15 minute read | August.21.2024
August.21.2024
The Rule is Blocked Nationwide: On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, granted Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the FTC’s non-compete rule is unlawful, and ordering that the FTC’s non-compete rule shall not take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter. Unlike the preliminary injunction, which was specific to the Plaintiff-Intervenors, this ruling prevents the FTC from enforcement the rule against any company nationwide.
What Comes Next?: The FTC may appeal this decision, which not only sets aside the non-compete rule, but also holds that the FTC lacks any substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition. Any such appeal, however, would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which have recently issued decisions curtailing the power of federal agencies.
Next Steps for Employers: As a result of this decision, employers may hold off on preparations to comply with the FTC’s rule and should continue to monitor the appellate process in the Ryan case.
For further information regarding the FTC’s rule, see below.
July.25.2024
Decision in ATS Tree Services: On July 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in ATS Tree Services v. FTC denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking a nationwide injunction staying the effective date of the FTC’s non-compete rule. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it was likely to prevail on its claim that the FTC’s rule was unlawful.
Effective Date Remains September 4: The effective date of the FTC’s rule remains September 4, 2024 for all employers other than the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in the Ryan case.
Next Steps for Employers: Employers should continue to monitor the Ryan case, in which the plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to vacate the FTC’s rule on a nationwide basis. The judge in the Ryan case has indicated that she will decide that motion by August 30, 2024. Employers should start now to determine which employees will need to receive the notices required by the rule and to prepare those notices for delivery before September 4, if necessary, after the court’s ruling in Ryan. In addition, employers should review and update form employment agreements as necessary to comply with the new rule.
For further information regarding the FTC’s rule, see below.
July.08.2024
Decision in Ryan LLC: On July 3, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, issued a preliminary injunction staying the effective date of the FTC’s non-compete rule against the one plaintiff and four plaintiff-intervenors in that case (together, “Plaintiffs”). Notably, the court found that the Plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their two principal arguments: (1) the FTC did not have statutory authority to issue its non-compete rule; and (2) the FTC’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. The Ryan court, however, declined to issue an injunction blocking the effective date of the rule as to all employers nationwide, explaining that the Plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently brief the issue of a nationwide injunction.
Effective Date Remains September 4: Because the Ryan court declined to issue a nationwide injunction, the effective date of the FTC’s rule remains September 4 for all employers except for the Plaintiffs in the Ryan case.
Additional Decisions Could Be Issued by July 23 or August 30: The Ryan court indicated that it intends to rule on the ultimate merits of the case by August 30. Following additional briefing in the Ryan case, the court could issue a nationwide injunction staying the effective date of the rule as to all employers. In addition, another case challenging the FTC’s rule is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in ATS Tree Service v. FTC. The court in that case is expected to issue a decision by July 23, on a pending motion for preliminary injunction that could result in the issuance of a nationwide injunction staying the effective date of the rule as to all employers. Therefore, it is possible that an injunction staying the effective date of the rule as to all employers nationwide could be issued by either July 23 or by August 30.
Next Steps for Employers: Employers should continue to monitor the ATS Tree and Ryan cases for future decisions staying the effective date of the FTC’s rule. Employers should start (or continue) to determine which employees will need to receive the notices required by the rule and to prepare those notices for delivery before September 4. In addition, employers should review and update form employment agreements as necessary to comply with the new rule. Employers may, of course, hold off on sending these notices and issuing new agreements until after the ATS Tree and Ryan courts issue their decisions.
For further information regarding the FTC’s rule, see below.
April.29.2024
September 4 Effective Date: The FTC’s final rule governing non-compete agreements was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2024, which means that the rule will become effective on September 4, 2024, unless stayed by pending litigation.
Court Decision to Stay Effective Date Expected by July 3: On May 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas stayed the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit challenging the FTC’s rule pursuant to the “first to file rule” in favor of the earlier filed lawsuit that Ryan LLC brought challenging the FTC’s rule. The Chamber of Commerce was permitted to intervene and join the Ryan LLC lawsuit. On May 7, 2024, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order in the Ryan LLC lawsuit stating that the court would decide by July 3, 2024, the pending motion to stay the effective date of the rule. Thus, absent further developments, we can expect a decision on whether the effective date of the rule will be stayed by July 3, 2024, approximately two full months before the September 4 effective date of the rule.
Next Steps for Employers: Employers should continue to monitor the Ryan LLC litigation for the court’s decision on the motion for a stay of the effective date and preliminary injunction. Employers should evaluate how much time they will need to determine which employees will need to receive the notices required by the rule and to deliver those notices. As explained in the below Insight, on or before the effective date of the rule, employers must provide workers with impacted non-compete clauses with notice that the clauses will not, and cannot be, enforced. If employers believe that they could accomplish the work necessary to issue the required notices within approximately two months, then those employers may choose to hold off on preparing the notices until after the court rules in the Ryan LLC litigation. If, however, employers believe that two months will not be sufficient time to assess which employees will need to receive notice and to prepare the notice, then those employers may wish to begin the assessment process now.
