FTC Proposes Rule Banning Noncompete Clauses With Workers
"We anticipate interested parties will argue the FTC has exceeded the scope of its authority and such a rule is within the province of the United States Congress, not a federal agency," says C. Larry Carbo III, Kellen Scott and AJ Foreman of Chamberlain Hrdlicka.
January 12, 2023 at 07:24 AM
6 minute read
Late last year, the Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement that superseded its prior policy statements and guidance concerning the FTC's interpretation of the scope and meaning of unfair methods of competition as addressed in the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC indicated it would no longer follow the "rule of reason" inquiry and, instead, focus on trying to stop unfair methods of competition "in their incipiency based on their tendency to harm competitive conditions."
The FTC stated an unfair method of competition need not cause current anticompetitive harm or include anticompetitive intent. Several commissioners of the FTC issued a statement last year supporting their issuance of the policy statement. In that statement, the commissioners acknowledged the FTC had allowed its authority under the FTC Act to regulate unfair methods of competition "to lay dormant" but that the FTC wished to "reactivate" that authority. Last week, the FTC proposed a new Non-Compete Clause Rule that would make it an unfair method of competition for an employer to maintain, enter into, or attempt to enter into a noncompete clause with a worker. Because the FTC has taken the position that a noncompete clause constitutes an unfair method of competition, the FTC has decided to outlaw noncompete clauses in most circumstances. The FTC is accepting public comments on its proposed rule until March 10, 2023.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHouston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
4 minute readOvertime Rewind: Texas Court Ruling Unravels FLSA Salary Level Increases
4 minute read'It's Like They Lynched You:' Law Professor's Discrimination Claim Reaches High Court
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Don’t Blow It: 10 Lessons From 10 Years of Nonprofit Whistleblower Policies
- 2AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
- 3Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250