Yes, gig workers can sue over no-poach agreements. A no-poach agreement is a pact between businesses that compete for labor not to hire, recruit, or set pay against each other. Those pacts can lower pay and block moves to better jobs. Coverage now reaches beyond payroll employees to contractors who find work through platforms.
Table of Contents
- What makes a no-poach deal illegal?
- Are gig contractors counted as workers?
- How can a worker sue and what can be recovered?
- Have similar worker cases led to payouts?
- What are the limits and what should you do now?
What makes a no-poach deal illegal?
Naked no-poach and wage-fixing pacts between labor-market competitors are treated as per se unlawful under Sherman Act Section 1. Per se means the court does not balance possible justifications. The same conduct can draw criminal prosecution, according to analysis from Crowell & Moring in its summary of the 2025 worker guidelines.
That risk applies when rivals agree directly, not when one business acts alone. A related business rule, such as a confidentiality or training rule, is different. The illegal core is an agreement with a competitor about hiring or pay.
Are gig contractors counted as workers?
Yes. The January 2025 DOJ and FTC worker guidelines expressly define worker to include independent contractors such as gig-platform workers. The American Bar Association explains that definition in its recap of the DOJ-FTC labor guidance.
That language matters for drivers, couriers, shoppers, cleaners, and other app-based earners. A platform cannot defeat a claim only by calling the person a contractor. The worker still must show an agreement between competitors. Parallel low pay, without proof of a pact, is not enough.
How can a worker sue and what can be recovered?
An injured worker's private remedy comes from Clayton Act Section 4. It lets any person harmed by an antitrust violation sue in federal court. Recovery can include trebled damages plus attorney's fees, as described by Mahler Law in its guide to private treble-damage actions.
Trebling means the proven loss is multiplied by three. Many cases proceed as class or collective claims because the same pact may affect many workers. A filing must still link the worker's lost pay or lost move to the restraint.
Have similar worker cases led to payouts?
Franchise workers have already used that route. McDonald's litigated franchise no-poach claims filed in 2017 until a December 2024 settlement, after ending the clauses, according to HR Dive in its report on the end of the McDonald's saga. A former Jimmy John's worker settled franchise no-poach claims in September 2021, Law360 UK reported.
Seven fast-food chains dropped hiring-restriction clauses in a 2018 Washington attorney-general settlement, Franchise Times reported. Government enforcement backs the same theory. In April 2025 a Las Vegas jury convicted home-health executive Eduardo Lopez of wage-fixing under Sherman Act Section 1, reported by NYU Compliance and Enforcement, in DOJ's first such trial conviction.
What are the limits and what should you do now?
Criminal no-poach cases often fail. NYU Compliance and Enforcement notes acquittals in Patel in 2023, Jindal in 2022, and DaVita in 2022, plus dismissal of the Surgical Care Affiliates indictment, so private civil suits carry much of the deterrence.
Workers also should rely on antitrust suits and state law rather than a federal ban. Duane Morris reported that the FTC dropped appeals defending its 2024 nationwide noncompete rule in September 2025 and now pursues restraints case by case. If you suspect a pact, preserve proof and get legal advice quickly:.
- save pay screens, offers, deactivations, and messages about moves or rates
- write down who said hiring was blocked, when, and by whom
- keep records across platforms to show lost jobs or suppressed pay
- ask an antitrust or employment lawyer about deadlines before contacting a platform