- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How does the FTC have the authority to do this - Non Compete ?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/24/24 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don't disagree, but I think this is a conscious strategy on the political left akin to lawfare. I don't blame them, it's effective and I would do the same.
This isn't a partisan thing. Plenty of Republican regulations/EOs were litigated and struck down, too.
0
Posted on 4/24/24 at 7:55 am to msutiger
quote:
Non-competes outside of select scenarios with executive leadership are horseshite.
Accurate.
But still not sure how the FTC has the authority to regulate this.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 7:57 am to dafif
OK so I broke my rule to read the reg and it's literally posted on page 1 of the pdf
Now will it get struck down? I don't know, but that answers OP.
quote:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 5 and 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”),
Now will it get struck down? I don't know, but that answers OP.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:00 am to dafif
If you owned a business that operated in Texas, for example, this new rule would allow a new employee to access your client contact list, then leave your company to start their own and start stealing your clients. Companies should have the right to offer employment contingent on the condition that you will not leave and attempt to steal clients. If you don't like that agreement, you don't have to work for the company.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there will be cited Congressional authority.
Nope.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sections 5 and 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”),
So they are going to claim that the general prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices now enables them to do basically anything they choose to do?
Have to love election years.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:02 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Nope.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:
So they are going to claim that the general prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices now enables them to do basically anything they choose to do?
I never said they're going to win, but Congress is the one who wrote this law that incredibly broadly, to give the agency a lot of leeway.
quote:
Have to love election years.
I don't even know if it's that. This FTC commissioner is a radical.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:04 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
If you owned a business that operated in Texas, for example, this new rule would allow a new employee to access your client contact list, then leave your company to start their own and start stealing your clients. Companies should have the right to offer employment contingent on the condition that you will not leave and attempt to steal clients. If you don't like that agreement, you don't have to work for the company.
You are referring to a non-solicitation agreement, which is different than a non-compete, though they often appear together in an employment agreement, along with confidentiality and trade secret protection clauses.
As far as I know, and I refuse to read the 600 page administrative behemoth, non-solicits are not YET being banned. I'm sure the progressives will arbitrarily call them unfair and inequitable at some point too though.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I never said they're going to win
I understand.
quote:
Congress is the one who wrote this law that incredibly broadly, to give the agency a lot of leeway.
As I always say here--every single issue in American politics is entirely the fault of Congress not doing its job. Handing administrative agencies free reign is a disease that I don't know we can ever recover from.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:14 am to Indefatigable
quote:
You are referring to a non-solicitation agreement, which is different than a non-compete, though they often appear together in an employment agreement, along with confidentiality and trade secret protection clauses.
Correct. The FTC isn't going to wade into trade secrets stuff b/c of military contracts. That would require larger action b/c of the overlap with DOD/military stuff.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Non-compete agreements and trade secret agreements often go hand in hand, but they are typically treated differently in law.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:18 am to Indefatigable
quote:
You are referring to a non-solicitation agreement, which is different than a non-compete
I see. So, would the non-compete apply to my company's product and confidential information? Meaning, a new employee could come to work for my company, learn the product and company systems, and then steal my company's information and use that to take away my business. A business owner should have the right to offer employment based on the agreement that you will not take my company information and use that to take away my business.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:20 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
So, would the non-compete apply to my company's product and confidential information?
That would be trade secrets laws. In LA a client list CAN BE a trade secret, FYI.
*ETA: I had to fix the comment above with the all caps wording.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 8:21 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:20 am to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
Most non-competes aren't enforceable anyway. People/Companies use them as a scare tactic.
Yes but they can tie you up in court long enough that it doesn't matter
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:21 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
would the non-compete apply to my company's product and confidential information?
Would all depend on what it said. The specific non-competition language probably would not. But as I mentioned in the other post, language protecting confidential/TS information is separate.
The sentences just usually appear near each other in a document titled "Non-Competition Agreement".
quote:
A business owner should have the right to offer employment based on the agreement that you will not take my company information and use that to take away my business.
As far as I understand it, this new rule does not prevent the business from doing that, or imposing non-solicitation clauses to protect client bases.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I haven't read the rule,
You actually actually do this a lot Which is why you get so many down votes
But, In this specific scenario, using your super legal brain, what gives the federal government, or an agency of the government, the ability to deal with specific state contract law?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:28 am to dafif
quote:
But, In this specific scenario, using your super legal brain, what gives the federal government, or an agency of the government, the ability to deal with specific state contract law?
He already answered. The FTC is relying on extremely general and broad language in their enabling legislation to address "unfair and deceptive" practices by anyone engaged in commerce.
The FTC will argue that this gives them the authority to ban non-competes because, in their administrative determination, non-competes are unfair.
I don't agree, but that is what they are relying on to justify their authority. SCOTUS will end up sorting it out.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:35 am to dafif
quote:
You actually actually do this a lot
Because it's a waste of time most of the time due to the post-Trump demographic shifts on here and the partisan mind rot from the echo chamber and NPC content
quote:
But, In this specific scenario, using your super legal brain, what gives the federal government, or an agency of the government, the ability to deal with specific state contract law?
Keep reading the thread.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:53 am to dafif
They don’t
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News