning and roadmap. Businesses in the UK must move decisively to audit their employment practices and communication habits, or risk the reputational and financial consequences of competition law breaches. We will continue to monitor developments, particularly the outcome of the fragrance case and any new investigations.