08-22-2024, 02:39 PM
Just following up on other courts bringing themselves to offer indemnification to "local" (within their jurisdiction) businesses.
From ipWatchdog: Texas Court Bars FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Nationwide
“The Court concludes the FTC has some authority to promulgate rules to preclude unfair methods of competition…. However, after reviewing the text, structure, and history of the Act, the Court concludes the FTC lacks the authority to create substantive rules through this method.”
This considered ruling does not invalidate nor change the FTC's position on compelled agreement to "non-compete" clauses... except in the jurisdiction of the Texas court; essentially making Texas a "safe-haven" from the regulation (presumably, until appealed.)
The FTC was never given a comprehensive means to "enforce" such a policy decision, and it was a foregone conclusion that this would require more adjudication. Based upon that existing limitation, Texas can "nullify" the policy within it's jurisdiction (again, presumably until this is resolved further.)
The objection has zero to do with the policy, and only it's "enforceability" nationwide. We should not think that Texas can make "federal" law. But I understand that the industry who have benefited from the practice will not simply allow the practice to end without a fight.
Josh Robbins of Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented ATS Tree Services, said they are pleased by Tuesday’s decision, adding: “This is a great first step and we expect litigation over the ban to continue.”
The FTC has said in public statements to the press that it is seriously considering an appeal.
It's important to recognize that the "legal" outcome here is not about the new restrictive "non-compete clause" policy, but the toothless nature of the FTC's ability to enforce it. A distinction that should prove that this is lawyer wrangling... not the idea of refusing the threat of punishment to employees who want to continue work in related fields after they have left the employment situation...
(Also recognize that this limitation is really about who is exempted... there are exemptions for "senior" executives, and "national security" aspects of the policy.... contrary to those who would like to characterize it as a "universal" ban. But where this "ban" most comes into play is when the "little employee" has their career paths utterly truncated because of the theoretical paranoia of their employers.)
From ipWatchdog: Texas Court Bars FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Nationwide
“The Court concludes the FTC has some authority to promulgate rules to preclude unfair methods of competition…. However, after reviewing the text, structure, and history of the Act, the Court concludes the FTC lacks the authority to create substantive rules through this method.”
This considered ruling does not invalidate nor change the FTC's position on compelled agreement to "non-compete" clauses... except in the jurisdiction of the Texas court; essentially making Texas a "safe-haven" from the regulation (presumably, until appealed.)
The FTC was never given a comprehensive means to "enforce" such a policy decision, and it was a foregone conclusion that this would require more adjudication. Based upon that existing limitation, Texas can "nullify" the policy within it's jurisdiction (again, presumably until this is resolved further.)
The objection has zero to do with the policy, and only it's "enforceability" nationwide. We should not think that Texas can make "federal" law. But I understand that the industry who have benefited from the practice will not simply allow the practice to end without a fight.
Josh Robbins of Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented ATS Tree Services, said they are pleased by Tuesday’s decision, adding: “This is a great first step and we expect litigation over the ban to continue.”
The FTC has said in public statements to the press that it is seriously considering an appeal.
It's important to recognize that the "legal" outcome here is not about the new restrictive "non-compete clause" policy, but the toothless nature of the FTC's ability to enforce it. A distinction that should prove that this is lawyer wrangling... not the idea of refusing the threat of punishment to employees who want to continue work in related fields after they have left the employment situation...
(Also recognize that this limitation is really about who is exempted... there are exemptions for "senior" executives, and "national security" aspects of the policy.... contrary to those who would like to characterize it as a "universal" ban. But where this "ban" most comes into play is when the "little employee" has their career paths utterly truncated because of the theoretical paranoia of their employers.)
