Unfair competition: How to prove client poaching.

A former sales executive leaves the company after twelve years, and six months later the three most important clients migrate, one after another, to a newly formed company of which — coincidentally — the former executive is a partner. A strategic supplier receives a competitive offer from a party who, until a few weeks earlier, was a trusted employee. A competitor launches a product line suspiciously close to your upcoming price list, not yet made public.

These are not unfortunate market coincidences: they are the contemporary forms of unfair competition, a cause of action protected by art. 2598 c.c. and increasingly frequent in industrial districts with high competitive density such as Milan and Brianza. However, for the court, a manager’s intuition is insufficient: structured documentary evidence is required.

The most common forms of unfair competition

Not all commercially aggressive conduct constitutes a wrongdoing. Jurisprudence has drawn precise boundaries between legitimate competition and activities that, by exploiting improperly obtained information or violating contractual obligations, damage corporate assets. The cases that Arcadia Company documents most frequently for corporate law firms and HR divisions are four:

• Violation of the non‑compete covenant: former employees, agents or consultants bound by post‑contractual clauses under art. 2125 c.c. who — in breach of the signed agreement — resume activities in a sector or geographic area expressly excluded. We document the nature, duration and scope of the new professional activity.
• Unlawful poaching of clients: systematic commercial contacts directed at the portfolio of the former employer, carried out using confidential information — price lists, customized economic terms, renewal calendars — obtained during the prior employment relationship. We reconstruct the chronology of contacts, approach methods and channels used.
• Diversion of key resources: targeted recruitment of technical or commercial personnel aimed at extracting operational know‑how, often accompanied by the coordinated poaching of entire teams. We verify whether the move results from genuine individual choices or from a strategy orchestrated by the competitor.
• Theft of trade secrets: exfiltration of production processes, formulations, client databases, pricing strategies and any other informational asset protected under art. 98 of the Industrial Property Code. The investigation can combine physical observation and forensic analysis of corporate devices.

From suspicion to a legally admissible dossier

The real quality leap — for those who wish to act precautionarily or pursue a merits judgment — lies in moving from a well‑founded impression to an evidentiary file that withstands the judge’s scrutiny. This is where the difference between a makeshift investigation and one conducted by a structured investigative institute is decided.

Arcadia Company, certified ISO 9001:2015 and authorized under art. 134 TULPS, produces a dossier built to withstand defensive objections in civil, criminal and precautionary proceedings:

• Documented evidentiary chain: each observation is included in a chronological technical report signed by the investigation manager, accompanied by geolocated photographic material and technical statements usable by the party’s counsel in drafting motions under art. 700 c.p.c. or injunction actions.
• Compliance with the Workers' Statute and GDPR: every observation activity and every documentary acquisition respect the limits set by Law 300/1970, EU Regulation 2016/679 and the provisions of the Garante Privacy. Evidence obtained in violation of these rules is destined for nullity, undermining the entire defensive framework.
• Testimonial availability: our investigators are available to be examined in court to confirm what is attested in the dossier, a requirement often decisive in corporate disputes with high documentary intensity.

Operations from the heart of Lombardy’s productive hinterland

Arcadia Company’s headquarters at Piazza Don Mapelli 60, Sesto San Giovanni enables rapid interventions throughout the Milan North quadrant, the Cinisello Balsamo–Cologno Monzese axis, the entire province of Monza and Brianza and the production hubs of Vimercate and Agrate. It is an area where a very significant share of manufacturing, B2B services and Lombardy’s technology sector is concentrated — a terrain where unfair competition dynamics emerge more frequently than the national average.

Our “Km Zero” operational policy involves a budget fixed at the mandate stage, without surcharges for travel expenses in the territory and without unagreed post‑hoc cost items. Technical feasibility and the operational plan are assessed before the assignment begins, usually within 24–48 hours of the preliminary interview.

When market shares begin to erode without plausible commercial explanations, time becomes decisive: each week of inertia consolidates the position of the party stripping away value built over years of work. For a confidential preliminary assessment of an unfair competition scenario or to define a targeted intervention plan, you may contact our Corporate division directly. The initial interview is covered by professional secrecy and entails no commitment.