FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Most Noncompetes, but Immediate Legal Challenges Ensue
Employers do not need to not rush to immediately implement changes. Instead, they should allow time for the above litigation to play out over the next few months to see, among other things, if the courts invalidate the final rule or stay it pending the outcome of the litigation and inevitable appeals.
May 10, 2024 at 10:38 AM
6 minute read
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted last month to approve a final rule banning most noncompete agreements between employers and their workers. The final rule is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 4, 2024, though legal challenges may delay its effective date and FTC enforcement actions.
The Final Rule
The most significant pieces of the final rule are that:
- It makes noncompete agreements with workers an unfair method of competition that violates Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- It defines "noncompete" agreement broadly "as any term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from" seeking or accepting employment with another business or operating a business after their working relationship ends.
- It is not limited to employees, but instead covers anyone "who works or who previously worked, whether paid or unpaid … including, but not limited to, whether the worker is an employee, independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or a sole proprietor …"
- It prohibits new noncompetes after the effective date, including agreements with highly compensated executives. Pre-existing noncompete agreements with "senior executives," defined as an employee earning more than $151,164 a year in a "policy-making position," will remain in force, but the final rule's definitions suggest this exception is designed to govern a very limited set of executives within companies.
- All other pre-existing noncompetes are void as of the effective date. The final rule requires employers to provide current and past workers notice that they will not enforce existing non\competes, but not to formally rescind noncompete agreements. The final rule includes model language for the notice requirement that businesses can use to comply with this section of the final rule.
- The definition of "noncompete" agreements does not include (and are, therefore, not prohibited by the final rule): noncompetes that prohibit employees from competing against employers during their employment; sufficiently tailored non-solicitation of customers and employees provisions; noncompete agreements entered into in conjunction with sale of a business; and franchisee/franchisor agreements.
There are important limitations to the final rule based on limitations in the reach of the FTC Act, which does not apply to nonprofits, banks, savings and loan companies, transportation and communications common carriers, air carriers, and some other entities. However, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s recent bank merger guidelines banned the enforcement of noncompetes for employees at banks of all sizes in certain contexts. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter also warned that nonprofits registered as tax-exempt, but organized for the profit of members, would be subject to the FTC Act. Further, the Biden administration has issued, and likely will continue to issue, executive orders and regulations to close any gaps in the final rule. Companies that violate the final rule may be subject to civil enforcement actions and penalties.
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 AllLawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
7 minute readLawsuit alleges Fox Sports ex-host harassed hairstylist and offered her $1.5M for sex
3 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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