FTC Poised to Finalize Noncompete Rule
Time 3 Minute Read

In January 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompetes on employees. After collecting over 26,000 public comments during the 90-day notice and comment period, the FTC announced a special Open Commission Meeting set to take place on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 to discuss the implications of the proposed rule. While closed to public comment, the public is still able to view the meeting via webcast. See Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s original Client Alert when the proposed rule was first announced.

The proposed rule came as a result of the FTC’s concern regarding restrictive labor practices—a concern which, according to the FTC, could increase wages by nearly $300 billion per year if addressed. The rule would make it illegal for an employer to: (1) enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete with a worker; (2) maintain a noncompete with a worker; or (3) represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete. The FTC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explained that “noncompetes are a widespread and often exploitative practice that suppresses wages, hampers innovation, and blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.” Notably, the rule would apply to individual contractors, and it would have a retroactive application: employers would be required to rescind existing noncompetes and inform the employee they are no longer bound by the agreement.

The April 23 Open Commission Meeting will begin with a vote to determine whether the Commission will authorize disclosure of the proposed final rule to the public. Many submitted comments stating the proposed rule was overbroad and should exempt certain highly skilled and highly compensated employees. If the Commission votes to disclose the proposed final rule, staff from the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning will then give a presentation on the terms of the final rule under consideration, after which the Commission will vote on whether to issue the final rule. The final rule will detail the substantive changes to be implemented, and it will offer guidance on how long employers have to ensure compliance. Hunton’s lawyers will be watching this process as it unfolds and are prepared to help employers navigate the territory of the new rule should the final rule be promulgated. Note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already publicly stated that it will likely challenge the FTC’s final rule on several grounds including whether the FTC has the authority to promulgate such rulemaking, and thus implementation of the final rule is likely to get delayed pending resolution of litigation.

  • Partner

    Kevin focuses on antitrust merger review, including pre-transaction counseling, merger investigations and merger litigations. He previously served as head of the FTC’s Mergers IV Division, where he led investigations in ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The FTC has made its position on violations of “Made in USA” standards clear, and Williams-Sonoma received an expensive repeat reminder. On Thursday, April 25, the agency announced a settlement with the home goods retailer, directing it to pay an unprecedented civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 FTC order requiring the company to clearly and accurately identify which products are, in fact, made in the USA. “Made in USA” denotations, as pointed out by the FTC, are more than formality: rather, to label something as “Made in USA,” the business must adhere to specific criteria – namely, that the product’s final assembly or processing, and all significant processing, takes place in the US, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the US.

Time 4 Minute Read

Last week, the FTC sent high profile warning letters to two trade associations, the American Beverage Association (AmeriBev) and the Canadian Sugar Institute, and 12 registered dieticians regarding inadequate disclosures in the dieticians’ social media posts. While the specific influencer posts varied across dietician, they all related to the safety of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, and other messaging regarding the benefits of consuming sugar-containing products. Further, some dieticians even went so far as to call the World Health Organization’s warnings regarding aspartame and artificial sweeteners as based on “low-quality science” and “clickbait” evidence. While some of the dieticians included words like “#Ad” or “Sponsored” in their posts, according to the FTC most failed to provide obvious disclosures informing consumers that they were watching an ad that had been paid for by an industry association. The FTC’s warnings alleged that inconspicuous messaging surrounding these partnership deals led to consumer confusion regarding who ultimately was responsible for the influencers’ nutrition messaging. And according to the FTC, the fact that these influencers are registered dieticians increases the public’s confidence in the information they disperse, thus heightening the need for them to be clear about their partnership affiliations.

Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC took action last week against a group of New England-based clothing accessories companies for making false claims that certain of its products were “Made in USA.”

Time 2 Minute Read

Last week, the FTC announced its long-awaited finalization of updated Endorsement Guides. These guidelines come after the FTC initially voted to publish revised guidelines in May 2022. The new Guides were approved by a unanimous vote and make a significant number of updates to the 2009 version.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page