July 30th, 2024

FTC Wins Round Two in Its Non-Compete Ban Defense

The FTC aims to ban non-compete agreements, facing legal challenges. A Texas court questioned its authority, while a Pennsylvania court affirmed it. Further rulings are anticipated as the effective date approaches.

Read original articleLink Icon
FTC Wins Round Two in Its Non-Compete Ban Defense

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is attempting to ban nearly all employee non-compete agreements in the U.S. Following the issuance of its final rule, several lawsuits were filed challenging the FTC's authority. A Texas court ruled that the FTC likely lacked the authority to issue such a broad regulation, stating that its enabling statute only allowed for rules regarding "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." However, a subsequent ruling from a Pennsylvania court found that the FTC likely does have the authority to ban non-compete agreements. This court denied a tree care company's request for a preliminary injunction against the FTC's rule, citing the company's failure to demonstrate irreparable harm and affirming the FTC's power to issue substantive regulations on unfair methods of competition. The Pennsylvania court emphasized that the FTC Act does not differentiate between procedural and substantive regulations, allowing the FTC to prevent unfair competition. The legal battle continues, with another ruling expected from a Florida court and the Texas court set to decide on a final injunction by the end of August. The implications of non-compliance with the FTC's rule appear limited, as the FTC can only seek civil penalties after a formal complaint process. Employers with non-compete agreements are advised to consult legal counsel to navigate this evolving situation, especially with the September 4, 2024, effective date approaching.

Link Icon 7 comments
By @KoftaBob - 3 months
I just can't understand how anyone can, with a straight face, argue that non-compete clauses should be allowed in a free market.

The free market works best when competition isn't stifled, and the name of the clause is literally a "non-compete".

By @crvdgc - 3 months
And billionaires already started lobbying for Harris to drop Khan, the FTC chair behind this Non-Compete Ban: https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-rebukes-billionaire-ef...
By @cdolan - 3 months
I am surprised that the Chevron case and this have not overlapped

I thought the outcome of Chevron being overturned (I.e. “3-letter-agencies can no longer unilaterally make laws”) would have come up here as well, since the FTC is part of the Executive Branch

(Not trying to comment on the underlying case. Don’t care to argue for or against NCs)