Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Comment Period for FTC’s Proposed Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Ends March 20 — The Time to Act Is Now!

By Joseph Lavigne, Thomas Hubert & PJ Kee on February 2, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Silhouettes of Business People Working and Speech Bubble
Silhouettes of Business People Working and Speech Bubble

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking essentially banning non-compete clauses and categorizing them as unfair methods of competition. Non-compete clauses serve to protect a business’s trade secrets and other confidential information, which makes the adoption of such a rule a major concern for all US businesses. Our previous article addressed the legal challenges the FTC will likely face in light of the proposed ban on non-compete agreements. The comment period for this proposed rule ends on March 20, and businesses should consider voicing their concerns before the deadline. This article summarizes some of the major ways that the rule could affect businesses, as well as what issues could be raised during the comment period.

Ability to Contract and Negotiate

The proposed rule would take away the right of individuals to bargain for restrictive covenants, such as non-competes, in return for a form of compensation or job security. Both employers and employees benefit from this arrangement, as employers are able to protect confidential information while employees have the opportunity to receive increased salaries and/or severance packages upon their departure from former employers. The proposed rule would strip away this exchange, leaving both employers and employees vulnerable.

Additionally, employers and workers would have to renegotiate their prior agreements, as the proposed rule prohibits not only the creation of non-compete agreements but the maintenance of existing agreements as well. The employer has the burden to provide notice to workers in an individualized communication that the agreement is no longer valid; this burden is also extended to workers who formerly worked for the employer. As such, businesses will want to consider the effect the proposed rule would have on their ability to contract and bargain with workers and may want to voice their concerns in comment to the FTC.

Buying and Selling Businesses

An additional concern is an exception in the rule proposed for sellers and buyers, where only a substantial owner or member of a business could enter into a non-compete agreement. “Substantial owner” is defined as an owner, member, or partner holding at least a 25% ownership interest in a business entity. Consequently, those who hold a 15% or 20% interest would be prohibited from entering into a non-compete agreement with the prospective buyer. As such, the business entity may struggle to sell itself because buyers may not want to purchase an entity where a 20% interest-holding owner could essentially leave the company and open up a competing company the next day. Thus, this proposed rule would likely affect the marketability of businesses.

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

The FTC seeks to hear from the public regarding potential alternatives to the proposed rule, such as (1) whether the ban should be a rebuttable presumption rather than a categorical ban and (2) whether the rule should apply to all workers or there should be exemptions or different standards for some workers. Under the first alternative, it would be presumptively unlawful for an employer to use non-compete agreements; however, the non-compete would be permissible if the employer met a certain evidentiary standard, which has yet to be articulated. Employers would have to prove that the non-compete is unlikely to harm consumers or be able to identify some competitive benefit that offsets the apparent or anticipated harm.

Under the second alternative, there would be a more lenient standard, such as a rebuttable presumption or an exemption altogether, for workers whose earnings are above a certain threshold, who meet an existing exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc. More variations of the standard could be based on (1) a worker’s job function or occupation, (2) a worker’s earnings, or (3) a combination of job function/occupation and earnings.

The very nature of how business entities protect their trade secrets and confidential information is at risk, and the proposed rule would change the contractual dynamic of the employer-employee relationship. The public is encouraged to voice their concerns to the FTC during the comment period, which ends March 20. If you have specific questions on how this proposed rule may affect your company or would like assistance in drafting a comment, please contact Joe Lavigne, Tom Hubert, or P.J. Kee.

Photo of Joseph Lavigne Joseph Lavigne

Joseph Lavigne is a founder and editor of the Trade Secret Insider and is a lead partner for Jones Walker’s Trade Secret Non-Compete Team. He has years of experience litigating trade secret, non-compete, computer fraud, and unfair competition cases — in both federal…

Joseph Lavigne is a founder and editor of the Trade Secret Insider and is a lead partner for Jones Walker’s Trade Secret Non-Compete Team. He has years of experience litigating trade secret, non-compete, computer fraud, and unfair competition cases — in both federal and state courts. Several of these cases established Louisiana’s law on trade secrets and non-competes. He also actively advises clients on how to protect their trade secrets and retain key personnel, as well as ways to avoid liability when hiring key personnel from a competitor. Mr. Lavigne can be reached at jlavigne@joneswalker.com or 504.582.8610.

Read more about Joseph LavigneEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Thomas Hubert Thomas Hubert

Thomas Hubert is an Editor and Founder of the Trade Secret Insider and is a senior partner for Jones Walker’s Trade Secret and Non-Compete Team. Mr. Hubert has extensive trial experience in trade secret, non-compete, and unfair competition cases — where he has …

Thomas Hubert is an Editor and Founder of the Trade Secret Insider and is a senior partner for Jones Walker’s Trade Secret and Non-Compete Team. Mr. Hubert has extensive trial experience in trade secret, non-compete, and unfair competition cases — where he has not only obtained and fended off injunctions but also won on the merits at trial. He also counsels clients on best practices for protecting trade secret information and for avoiding liability when hiring talent from a competitor. Mr. Hubert can be reached at thubert@joneswalker.com or 504.582.8384.

Read more about Thomas HubertEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of PJ Kee PJ Kee

PJ Kee is an Editor and Founder of the Trade Secret Insider and a member of Jones Walker’s Trade Secret and Non-Compete Team. He regularly litigates cases involving trade secret theft, non-competes, computer fraud, conspiracies, and unfair competition, and counsels clients on strategies…

PJ Kee is an Editor and Founder of the Trade Secret Insider and a member of Jones Walker’s Trade Secret and Non-Compete Team. He regularly litigates cases involving trade secret theft, non-competes, computer fraud, conspiracies, and unfair competition, and counsels clients on strategies to protect their trade secrets. Mr. Kee also represents clients in criminal proceedings and litigates complex commercial and employment matters involving various breach-of-contract claims, business torts, invasion of privacy claims, defamation, and wage and hour disputes. He can be reached at pkee@joneswalker.com or 504.582.8230.

Read more about PJ KeeEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Trade Secret Insider
  • Organization:
    Jones Walker LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo