Business investigations
Non-compete violation: prove it, stop it
A former employee or partner is operating where they undertook not to? We establish their actual activity and its location, the two keys to the litigation, with evidence admissible before the French labour court or commercial court.
A non-compete clause is only worth what can be proven of its breach. The person rarely operates in the open: shell company, business in a relative’s name, “informal” services. Our investigation pierces those arrangements with facts, observed activity, clients approached, territory breached, precisely dated.
Which arrangements do we see most often?
Four classics: a company created in the spouse’s or a relative’s name; a “consultant” role at the competitor masking a real position; identical activity based just outside the restricted territory but served inside it; and the parallel poaching of clients and colleagues, often the real damage.
Each arrangement has its signature. The shell company betrays itself through operating facts: who opens, who delivers, who signs. The “consultant” is documented through recurring presence and visibly exercised functions. Territory breaches are established by the real location of the services, not the registered office. As for poaching, our investigation cross-checks with your own internal findings (grouped departures, clients lost to the same player). See also unfair competition, the complementary basis when the clause is weak.
What evidence wins before the labour or commercial court?
Three dated elements: the actual activity (nature of the functions or services), its location within the restricted territory, and its timing during the restriction period. Our findings, observations, recurring presence, public operating elements, establish them fairly, the condition of their admissibility.
Proportionality governs the method: monitoring a former employee is justified by the company’s legitimate interest but must stay focused on professional activity, never private life. That framework (settled case law since 1962, art. 9 CPC) is precisely what makes our reports filable as is. Depending on the basis your counsel picks, enforced performance, damages, cessation under penalty, the file emphasises the breach’s continuity or the loss.
| Element to prove | How we establish it | Typical basis |
|---|---|---|
| Actual competing activity | Dated observations, public operating elements | Breach of the clause |
| Location within the territory | Findings on the real places of service | Geographic scope of the clause |
| Restriction period | Chronology of findings | Timing of the breach |
| Client/staff poaching | Cross-checks with internal findings | Unfair competition (art. 1240 Civil Code) |
Should you act fast, and through which procedure?
Yes: every week of breach entrenches the competitor with your clients. Interim proceedings can quickly obtain cessation under penalty where the breach is manifest, and it is our report that makes that manifest character demonstrable. The action on the merits then quantifies the loss.
The winning sequence we see most often: a tight two-to-three-week investigation establishing the manifest breach, interim relief stopping the activity, then a negotiation or full action backed by the file. Conversely, waiting to “learn more” by your own means forfeits the benefit of interim relief and lets the damage settle in. The initial consultation with your counsel calibrates the assignment to the targeted procedure.
What if the clause is weak or absent?
The ground shifts to unfair competition (art. 1240 of the Civil Code): mass poaching, client-file misappropriation, denigration, parasitism. The facts we document are largely the same, only the legal basis changes, and your lawyer often pleads both.
An underrated strategic point: many employers give up because the clause is badly drafted, lacks financial consideration or is too broad. Yet the former employee breaching a weak clause frequently commits, in the same movement, perfectly actionable acts of unfair competition. Our investigation documents the facts without prejudging the basis; your counsel then picks the strongest angle. For associated data theft, see the cyber/OSINT side.
How much does it cost?
Our assignments start at €85/hour (excl. VAT) (full day €850, volume discounts). Every case gets a free written quote before any commitment, no hidden fees.
A typical non-compete file is documented in two to four weeks of sessions targeted at the person’s professional activity. Set that budget against the client portfolio the breach erodes every week.
Frequently asked questions
Can a former employee be followed?
He operates through a company in his partner’s name: what then?
How long until the file is usable?
Is the report enough, or do we need a bailiff’s official report?
What if the breach happens outside Paris or abroad?
Go further
Related pages
A doubt, a situation to clarify?
First consultation free and confidential. We reply 7 days a week.