Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FTC Proposes Complete Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Between Employers and Employees

By Daniel Schwartz & Sarah N. Niemiroski on January 5, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a move with profound implications for workplaces, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) on Thursday, January 5, 2023, issued a sweeping proposal that would ban all non-compete agreements between employers and employees.  While the timing was a bit of a surprise, the move had been telegraphed since mid-2020 when President Biden issued an executive order requiring the FTC to develop new regulations regarding non-compete clauses. 

At that time, it was unclear what these proposed regulations would look like – whether they would apply retroactively, whether they would only apply to low-wage workers, or whether there would be any other restrictive covenants implicated.  With the unveiling of the new proposal, we have our answer – at least, until the public comment period closes, the proposed rule comes into effect, and the regulation is inevitably challenged in the courts. In the meantime, employers should be aware of the potential consequences of this proposed rule.

Under the proposed rule, it will be an unfair method of competition for an employer to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker, maintain a non-compete clause, or represent that a worker is subject to a non-compete clause where there is no good faith basis to believe that the non-compete clause is enforceable. But what does that really mean? Who will this proposed rule apply to and what will it ban?

This proposed rule will, by its terms apply to all employers without limitation.  “Employer” is defined expansively as any natural person, partnership, association, or other legal entity, including any person acting under color or authority of state law. Further, it will apply to all “workers,” paid or unpaid, with no consideration of the worker’s income level or skill. The term “workers” includes independent contractors, interns, volunteers, and apprentices.  Some states, like Maine, Maryland, and Massachusetts, currently limit non-compete agreements for “low wage” workers. This rule will supersede existing state laws, and will apply to all workers regardless of income.

The proposed rule bans any non-compete clause between an employer and a worker. A non-compete clause is any contractual term that will prevent a worker from seeking or accepting employment with another person or operating a business after the worker leaves the employer. This includes de facto non-compete clauses that will have the effect of prohibiting the worker from seeking or accepting employment. These de facto non-compete clauses may be non-disclosure agreements that are written broadly enough to prevent an employee from working in the same field; they may also be contractual terms that require the employee to pay for training costs where the payment is not reasonably related to the costs the employer occurred training the worker. The rule does not seem to cover non-solicitation clauses except those that are written so broadly as to be deemed to be a de facto non-compete clause. The rule also does not cover any non-compete agreements entered into in connection with the sale of a business entity.

If this rule goes into full effect, it will require employers to rescind all existing non-compete provisions with workers and provide notice to the worker that the non-compete provision has been rescinded.

It’s important to note that this is merely a proposed rule at this point. It is unlikely that this rule will go into effect exactly as proposed. And even if it does, like the white-collar overtime rules or the vaccine mandate rules that have been proposed by the executive branch before, it is inevitable that any final rule will be challenged in the courts. We will be monitoring any potential modifications to the rule and any resulting litigation. 

Photo of Daniel Schwartz Daniel Schwartz

Dan represents employers in various employment law matters such as employment discrimination, restrictive covenants, human resources, retaliation and whistle blowing, and wage and hour issues. He has extensive trial and litigation experience in both federal and state courts in a variety of areas…

Dan represents employers in various employment law matters such as employment discrimination, restrictive covenants, human resources, retaliation and whistle blowing, and wage and hour issues. He has extensive trial and litigation experience in both federal and state courts in a variety of areas, including commercial litigation and trade secret enforcement. Dan is the author of the independent Connecticut Employment Law Blog. The blog discusses new and noteworthy events in labor and employment law on a daily basis.

Read more about Daniel SchwartzEmailDaniel's Linkedin ProfileDaniel's Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Sarah N. Niemiroski Sarah N. Niemiroski

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal…

Sarah is a member of the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group.  She assists public and private sector clients in a variety of matters, including grievance and interest arbitrations, prohibited practice proceedings, and labor negotiations. Sarah also represents employers before state and federal courts and agencies with respect to employment matters ranging from employment discrimination and wrongful termination to tortious interference, breach of contract, and wage and hour claims.

Read more about Sarah N. NiemiroskiEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade, Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Letter
  • Organization:
    Shipman & Goodwin LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo