August 27, 2024

FTC Votes to Ban Non-Compete Agreement

FTC Bans Non-Compete Clauses: Implications for Employers and Employment Contracts

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 to finalize a ground-breaking rule banning non-compete clauses in employment contracts. This decision, made during a special Open Commission Meeting, marks a significant shift in employment law, with potential far-reaching implications for both employers and employees.

 Overview of the Final Rule

The FTC’s Final Rule, which follows a proposed rule released over 15 months ago, received an overwhelming response from the public, with approximately 25,000 of the 26,000 comments supporting a ban on non-compete clauses. According to FTC Chair Lina Khan, the rule is aimed at enhancing economic dynamism by allowing workers greater freedom to pursue new job opportunities, start businesses, or bring innovative ideas to market.

Key Definitions:

- Non-compete Clause: Any term or condition that prevents a worker from accepting employment or operating a business in the U.S. after leaving their current job.

- Worker: Broadly defined to include anyone who has worked or is currently working, regardless of employment status or title, but excludes franchisees.

 Provisions of the Final Rule

1. Ban on Non-compete Agreements:

   - Employers cannot enter into or enforce non-compete agreements with workers.

   - Employers are prohibited from representing to workers that they are subject to non-compete clauses under certain conditions.

2. Exceptions and Modifications:

   - Senior Executives: Existing non-competes can remain in effect for senior executives earning over $151,164 annually, holding policy-making positions.

   - Business Sales: Non-competes related to the bona fide sale of a business or ownership interest are permitted without the previously proposed 25% ownership threshold.

   - Ongoing Litigation: Non-competes involved in legal disputes that arose before the effective date of the rule are not immediately affected.

3. Compliance Requirements:

   - Employers must notify workers that existing non-competes will not be enforced once the rule takes effect, using model notification language provided by the FTC.

4. Non-Solicitation Agreements:

   - Generally permissible unless they effectively prevent a worker from seeking other employment or starting a business. This will require a fact-specific analysis.

 Legal Challenges and Implications

The rule has sparked immediate controversy and legal challenges. Critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that the FTC's action oversteps its authority and may infringe on Congressional powers. These challenges are likely to focus on both administrative and constitutional grounds.

Immediate and Long-Term Considerations for Employers:

- Review Existing Contracts: Employers should evaluate current non-compete agreements to ensure compliance with the upcoming rule.

- Impact on Mergers and Acquisitions: Non-competes in transaction agreements closing before the rule’s effective date may become unenforceable, affecting deal structures and post-closing agreements.

- Protecting Proprietary Information: With non-competes restricted, employers should strengthen non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality policies, and training programs to safeguard trade secrets and proprietary information.

 Next Steps

Employers should prepare for the rule's effective date by:

- Revising employment contracts and policies to align with the new requirements.

- Evaluating the impact of the rule on current and future business transactions.

- Ensuring robust measures are in place to protect confidential and proprietary information.

The FTC’s Final Rule will become effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. As legal challenges unfold, further analysis will be crucial to understanding the full implications of this significant regulatory change.

If you are in need of legal assistance pertaining to the ban on non-compete clauses and the implications it may have for you and/or your business, contact Lars Soreide, Esq., of Soreide Law Group at 888-760-6552.

S H A R E   T H I S   P O S T

Recent Posts

April 23, 2026
Christiana Webb Of Morgan Stanley Terminated For Unauthorized Investor Communications

Investors have reportedly disputed the sales practices of securities broker Christiana O. Webb (also known as Christina Webb) [CRD: 5116707, Atlanta, Georgia], given the disclosures on Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck. Webb worked for Morgan Stanley from June 1, 2009, to September 10, 2024, before registering with Truist Investment Services Inc. on November 14, […]

April 23, 2026
Richard Simonitis Connected To LPL Financial LLC Investor Complaint About Forgery

Investors apparently complained about securities broker Richard Francis Simonitis Jr. [CRD: 2263459, North Royalton, Ohio], according to disclosures on Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck. Richard Simonitis has been registered with LPL Financial LLC since February 26, 2007, as a broker and since February 27, 2007, as a financial advisor. See the following information to […]

April 23, 2026
Kevin Ross Involved In Bridgeway Wealth Partners Investor Arbitration Claim About Misrepresentation

Investors might have sustained losses due to securities broker Kevin Michael Ross [CRD: 2290136, Charlotte, North Carolina], based on public information located on Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck. Kevin Ross worked for Bridgeway Wealth Partners LLC from August 24, 2020, to December 31, 2023, and later for Cape Securities Inc. from December 7, 2023, […]

Contact us Nationwide USA
2401 E. Atlantic Blvd., Suite 305, Pompano Beach, FL 33062
Helping clients recover money across the USA
search
Copyright © 2025 Soreide Law Group, PLLC  |  All Rights Reserved