FTC's New Rule Effectively Bans Non-Competes – What Now?
ABSTRACT: A new FTC rule bans most non-competes, with the stated objectives of generating over 8,500 new businesses annually, raising wages, lowering healthcare cost, and boosting innovation. The Biden Administration views this as part of a broader effort to address anticompetitive practices. Legal challenges are underway by various business groups; however, the Rule maintains substantial support in other quarters.
The Federal Trade Commission issued the Non-Compete Clause Rule (the “Rule”) on April 23, 2024, by narrow 3-2 vote, banning a vast majority of non-competes nationwide. Both existing and new non-competes are no longer enforceable. Limited exceptions exist for non-competes with “senior executives”—defined as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions—and non-competes created subsequent the sale of a business, which may still be enforced. The Rule states that all employers with now unenforceable non-competes are required to provide notice to affected employees that the non-compete is now void.
The Rule was originally posted for comment in January 2023, receiving over 26,000 comments during the required 90-day public comment period—more than 25,000 of which support this proposed ban. The FTC found non-competes “an unfair method of competition, and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act,” noting there are alternatives to non-compete agreements, such as trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements; notably, nearly 95 percent of workers with non-compete agreements also have non-disclosure agreements. The FTC argues companies can retain workers previously subject to non-competes “on the merits,” by raising wages, increasing benefits, and improving their work environment. Other groups in favor of this ban argue non-competes restrict job mobility, depress wages, and quash innovation by limiting employees seeking to start their own companies.
Importantly, the Rule traces back to the Biden Administration’s 2021 “Executive Order on Promotion Competition in the American Economy.” That Executive Order encourages all relevant federal agencies to address anticompetitive practices within their scope of jurisdiction. Because of this, opponents argue that the FTC, with this Rule, extends past its jurisdictional reach.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with other prominent groups like the Business Roundtable, immediately sued the FTC in federal court in Texas after the announcement. The USCC contends the FTC lacks authority to promulgate this Rule, stating this type of monumental change in business practice must to be passed by Congressional vote instead. Additionally, many critics state the Rule imposes extraordinary burdens on businesses in protecting their trade secrets, will cause inflation to skyrocket due to predicted wage increases, and ignores state sovereignty since existing state laws already govern non-competes and should continue to do so. While many states have various laws limiting non-competes in some way, only four have banned them entirely prior to this Rule.
The lawsuits could take months (or longer) to unfold and may put the status of non-competes, and the employees that hold them, in limbo. The Rule, while final, is not effective until 120-days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register. Currently, the Rule is scheduled for publication on May 7, 2024, putting the Rule into effect September 4, 2024. Therefore, it is vital for employers to assess what steps must be taken now to prepare. Employers not only must inform their current employees of any applicable changes, but must also shift their hiring and retention strategies.
Key Takeaways
Even in light of current challenges, employers should remain proactive in preparing for the Rule’s publication and enforcement by:
- Evaluating current employee contracts for non-compete provisions which violate the Rule, assessing whether revision or rescission is required;
- Identify ways to meaningful meet employer’s goals (protect proprietary information; evaluate trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality practices; etc.) while balancing employee satisfaction and allegiance (performance-focused incentives; benefits; work environment/culture; etc.); and
- Begin drafting requisite (per the Rule) correspondence to current and former employees about any non-competes no longer enforceable.

8th Circuit Changes Course in Standing for States to Sue EEOC over Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ...

Truck Driver Misclassification Claim Can Move Forward as Collective Action Under FLSA ...
About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.