For further information regarding the FTC’s rule, see below.
In a novel and sweeping act of substantive rulemaking, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) determined that non-compete agreements between employers and workers constitute an “unfair method of competition” prohibited under the FTC Act. The FTC issued a final rule that:
The controversial rule, passed by a 3-2 vote, invited immediate legal challenge. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others argue that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the FTC lacks statutory authority to engage in such substantive rulemaking. They also say any such delegation of authority from Congress violates the U.S. Constitution and that the rule as finalized is arbitrary and capricious.
Unless stayed by a court, the rule will take effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which has not occurred. Here is what companies need to know:
The rule defines a prohibited “non-compete clause” to include any contract term, workplace policy or term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from seeking work, accepting work or operating a business after the conclusion of the employment that included the term or condition.
The rule covers “employees, individuals classified as independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices or sole proprietors who provide a service to a client or a customer.”
The rule applies to all employers other than certain banks, savings and loan institutions, nonprofits and common carriers that are exempt from FTC jurisdiction. The FTC, however, cautioned that nonprofit tax status does not necessarily place a nonprofit beyond FTC jurisdiction. The FTC expressed interest in scrutinizing nonprofits in healthcare, citing enforcement actions against a nonprofit hospital affiliated with for-profit physician practices.
The FTC stated that traditional garden leave provisions, where the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis, would not constitute non-compete clauses because they do not impose post-employment restrictions.
The FTC stated that forfeiture-for-competition and other provisions that require a worker to pay a penalty for engaging in post-employment competition are prohibited non-compete clauses.
The FTC’s comments to the rule clarify that the rule does not cover non-solicitation provisions or non-disclosure provisions that do not prevent a worker from seeking or accepting work or operating a business.
However, the rule prohibits any clause that has the effect of prohibiting a worker from seeking or accepting employment or operating a business.
The FTC comments indicate that non-solicitation provisions, non-disclosure provisions and other post-employment restrictive covenants could function to prevent workers from competing if they are too broad in scope or onerous in practice; they therefore could be considered prohibited non-compete clauses.
The rule exempts non-compete clauses that senior executives entered into prior to the effective date. A “senior executive” is a worker who earned at least $151,164 in total compensation in the preceding year (or annualized if employed for only a partial year) and who holds a “policy making position” with their former employer. The rule defines a policy making position as “a business entity’s president, chief executive officer or the equivalent, any other officer of a business entity who has policy making authority, or any other natural person who has policy-making authority for the business entity similar to an officer with policy-making authority.”
Yes. The rule does not apply to non-compete clauses entered into “pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity or of all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.” Unlike the original proposed rule, this exception is not limited to only substantial 25% or greater owners. A “bona fide” sale is one made in good faith and not for the sole purpose of evading the rule.
The rule provides an exception for causes of actions related to a non-compete clause that accrued prior to the effective date. Therefore, workers who were in breach of a non-compete clause before the effective date can still be sued for breaches of the non-compete clause.
On or before the effective date, employers must provide workers with impacted non-compete clauses with clear and conspicuous notice that the clauses will not, and cannot be, enforced. The notice must be provided in writing and delivered by hand, mail, email or text message.
The rule provides a sample form notice and provides that employers will comply with the notice requirement if they use the sample form.
Yes. It supersedes any conflicting state law.
Issuing a non-compete or otherwise failing to comply with the rule would be a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which may result in penalties or injunctive relief.
The rule states that it will go into effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The rule has not been published in the Federal Register yet, and there is no mandated timeline for that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction staying the effective date of the rule. We expect the court to rule on this motion well in advance of the effective date.
In recent years, the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have increasingly applied antitrust law to protect stakeholders other than consumers, including workers.
The FTC and DOJ have brought enforcement actions, including criminal charges, under antitrust laws to challenge agreements between companies not to hire each other’s employes (“no poach” agreements) and agreements to fix employee wages. The FTC has also scrutinized exchanges of information across competing employers about wages and compensation. The FTC’s release explains, however, that it believes the rule will benefit consumers as well by enabling former employees to launch new competing businesses and enabling rivals to recruit talent to compete.
The FTC said in November 2022 that it intends to challenge conduct and agreements that otherwise would be lawful under antitrust laws if the FTC believes they constitute an “unfair method of competition” (“UMC”) under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As explained in the FTC’s release for the non-compete rule, the FTC believes it can ban such unfair methods of competition by rule.
Because rulemaking takes time and resources, and because the FTC’s authority to engage in substantive UMC rulemaking will be tested in court, the FTC is unlikely to propose any new UMC rules prior to the conclusion of that litigation or at least before the next presidential election.
The FTC, however, is likely to continue to focus on individual UMC enforcement actions. The FTC will primarily target conduct or agreements that “violate the spirit of the antitrust laws” while not violating the letter of the law, or that would not violate antitrust law when viewed in isolation yet could harm competition if prevalent in the industry or if repeated in serial fashion. Examples from the FTC include:
Companies can manage risks of incremental UMC scrutiny by periodically evaluating their business practices and seeking advice from experienced antitrust counsel.