NewsOn August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ("Court”) granted summary judgment to a group of plaintiffs, including Ryan LLC and the United States Chamber of Commerce, and held that the FTC’s Rule banning most non-competition agreements, which was to go into effect on September 4, 2024, is invalid and unenforceable. Importantly, the Court held that its decision invalidating and setting aside the FTC Rule has nationwide effect. Accordingly, the Court concluded: “The Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on its effective date of September 4, 2024, or thereafter.” A link to the FTC Rule is here. A link to the Court Decision is here. The Court found that the FTC Rule is in excess of the FTC’s statutory authority, and that the FTC Rule is “arbitrary and capricious.” On this issue, the Court explained that the FTC Rule “imposes a one-size-fits-all approach with no end date, which fails to establish a rational connection between the facts found (by the agency) and the choice made.” The Court also opined that the FTC’s Rule “prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes – instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes,” and this renders it arbitrary and capricious. As a result of this ruling, no action is required on the part of businesses potentially affected by the FTC Rule. The notices contemplated under the FTC Rule do not need to be sent. Businesses do not need to stop utilizing or issuing their non-compete agreements. The FTC has stated that it will likely appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit. Thereafter, it is possible that the case could be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. While we do not have a crystal ball to see the outcome of these appeals, both the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have been sensitive to administrative overreach so we do not anticipate this decision to be overturned. We will monitor litigation regarding the FTC Rule as it continues through the appellate process. As we have indicated in previous alerts, there have been a number of state-law legislative and judicial changes regarding non-competition agreements over the past several years, and this remains a good time for businesses to revisit and revise their current template agreements, as appropriate, in order to account for the recent changes. Please feel free to reach out to your MBF attorney to discuss further. Related People Preview Attorney's BiographyVictor represents clients in a broad scope of litigation matters in both state and federal courts. His experience encompasses pre-suit investigations, motion practice, discovery, mediation, trial work, and collecting on judgments.  Preview Attorney's BiographyLuis represents employers in a range of labor and employment matters and has developed a significant practice focusing on employee defection and recruitment, including litigating injunction and damage actions relating to: covenants not to compete, non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements, unfair competition, trade secrets, duty of loyalty, the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and state trade secrets and unfair competition statutes.  Preview Attorney's BiographyBusinesses, owners, and boards of directors look to Scott as their outside general counsel to ensure legal compliance of their operations and initiatives. Scott also represents businesses and manages litigation in federal and state courts and administrative agencies throughout the country in all areas of employment law. .jpg) Preview Attorney's BiographyKerryann serves as a trusted advisor to companies seeking a pragmatic, solutions-oriented approach to employment matters. Clients value her depth of knowledge and unfaltering commitment to their business goals. Kerryann is an experienced and effective litigation strategist, successfully defending clients in employment disputes at the federal and state levels. She uses her litigation experience to assess employment practices and to structure personnel polices to increase workplace productivity and minimize the threat of litigation.  Preview Attorney's BiographyBrian brings strategic business vision to his work representing companies engaged in employment-related disputes, both in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. The focus of Brian’s practice is to deliver positive outcomes in litigation matters, including class action discrimination, wage and hour collective actions, harassment and discrimination claims, wrongful termination, disability accommodations, theft of trade secrets, and enforcement of restrictive covenants.  Preview Attorney's BiographyFarrah serves Michael Best in two capacities: as partner in the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group. Her practice focuses on employment counseling and employment litigation, with a particular emphasis on discrimination, noncompetition, and Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).  Preview Attorney's BiographyEric advises clients in all areas of labor and employment law. With a practice that is national in scope, he is particularly active in litigating matters involving trade secrets, non-competition agreements and related disputes. Eric has a nationally recognized practice in the area of contingent labor and regularly prepares and reviews policies, procedures and contracts and litigates contested matters for users and providers of temporary employees, consultants, independent contractors and other contingent talent.  Preview Attorney's BiographyCourtney is an experienced commercial, business, and employment litigator with a lengthy record of success in bench and jury trials. He represents employers, companies, executives, and officers in a broad range of industry sectors. Courtney’s clients have included hedge funds, their founders and valued employees, private equity firms, property managers, major food producers, manufacturers, retailers, and fine art collectors, among others.
|