Client Alerts & Insights
FTC Appeals Noncompete Ban Ruling
October 22, 2024
Authored By:
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has appealed a ruling from a federal court in Texas that blocked its sweeping ban of noncompete agreements. As Benesch previously highlighted in August, a federal district court in Texas permanently blocked the FTC’s attempt to ban noncompete agreements, determining that the ban exceeded the FTC’s authority and, thus, was an illegal attempt to expand the FTC’s rulemaking authority. The Texas Court also found that the ban was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. If it had been implemented, the FTC rule would have banned nearly all noncompete agreements between employers and employees as “unfair method[s] of competition.”
On October 18th, the FTC filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is unlikely to reverse the Texas Court’s opinion. Many of the Biden Administration’s regulatory endeavors have been struck down by the Fifth Circuit in the past (such as the Department of Labor’s tip credit rule, which the Fifth Circuit vacated in August). Whether the FTC continues its litigation also could depend on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, as the FTC previously voted 3-2 along party lines to approve the ban, with both Republican commissioners voting against the ban.
The notice of appeal does not, by itself, impact the status of the noncompete ban, and employers can continue to use noncompete agreements (subject to the many state law considerations that apply). However, employers should continue to review their noncompete practices as this litigation continues. Benesch attorneys are ready to assist employers in reviewing their noncompete agreements and practices and will continue to monitor the status of this litigation as it heads to the Fifth Circuit. For more information, please contact:
Margo Wolf O’Donnell at modonnell@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4982.
Scott Humphrey at shumphrey@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6420.
Charles Leuin at cleuin@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6344.
Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.