FTC Announces First Step Towards Regulation of Employee Non-Competes

08 November 2021 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Benjamin R. Dryden

As we have noted previously, on July 9, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among many other things, this Executive Order calls on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to “consider … exercis[ing] the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority … to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” A webinar on this topic is available here; and more information about the Executive Order generally is available here.

Although the Executive Order was signed in July, the FTC has not yet taken any public action towards the regulation of non-competes. Part of the reason for this is bandwidth, as the FTC has been very busy advancing a progressive agenda in the areas of consumer protection and merger enforcement. Another part is political. The FTC is a five-member Commission, and no more than three of its members can be from the same political party. When President Biden signed the Executive Order, the FTC had three Democratic Commissioners and two Republicans. In October, however, one of the three Democratic Commissioners was confirmed to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which as of this writing puts the FTC at a 2-2 political tie. The two Republican Commissioners have voiced skepticism about an FTC regulation on non-competes, with one arguing that employee non-competes are best regulated by the states and the other arguing that a federal regulation might not even be constitutional under the “non-delegation” doctrine. Therefore, the FTC is unlikely to make any major policy moves until after a third Democratic Commissioner is confirmed (which is unlikely to happen until late 2021 or early 2022).

In the meantime, however, the FTC is laying the groundwork for future rulemaking. As an initial step, the FTC recently announced a workshop (co-hosted by the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division) to be held on December 6th and 7th, “to discuss efforts to promote competitive labor markets and worker mobility.” The agenda for the workshop is:


Over the two days, a series of panels, presentations, and remarks will address competition issues affecting labor markets and the welfare of workers, including: labor monopsony; the increased use of restrictive contractual clauses in labor agreements, including non-competes and non-disclosure agreements; information sharing and benchmarking activity among competing employers; the role of other federal agencies in ensuring fair competition in labor markets; and the relationship between antitrust law and collective bargaining efforts in the “gig economy.” Panelists will be invited to discuss potential steps antitrust enforcers can take to better target enforcement resources, improve public guidance, and pursue a “whole of government” approach to ensuring fair competition for workers and consumers by leveraging interagency resources.

Interested parties are invited to submit public comments on the topics covered by the workshop anytime between now and December 20, 2021.

In light of the Executive Order, it is reasonable to assume that the workshop will be used to develop a factual record to support a potential future FTC regulation on employee non-competes. For instance, before the FTC can issue a proposed rule, it must have reason to believe that the practices at issue in the rulemaking are “prevalent.” The FTC is also arguably required to show that the practices at issue are “likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” We expect the two-day workshop to cover these and other factual topics, with the intent of putting the FTC in position to move quickly on the potential regulation of employee non-competes after a third Democratic Commissioner is confirmed.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights