Category: Antitrust

The Murky Waters of Wash Trading Digital Assets – DOJ Charges 18 Individuals and Entities

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts recently unsealed what it described as the “first-ever criminal charges against financial services firms for market manipulation and ‘wash trading’ in the cryptocurrency industry.” The SEC also filed parallel civil charges alleging violations of Securities for the same alleged schemes.

The government has charged eighteen individuals and companies, including four cryptocurrency market makers, with engaging in illegal market manipulation through “wash trading” digital assets. According to the DOJ and SEC filings, although these individuals purported to offer “market making services,” they were actually engaged in offering “market-manipulations-as-a-service” by engaging in artificial trading of digital assets to give the false appearance that there was an active (and heavily traded) market for those tokens.

How this case came to the DOJ’s attention is as novel as the legal theory behind the charging documents. According to DOJ spokespeople, the investigation started with a tip from the SEC about one of the companies at issue. Further investigations into that company—along with the help of cooperating witnesses—led authorities to set up a sham crypto firm, NextFundAI, and create a token associated with the firm. Posing as NextFundAI, the government communicated with the defendants—market makers who allegedly offered to trade and manipulate the price of NextFundAI’s token by wash trading, or trading the token back-and-forth between crypto wallets they controlled.

While there may be rules against wash trading in traditional securities markets (see, e.g., 26 U.S. Code § 1091), the rules are as clear in the digital asset space. Indeed, the regulatory vacuum facing the digital asset industry makes it difficult for those in the industry to avoid eventual regulatory action, and what many have referred to as “regulation by enforcement.” This is particularly true where the technological realities of digital assets do not fit squarely within the existing legal framework. There may be disagreement about the purpose or intent behind a cryptocurrency transaction where one individual is transferring cryptocurrency between wallets that person or entity controls. But there may not be a misrepresentation or fraudulent act inherent in this type of transaction. Indeed, the transaction itself (including the wallet address of the sender and recipient) is likely immediately and accurately recorded on the public blockchain. So, according to the government, the “fraud” is the intent behind the trades – to manipulate the market by artificially generating trade volume to signal interest and activity in the token.

The government’s allegations are also interesting because in addition to the wire fraud charges (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which generally do not require proof that the digital asset at issue is a security, the government has charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit market manipulation (18 U.S.C. § 371), which requires the government to prove that the token at issue is a security. This charge is significant because it will require the DOJ to prove at trial that the tokens at issue are securities.

Although several individuals involved have already pleaded guilty, there are several defendants who appear to be testing the government’s novel theory in court. We anticipate that this will be the first of many similar investigations and enforcement actions in the digital asset space.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Digital Assets, visit the NLR Securities SEC section.

Rytr or Wrong: Is the FTC’s Operation AI Comply a Prudent Defense Against Deception or an Assault on Innovation and Constitutional Free Speech?

In today’s rapidly evolving digital economy, new artificial intelligence tools promise to transform every industry. Sometimes, those promises are overblown or outright deceptive. So, as the AI hype cycle continues, regulators are left with the unenviable role of determining their duties to shape the impact of these developing tools on businesses and the public. Although the EEOC, SEC, DOJ and several State Attorneys General are issuing warnings and increasingly investigating the risks of AI, this tension is on full display with the Federal Trade Commission’s recent enforcement actions announced as part of its “Operation AI Comply,” which marks the beginning of its “new law enforcement sweep” against companies that are relying on AI “as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers.”1

Although many of the initial targets of Operation AI Comply were accused of conduct that plausibly violated Section 5, the FTC’s charges against an AI writing assistant, Rytr, drew strong dissents from two of the FTC Commissioners who accused their fellow commissioners of effectively strangling AI innovation in the crib. There are several important takeaways from Operation AI Comply, particularly if the dissenting commissioners have correctly identified that the FTC is pushing the boundaries of its authority in pursuit of AI.

The FTC and its Role in AI Regulation.

The FTC plays a critical role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive practices, and it has long been warning developers about how their algorithms and AI tools might violate one of its broadest sources of statutory authority: Section 5 of the FTC Act.2

In many respects, the FTC’s September 25, 2024, announcement of its “Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes” should not have come as a surprise, as most of the enforcement actions related to overhyping AI.3 For example, the FTC’s Complaint and proposed settlement with DoNotPay – which made bold claims about being “the world’s first robot lawyer” and that it could “generate perfectly valid legal documents in no time,” replacing “the $200-billion-dollar legal industry with artificial intelligence”4– turned on relatively straightforward false or unsubstantiated performance claims in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.5 Similarly, the FTC’s charges against Ascend Ecom,6 Ecommerce Empire Builders,7 and FBA Machine8 all relate to allegations of e-commerce business opportunity schemes that generally engaged in AI-washing – i.e., a tactic of exaggerating or falsely representing that a product uses AI in an effort to make the product or company appear more cutting edge than it actually is.9 Each of these four cases was unanimously supported by the Commission, receiving 5-0 votes, and is consistent with other actions brought by the FTC to combat unfair, deceptive, or discriminatory impacts of AI.10

However, with a 3-2 split among its commissioners, the FTC’s complaint against Rytr is a different story.11 Historically, unanimous decisions were more typical; however, split decisions are becoming more common as the FTC pursues more aggressive enforcement actions and reflect a broader ideological conflict about the role of regulation and market intervention.

Rytr: Creative Assistant or Assistant to Fraud?

Rytr is a generative AI writing assistant that produces unlimited written content for subscribers for over 43 use cases.12 At the core of the FTC’s complaint against Rytr is the risk that one of its use cases – a “Testimonial & Review” feature – can be used to create customer reviews that may be false or misleading.13

Based on limited user input, users can generate “genuine-sounding, detailed reviews quickly and with little user effort,” which the FTC believes “would almost certainly be false for users who copy the generated content and publish it online.”14 The FTC gives one example where a user provided minimal inputs of “this product” and “dog shampoo” to generate a detailed paragraph boasting how the dog shampoo smelled great, reduced shedding, improved the shine of their dog’s coat, and recommended the product.15 Based on example inputs and outputs like this, the FTC concluded that Rytr’s services “causes or is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers” and “its likely only use is to facilitate subscribers posting fake reviews with which to deceive consumers.”16 As such, the FTC’s complaint argues that Rytr – by offering a tool that could be readily used to generate false reviews — provided the “means and instrumentalities for deception” and engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.17

In other words, the majority of the FTC Commissioners were concerned about an infinite potential for inaccurate or deceptive product reviews by Rytr’s subscribers and did not recognize countervailing reasons to allow this use of technology. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, Rytr agreed to a proposed settlement with the FTC by which Rytr would stop offering the Testimonial & Review use case at issue in this case18 – a pragmatic solution to avoid litigation with the government.

Dissents from the FTC’s Direction.

Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson submitted two dissenting statements, criticizing the complaint against Rytr as an aggressive expansion of the FTC’s authority under Section 5 and cautioned against its chilling effect on a nascent industry.19

Commissioner Ferguson framed the internal conflict well: “Treating as categorically illegal a generative AI tool merely because of the possibility that someone might use it for fraud is inconsistent with our precedents and common sense. And it threatens to turn honest innovators into lawbreakers and risks strangling a potentially revolutionary technology in its cradle.”20 The dissenting statements identified three broad objections to the Rytr complaint.

First, as a threshold matter, the complaint failed to identify any evidence of actual harmful or deceptive acts stemming from Rytr’s product – a clear requirement under Section 5 of the FTC Act.21 Both dissents criticized the complaint for effectively treating draft outputs from Rytr as the final reviews published by users; however, “the Commission does not allege a single example of a Rytr-generated review being used to deceive consumers in violation of Section 5 [.]22 Both dissents criticized the complaint for ignoring the obvious benefits of generative AI in this context. Namely, that “much of the promise of AI stems from its remarkable ability to provide such benefits to consumers using AI tools. . . . If Rytr’s tool helped users draft reviews about their experiences that they would not have posted without the benefit of a drafting aid, consumers seeing their reviews benefitted, too.”23

Second, the dissenters rejected the complaint as “a dramatic extension of means-and-instrumentalities liability,”24 particularly in a case “where there is no allegation that Rytr itself made misrepresentations.”25 The complaint focused on the fact that Rytr “has furnished its users and subscribers with the means to generate written content for consumer reviews that is false and deceptive[,]” thus providing “the means and instrumentalities for the commissions of deceptive acts and practices.”26 However, the dissenters note that the “critical element for primary liability is the existence of a representation, either by statement or omission, made by the defendant.”27 The theory advanced against Rytr could be “true of an almost unlimited number of products and services: pencils, paper, printers, computers, smartphones, word processors, . . . etc.”28 Accordingly, both dissenting commissioners rejected this expansion of means-and-instrumentalities liability because a “knowledge requirement avoids treating innocent and productive conduct as illegal merely because of the subsequent acts of independent third parties.”29

Finally, the dissenters offered several reasons why the FTC’s complaint was not in the public’s interest. Both dissenters expressed concerns that this case was too aggressive and would undermine innovation in the AI industry.30 Commissioner Ferguson went further to note that the complaint could violate important First Amendment interests, noting that the complaint “holds a company liable under Section 5 for a product that helps people speak, quite literally.”31 He criticized the theory behind the complaint; “[y]et because the technology in question is new and unfamiliar, I fear we are giving short shrift to common sense and to fundamental constitutional values.”32

Conclusion

It bears repeating that the FTC Commissioners unanimously approved almost every case listed in Operation AI Comply; “[w]hen people use generative AI technology to lie, cheat, and steal, the law should punish them no differently than if they use quill and parchment.”33 So, the FTC’s warnings about marketing AI systems for professional services, using AI to engage in misleading marketing, or overstating a product’s AI integration should be heeded, especially with the FTC’s statements that this is only the beginning of its enforcement activity.34 In prepared remarks, Chair Lina Khan has stated that the FTC is “making clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books[,]35 so companies should take care to protect against whether their AI and other automated tools are being used for unfair or deceptive purposes or have biased or discriminatory impacts. Just because a technology is new does not mean that it can ignore existing laws – and we’ve seen similar sentiments and disputes in other areas of emerging technology enforcement, such as the SEC’s view that, with respect to U.S. securities laws, “[t]here’s no reason to treat the crypto market differently just because different technology is used.”36

However, the Rytr case could be an indicator that the majority intends to pursue a broader theory of liability under Section 5 of the FTC Act to include tools that merely could be misused – without proof of actual harm or intent. If that continues to be the case, developers should be vigilant in identifying how their products and platforms could be misused for fraudulent purposes, as well-intentioned developers may become the target of investigations or other inquiries by the FTC. The FTC is accepting public comments on the proposed consent agreement with Rytr through November 4, 2024,37 which could develop the FTC’s position further.

1) FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes, Press Release, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes.

2) See, e.g., Aiming for truth, fairness, and equity in your company’s use of AI, Elisa Johnson, Federal Trade Commission (April 19, 2021), available at https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai.

3) Operation AI Comply: Detecting AI-infused frauds and deceptions, Alvaro Puig, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-detecting-ai-infused-frauds-and-deceptions.

4) See, e.g., id.

5) In re DoNotPay, Inc., FTC Matter No. 2323042, Complaint available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DoNotPayInc-Complaint.pdf.

6) FTC v. Ascend Capventures, Inc., et al., C.D. Ca. Case No. 2:24-CV-07660-SPG-JPR (Filed Sept. 9, 2024).

7) FTC v. Empire Holdings Group LLC, et al., E.D. Pa. Case No. 2:24-CV-04949 (Filed Sept. 18, 2024).

8) FTC v. TheFBAMachine Inc., et al., D. N.J. Case No. 2:24-CV-06635-JXN-LDW (Filed June 3, 2024).

9) See generally, FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes, supra.

10) The FTC aggregated several summaries for its recent cases related to AI and other automated tools, which can be found here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/09/operation-ai-comply-continuing-crackdown-overpromises-ai-related-lies#:~:text=These%20cases%20are,CRI%20Genetics.

11) See generally Cases and Proceedings: Rytr, FTC Matter No. 2323052 (last updated Sept. 25, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/rytr.

12) See, e.g., In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052, Complaint ¶ 2, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323052rytrcomplaint.pdf.

13) Id. ¶ 6.

14) Id. ¶¶ 6-8.

15)  Id. ¶ 10.

16) Id. ¶ 14.

17) Id. ¶¶ 15-18.

18)  See In re Rytr LLC, Agreement Containing Consent Order, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323052rytracco.pdf.

19) See, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Joined by Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052 at p.1 (cautioning against settlements to “advance claims or obtain orders that a court is highly unlikely to credit or grant in litigation,” as it may encourage the use of “questionable or misguided theories or cases.”) [hereinafter, “Holyoak Dissent”].

20) Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, In re Rytr LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052 at p.1 [hereinafter, “Ferguson Dissent”].

21) See 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) (prohibiting the FTC from declaring an act or practice unfair unless it “causes or is 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.”).

22) Ferguson Dissent at p.6; see also Holyoak Dissent at p.2.

23) Holyoak Dissent at p.3; see also Ferguson Dissent at p.7 (noting the challenges of writing a thoughtful review and that “a tool that produces a well-written first draft of a review based on some keyword inputs can make the task more accessible.”).

24) Ferguson Dissent at p.5.

25) Holyoak Dissent at p.4 (emphasis original).

26) Complaint ¶¶ 15-16.

27) Holyoak Dissent at p.4 (emphasis original) (cleaned up with citations omitted); see also Ferguson Dissent at pp.3-5 (discussing the circumstances in which means-and-instrumentalities liability arises).

28) Ferguson Dissent at p.5.

29) Ferguson Dissent at p.7; see also Holyoak Dissent at p.5 (“Section 5 does not categorically prohibit a product or service merely because someone might use it to deceive someone else.”).

30)  Holyoak Dissent at p.5 (“Today’s misguided complaint and its erroneous application of Section 5 will likely undermine innovation in the AI space.”); Ferguson Dissent at p.10 (“But we should not bend the law to get at AI. And we certainly should not chill innovation by threatening to hold AI companies liable for whatever illegal use some clever fraudster might find for their technology.”).

31) Ferguson Dissent at p.10.

32) Id.

33) Id. at p.9 (citing Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services, at pp.10-11 (Sept. 19, 2024)).

34) Operation AI Comply: Detecting AI-infused frauds and deceptions, supra.

35) A few key principles: An excerpt from Chair Khan’s Remarks at the January Tech Summit on AI, FTC (Feb. 8, 2024), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/02/few-key-principles-excerpt-chair-khans-remarks-january-tech-summit-ai.

36) Prepared Remarks of Gary Gensler on Crypto Markets at Penn Law Capital Markets Association Annual Conference, Chair Gary Gensler, SEC (April 4, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gensler-remarks-crypto-markets-040422.

37) Rytr LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment, Federal Register, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/03/2024-22767/rytr-llc-analysis-of-proposed-consent-order-to-aid-public-comment.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

What Digital Advertisers and Influencers Need to Know About the FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

As previously blogged about here, following notices of proposed rulemaking in 2022 and 2023, on August 22, 2024 the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule that will impose monetary civil penalties false and misleading consumer reviews and testimonials.  Those covered by the Final Rule, including, but not limited to, advertisers, marketers, manufacturers, brands and various intermediaries, and businesses that promote and assist such entities, should consult with an experienced FTC compliance lawyer and begin to prepare for its enforcement, immediately.

What Does the FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Cover?

The FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials formalizes the prohibition of various practices relating to the use of consumer reviews and testimonials and sets forth which practices may be considered unfair or deceptive pursuant to the FTC Act.

In short, the Final Rule is intended to foster fair competition and protect consumers’ purchasing decisions.  In general, the Final Rule covers: (i) the purchase, sale or procuring of fake reviews or testimonials (for example and without limitation, a reviewer that does not exist, a reviewer that did not actually use or possess experience with the product or service, or a review that misrepresents actual experience); (ii) providing compensation or other incentives in exchange for reviews that express a particular sentiment; (iii) facilitating “insider” consumer reviews and testimonials that do not contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship; (iv) utilizing websites that appear to be independent review websites when, in fact, they are controlled by the business whose products or services are reviewed; (v) suppressing reviews, either by intimidation or by merely publishing certain reviews or ratings (for example and without limitation, only positive reviews or ratings); and (vi) misusing fake indicators of social media influence.

The Final Rule also includes some important definitions.  For example, the Final Rule defines “consumer reviews” as reviews published to a website or platform dedicated (in whole or in part) to receiving and displaying consumer evaluations, including, for example, via reviews or  ratings.

The Final Rule defines “consumer review hosting” as “providing the technological means by which a website or platform enables consumers to see or hear the consumer reviews that consumers have submitted to the website or platform.”  In simple terms, this means that if an employee posts an unsolicited review on a corporate website concerning a product/service that they have experience using, it may not necessarily be considered deceptive as long as the material connection is disclosed.

“Clear and conspicuous” disclosures (such as, for example and without limitation, those pertaining to material relationships between a manager or officer to a brand), must be unavoidable, and easy to notice and understand for ordinary, reasonable consumers.  Note, for  audiovisual content, disclosures must be presented in “at least the same means as the representations requiring the disclosure.”

The Final Rule follows the FTC’s Updated Endorsement Guidelines (2023).  The FTC Endorsement Guides address a much broader range of conduct than the Final Rule, and provide best practice recommendations regarding the use of product endorsements and reviews in advertising.

What are the Requirements of the FTC Final Rule on Reviews and Testimonials?

The Final Rule largely codifies existing FTC policy related to reviews and testimonials and sets forth limitations for a handful of categories of conduct that the FTC will consider deceptive.  In part, the Final Rule prevents covered entities and their agents from using fake reviews and deceptive testimonials, suppressing honest negative reviews and paying for positive reviews.

In pertinent part and without limitation:

  1. 16 CFR § 465.2: Fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials, or celebrity testimonials

Business and brands are prohibited from creating, buying, selling or disseminating fake or false reviews or testimonials, including, but not limited to, those that expressly or impliedly misrepresent they are by someone that does not exist (for example and without limitation, AI-generated reviews), by someone that does not have experience with the product/service, those that misrepresent experience with a product or service, and negative reviews intended to damage competitors.

Businesses and brands are prohibited from creating, purchasing, procuring or disseminating such reviews (and/or facilitating dissemination) when the business knew or should have known that the reviews or testimonials were not bona fide.

  1. 16 CFR § 465.4: Buying positive or negative consumer reviews

Business and brands are prohibited from incentivizing a consumer to write a review when the incentive is conditioned – expressly or implicitly – on the review expressing a particular sentiment (whether positive or negative) about a business or brand, or related products or services.  It is not unlawful for a company to offer incentives for consumers to write reviews, however, it is unlawful, for example, to condition the incentive upon, for example, a 5-star review.  While the FTC Endorsement Guides separately mandate a clear and conspicuous disclosure when a review is incentivized by monetary payment or another incentive/relationship, a disclosure of the incentive is not a defense when the incentive is conditioned on the review expressing a particular sentiment.

  1. 16 CFR § 465.5: Insider consumer reviews and consumer testimonials

Section 465.5 of the Final Rule prohibits businesses and brands from creating, soliciting or posting reviews or testimonials by officers, managers, employees or agents thereof without clearly and conspicuously disclosing their relationship, or “material connection.”  There are limited exceptions.  First, the prohibition does not apply to unsolicited social media posts by employees or social media posts that result from generalized solicitations (e.g., non-employee specific).  Second, the prohibition does not apply to unsolicited employee reviews that merely appear on a business’s website because of its “consumer review hosting” function.

Additionally, reviews solicited from immediate relatives (e.g., spouse, parent, child or sibling), employees or agents of officers, managers, employees or agents of a business or brand require that latter ensure that the immediate relative clearly, conspicuously and transparently disclose the material connection to the business.  The foregoing also applies, for example and without limitation, to requests that employees or agents solicit reviews from relatives.  Covered “insiders” are required to instruct such reviewers to clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationships to the business or brand and, if they knew or should have known that a related review appears without a disclosure, take remedial steps to address the disclosure.

The Final Rule states that if the business or brand knew or should have known of a material relationship between a testimonialist and the business, it is a violation for the business or brand to disseminate or cause the dissemination of a consumer testimonial from its officer, manager, employee, or agent without a clear and conspicuous disclosure of such relationship.

  1. 16 CFR § 465.6: Company-controlled review websites or entities

Companies and brands are prohibited from creating or controlling review websites or platforms that appear independent when they are, in fact, operated by the company itself.  For example, companies may not expressly or by implication falsely represent that a website they control provides independent reviews or opinions.  Section 456.6 is intended to prevent the creation of illegitimate independent review websites, organizations or entities to review products and services.  It does not apply to general consumer reviews on a brand’s website, for example, so long as those reviews comply with applicable legal regulations.

  1. 16 CFR § 465.7: Review suppression

Pursuant to Section 465.7 of the Final Rule, businesses and brands may not suppress, manipulated or attempt to suppress or manipulate negative reviews (or otherwise manipulate or attempt to manipulate overall perception) by solely displaying positive feedback, with limited exceptions such as when a review contains confidential or personal information, or is false or fake, and/or wholly unrelated to the products/services offered.  The criteria for doing so must be “applied equally to all reviews submitted without regard to sentiment.”

Businesses and brands are also prohibited from suppressing negative reviews or ratings, and misrepresenting (expressly or implicitly) that the selected consumer reviews or ratings represent most or all reviews or ratings.  The Final Rule does not prohibit sorting or organizing reviews – per se – however doing so in a manner that makes it more difficult for consumers to view/learn of negative reviews may be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

All reviews must be treated fairly so that consumers are provided with a true an accurate representation of consumer experiences.

Additionally, the Final Rule prohibits the use of “unfounded or groundless legal threat” or other physical threat, intimidation or false accusation to prevent a review from being written or created or to cause the review to be removed.

Section 465.7, in pertinent part, is consistent with various portions of the January 2022 agency guidance entitled Featuring Online Customer Reviews: A Guide for Platforms.  The foregoing guidance recommends that businesses and brands: (i) that operate a website or platform that features reviews, have processes in place to ensure those reviews truly reflect the feedback received from legitimate customers about their real experiences; (ii) be transparent about your review-related practices; (ii) do not ask for reviews only from people you think will leave positive ones; (iii) that offer an incentive to consumers for leaving a review, not condition it, explicitly or implicitly, on the review being positive (even without that condition, offering an incentive to write a review may introduce bias or change the weight and credibility that readers give that review); (iv) do not prevent or discourage people from submitting negative reviews; (v) have a reasonable processes in place to verify that reviews are genuine and not fake, deceptive, or otherwise manipulated (be proactive in modifying and upgrading your processes); (vi) do not  edit reviews to alter the message (e.g., do not change words to make a negative review sound more positive); (vii) treat positive and negative reviews equally (do not subject negative reviews to greater scrutiny); (viii) publish all genuine reviews and do not exclude negative ones; (ix) do not display reviews in a misleading way (e.g., it could be deceptive to feature the positive ones more prominently or require a click through to view negative reviews); (x) that display reviews when the reviewer has a material connection to the company or brand offering the product or service (e.g., when the reviewer has received compensation or a free product in exchange for their review), clearly and conspicuously disclose such relationships; (xi) clearly and conspicuously disclose how they collect, process and display reviews, and how they determine overall ratings, to the extent necessary to avoid misleading consumers; and (xii) have a reasonable procedure to identify fake or suspicious reviews after publication (if a consumer or business tells a business or brand that a review may be fake, investigation and appropriate action are necessary – that may include taking down suspicious or phony reviews or leaving them up with appropriate labels).

  1. 16 CFR § 465.8: Misuse of fake indicators of social media influence

Section 465.7 prohibits selling, distributing, purchasing or procuring “fake indicators of social media influence” (for example and without limitation, likes, saves, shares, subscribers, followers or views generated by a bot or fake account) that are actually known to be or should be known to be fake, and that could potentially be used or are actually used to misrepresent or artificially inflate individual or business importance for a commercial purpose.  Thus, liability will not attach to a business or brand that engages an influencer using fake indicators of social media influence if the business or brand neither knew nor should have known thereof.

How is the FTC Final Rule Different from the Proposed Rule?

Notably, the Final Rule does not include a provision from the proposed rule that would have precluded advertisers from using consumer reviews that were created for a different product.  Known as “review hijacking,” the FTC was unable to resolve various concerns about the meaning of “substantially different product.”  The FTC reserved the right to revisit this issue, going forward via further rulemaking.

What are the Consequences for Violating the FTC Final Rule on Reviews and Testimonials?

The concepts, prohibitions and obligations included in the Final Rule are not entirely new.  However, the Final Rule does significantly enhance the FTC’s ability to pursue civil monetary damages in the form of penalties in the amount of up to $51,744, per violation or per day for ongoing violations.  The Final Rule also will permit the FTC to seek judicial orders that require violators to compensate consumers for the consequences of their unlawful conduct.

Takeaway:

The Final Rule banning fake consumer reviews and testimonials generally prohibits specific  practices that the FTC has determined are deceptive or misleading, including: (i) fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials or celebrity testimonials; (ii) purchasing positive or negative consumer reviews; (iii) insider consumer reviews and consumer testimonials; (iv) company-controlled review websites or entities; (v) review suppression; and (vi) misuse of fake indicators of social media influence.  The Final rule will be effective October 21, 2024.  Violations of the Final Rule can result in significant financial and reputational consequences.  Companies that utilize consumer reviews, consumer testimonials or celebrity endorsements should consult with an experienced eCommerce attorney to discuss proactively implementing responsible written policies and contracts that ensure compliance with the Final Rule and other applicable legal regulations (for example and without limitation, ensure the clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections), educating employees and agents, reviewing marketing strategies, auditing first and third-party (for example and without limitation, lead generators) promotional materials and activities for non-compliance (for example and without limitation, ensuring that reviews  provide an accurate representation of consumer experiences), and developing and implementing appropriate compliance plans and written policies that include required remedial actions.

© 2024 Hinch Newman LLP
For more on the FTC Fake Consumer Reviews rule, visit the NLR Communications Media Internet section

Non-Compete Associated with Partial Sale of Business Must Be “Reasonable” To Be Enforced

Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, 104 Cal. App. 5th 331 (2024)

Robert and Stephen Samuelian co-founded Life Generations Healthcare, LLC. When they sold a portion of the business, the company adopted a new operating agreement that restrained its members (including the Samuelians) from competing with the company. The Samuelians later filed a dispute in arbitration challenging the enforceability of the non-compete, contending that it was per se unenforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600; in response, the company contended that the “reasonableness standard” (as set forth in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 1130 (2020)) should be applied to determine the enforceability of the non-compete.

The arbitrator and the trial court agreed with the Samuelians and held that the agreement was per se unenforceable pursuant to Section 16600. In this opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Section 16600 only applies if the restrained party sells its entire business interest and that the statute does not apply “to partial sales after which an individual retains a significant interest in the business.” In the case of a partial sale, the Ixchel reasonableness standard applies to determine the enforceability of the noncompete. The court also held that the “sale of the business” exception to Section 16600 (Sections 16601, et seq.) only applies if there has been: (1) a sale of the entire business interest; and (2) a transfer of “some goodwill” as part of the transaction. The opinion also contains a detailed discussion of members’ fiduciary duties in a manager-managed company under the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA) and holds that an operating agreement can impose reasonable non-compete restrictions on members of a manager-managed company.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on the Enforceability of Non-competes, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.

FTC Staff Issue Report on Multi-Level Marketing Income Disclosure Statements

Staff reviewed income disclosure statements in February 2023 that were publicly available on the websites of a wide array of MLMs, from large household names to smaller, less well-known companies, according to FTC attorneys. “These statements are sometimes provided to consumers who are considering joining MLMs, and often purport to show information about income that recruits could expect to receive.”

According to the report, FTC staff found a number of issues with the statements they reviewed, including that most omit key information when calculating the earnings amounts they present. Specifically, the report notes that most of the reviewed statements do not include participants with low or no earnings in their display of earnings amounts and also don’t account for the expenses faced by participants, which can outstrip the income they make. The report notes that these omissions are often not plainly disclosed in the income statements.

The report also notes that most statements emphasize the high earnings of a small group of participants, and many entirely omit or only inconspicuously disclose key information about the limited earnings made by most participants. In addition, the staff report notes that most of the disclosure statements staff reviewed present earnings information in a potentially confusing way, “like giving average earnings amounts for groups that could have very different actual incomes, or using annual income figures that aren’t based on what an actual group of participants made for the year.”

The report also notes based on staff’s analysis of data in the income disclosure statements, including information included in fine print, that many participants in those MLMs received no payments from the MLMs, and the vast majority received $1,000 or less per year—that is, less than $84 per month, on average.

“The FTC staff report documents an analysis of 70 publicly available income disclosure statements from a wide range of MLMs — big and well-known to smaller companies. The report found that these income disclosure statements showed most participants made $1,000 or less per year — that’s less than $84 dollars per month. And that may not account for expenses. In at least 17 MLMs, most participants didn’t make any money at all.”

As referenced above, the staff report documents (and provides numerous examples of) how most of the publicly available MLM income disclosure statements used all the following tactics:
  • Emphasizing the high dollar amounts made by a relatively small number of MLM participants.
  • Leaving out or downplaying important facts, like the percentage of participants who made no money.
  • Presenting income data in potentially confusing ways.
  • Ignoring expenses incurred by participants — even though expenses can, and in some MLMs often do, outstrip income.
© 2024 Hinch Newman LLP

US District Court Sets Aside the FTC’s Noncompete Ban on a Nationwide Basis

On August 20, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule banning noncompetes is unlawful and “set aside” the rule. “The Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on its effective date of September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”

The district court’s decision has a nationwide effect. The FTC is very likely to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Meanwhile, employers need not concern themselves for now with the rule’s notice obligations, and the FTC’s purported nationwide bar on noncompetes is ineffective. Employers do, however, need to remain mindful of the broader trend of increasing hostility to employee noncompetes.

The Court’s Decision

On April 23, the FTC voted 3-2 to publish a final rule with sweeping effects, purporting to bar prospectively and invalidate retroactively most employee noncompete agreements. The court’s decision addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the propriety of the FTC’s rule. The court denied the FTC’s motion and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for two reasons.

First, the court held that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g) of the FTC Act. In reaching its holding, the court considered the statute’s plain language, Section 6(g)’s structure and location within the FTC Act, the absence of any penalty provisions for violations of rules promulgated under Section 6(g), and the history of the FTC Act and subsequent amendments. Because the FTC lacked substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition, and hence authority to issue the final noncompete rule, the court did not consider additional arguments regarding the scope of the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority. Notably, the court did not consider whether the final rule could overcome the major questions doctrine.

Second, the court held that the FTC’s final noncompete rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation” and failed to establish “‘a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” The court heavily discounted studies that the FTC had relied upon that purported to measure the impact of statewide noncompete bans because no state had ever enacted a ban as broad as the FTC’s ban: “[t]he FTC’s evidence compares different states’ approaches to enforcing non-competes based on specific factual situations — completely inapposite to the Rule’s imposition of a categorical ban.” “In sum, the Rule is based on inconsistent and flawed empirical evidence, fails to consider the positive benefits of non-compete agreements, and disregards the substantial body of evidence supporting these agreements.” The court further held that the FTC failed to sufficiently address alternatives to issuing the rule.

In terms of a remedy, the court “set aside” the FTC’s final noncompete rule. The “set aside” language is drawn verbatim from the APA. The court noted that the FTC’s argument that any relief should be limited to the named plaintiffs in the case was unsupported by the APA. Instead, the court noted that its decision has a nationwide effect, is not limited to the parties in the case, and affects all persons in all judicial districts equally.

Further Litigation

In addition to a likely FTC appeal to the Fifth Circuit, two other cases are pending that likewise challenge the FTC’s final noncompete rule. First, in ATS Tree Services v. FTC, pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the district court previously denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC, pending in the Middle District of Florida, the court enjoined the FTC from enforcing the rule against the named plaintiffs. A final judgment in one of these cases that differs from the result in the Northern District of Texas could eventually reach the courts of appeals and potentially lead to a circuit split to be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

Takeaways for Employers

For now, the FTC’s noncompete rule has been set aside on a nationwide basis, and employers need not comply with the rule’s notice obligations. Noncompetes remain enforceable to the same extent they were before the FTC promulgated its final rule. Depending on how further litigation evolves, the rule could be revived, a temporary split in authority could arise leading to confusion where the rule is enforceable in certain jurisdictions but not in others, or the rule will remain set aside.

An important part of the court’s decision is its rejection of the FTC’s factual findings, which were made in support of the rule, as poorly reasoned and poorly supported. As we discussed in our prior client alerts, we anticipate that employees may cite the FTC’s findings to support challenges to enforceability under state law. The court’s analysis of the FTC’s factual findings may substantially undermine the persuasive authority of the FTC’s findings.

Employers should anticipate that noncompete enforcements in the coming years will remain uncertain as courts, legislatures, and government agencies continue to erode the legal and policy justifications for employee noncompetes. This counsels in favor of a “belt and suspenders” approach for employers to protect their legitimate business interests rather than relying solely on noncompetes.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more on the FTC Noncompete Ban, visit the NLR Labor Employment section

Down to the Wire for Employers and FTC Noncompete Ban

Compliance Deadline Approaches

Employers are running out of time to comply with the FTC’s purported regulatory ban on non-competition agreements. The ban – announced on April 23, 2024 – is scheduled to take effect on September 4. 2024.

By that date, the regulation requires that employers notify all employees subject to noncompetes that the agreements will no longer be enforced. The only exceptions are existing agreements with “senior executives” who made at least $151,164 in the preceding year; these agreements are grandfathered. See our earlier alerts from April 23, May 14, and July 8 for further discussion on developments relating to the ban.

So Far, No Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Ban

As previously reported, a federal court in Dallas issued a preliminary injunction against the regulation on July 3, 2024. The injunction, however, only affects the parties to the lawsuit and the district in which the lawsuit was brought. When she issued that preliminary injunction, Judge Ada Brown committed to rendering a final decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction by August 30,2024.

However, she specifically declined to give her preliminary injunction nationwide effect. In its motion in support of a permanent injunction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other parties are arguing that the court is required to vacate the rule, with nationwide effect, because it was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. We cannot predict whether she will do so.

Meanwhile, since the July ruling in Texas, two other federal courts have issued rulings on requests to enjoin the ban, one in Philadelphia in favor of the FTC by denying an injunction, and the other in central Florida in favor of the employer by granting one. As with the Texas case, the Florida injunction is not nationwide. Moreover, that judge has not yet issued an opinion, so we do not yet know his rationale for the injunction.

Now What?

Where does this leave employers? In the absence of a ruling invalidating the FTC ban nationwide, there is nothing to prevent the FTC from enforcing its ban beginning September 4 anywhere outside of Dallas and mid-Florida. As far as we know, only the Northern District of Texas is able to order such a ban when it issues its final decision on or before August 30.

Even though, based on her initial ruling, it is quite likely Judge Brown will enjoin the regulation permanently, it is unclear whether she will take the additional step of giving her injunction nationwide effect.

To comply with the regulation, employers should prepare to act by September 4. We recommend creating a list of all current and former “workers” (defined as any service providers regardless of classification) subject to noncompete agreements and a written communication that meets the regulation’s notice requirements.

Unless a new order appears enjoining enforcement of the ban nationwide before September 4, employers will need to send out that communication in order to be in compliance. The requirements for sending the notice include identifying the “person who entered into the noncompete clause with the worker by name” (we don’t know if this means the individual or the entity) and hand delivering or mailing the notice to the worker’s last known mailing address, or to the last known email address or mobile phone number (by text). The full text of the rule, including a model communication from the FTC, can be found at pages 3850-06 of the May 7, 2024, Federal Register.

©2024 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on the Noncompete Ban, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.

FTC Announces Final Rule Imposing Civil Penalties for Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

On August 14, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a Final Rule combatting bogus consumer reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase. The Rule allows the FTC to strengthen enforcement, seek civil penalties against violators and deter AI-generated fake reviews.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” said FTC attorney Chair Lina M. Khan. “By strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

The Rule announced on August 14, 2024 follows an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking announced in November 2022 and June 2023, respectively. The FTC also held an informal hearing on the proposed rule in February 2024. In response to public comments, the Commission made numerous clarifications and adjustments to its previous proposal.

What Does the FTC Final on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Prohibit?

The FTC Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials prohibits:

Writing, selling, or buying fake or false consumer reviews. 

The Rule prohibits businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews that misrepresent they are by someone who does not exist or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the reviewers’ experience. It also prohibits businesses from buying consumer reviews that they knew or should have known made such a misrepresentation. Businesses are also prohibited from procuring from certain company insiders such reviews about the business or its products or services for posting on third-party sites, when the businesses knew or should have known about the misrepresentation. The prohibitions on buying or procuring reviews do not cover generalized review solicitations to past customers or simply hosting reviews on the business’s website. Neither will a retailer or other entity be liable for sharing consumer reviews unless it would have been liable for displaying those same reviews on its own website.

Writing, selling, or disseminating fake or false testimonials. 

Businesses are similarly prohibited from writing or selling consumer or celebrity testimonials that make the same kinds of misrepresentations. The are also prohibited from disseminating or causing the dissemination of such testimonials when they knew or should have known about the misrepresentation. The prohibition on disseminating testimonials does not cover the type of generalized solicitations to past customers discussed above with respect to reviews.

Buying positive or negative reviews.

Businesses are prohibited from providing compensation or other incentives contingent on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative. Violations here include situations in which such a contingency is express or implied. So, for example, while it prohibits offering $25 for a 5-star review, it also prohibits offering $25 for a review “telling everyone how much you love our product.”

Failing to make disclosures about insider reviews and testimonials.

The Rule prohibits a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials about the business or its products or services without clearly disclosing their relationship. Businesses are also prohibited from disseminating testimonials by company insiders without clear disclosures, if the businesses knew or should have known of the relationship. A similar prohibition exists for officer or manager solicitations of reviews from their immediate relatives or from employees or agents of the business, and when officers or managers ask employees or agents to seek such reviews from relatives. For these various solicitations, the Rule is violated only if: (i) the officers or managers did not give instructions about making clear disclosures; (ii) the resulting reviews – either by the employees, agents, or the immediate relatives of the officers, managers, employees, or agents – appear without clear disclosures; and (iii) the officers or managers knew or should have known that such reviews appeared and failed to take steps to have those reviews either removed or amended to include clear disclosures. All of these prohibitions hinge on the undisclosed relationship being material to consumers. These disclosure provisions also clarify that they do not cover mere review hosting or generalized solicitations to past customers.

Deceptively claiming that company-controlled review websites are independent.

Businesses are prohibited from misrepresenting that websites or entities they control or operate are providing independent reviews or opinions, other than consumer reviews, about a category of businesses, products, or services that includes their own business, product, or service.

Illegally suppressing negative reviews.

The Rule prohibits using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation or public false accusations (when the accusation is made with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity) to prevent the posting or cause the removal of all or part of a consumer review. Legal threats are “unfounded or groundless” if they are unwarranted by existing law or based on allegations that have no evidentiary support, according to the FTC. Also, if reviews on a marketer’s website have been suppressed based on their rating or negative sentiment, the Rule prohibits that business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a portion of its website dedicated to receiving and displaying such reviews represent most or all submitted reviews.

Selling and buying fake social media indicators.

The Rule prohibits the sale or distribution of fake indicators of social media influence, like fake followers or views. A “fake” indicator means one generated by a bot, a hijacked account, or that otherwise does not reflect a real individual’s or entity’s activities or opinions, according to the FTC. The Rule also bars anyone from buying or procuring such fake indicators. These prohibitions are limited to situations in which the violator knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and which involved misrepresentations of a person’s or company’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

The Rule does not specifically refer to AI. However, according to the FTC, these prohibitions cover situations when someone uses an AI tool to generate the deceptive content at issue.

According to the FTC, case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority might not be enough to deter clearly deceptive review and testimonial practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act. The Rule is intended to enhance deterrence and strengthen FTC enforcement actions.

The Rule will become effective 60 days after the date it’s published in the Federal Register.

Takeaway: The FTC will aggressively enforce the new Rule. The agency has challenged illegal practices regarding bogus reviews and testimonials for quite some time. In addition to investigations and enforcement actions, the FTC has also issued guidance to help businesses to comply. According to the agency, online marketplaces and social media companies could and should do more when it comes to policing their platforms.

© 2024 Hinch Newman LLP
For more news on FTC’s Final Rule on Fake Reviews, visit the NLR Consumer Protection section.

Opposing Decisions – Does the FTC Have the Authority to Ban Non-Compete Clauses?

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) promulgated a new rule banning non-competes (the Rule); the FTC adopted the Rule to prohibit employers from entering into or enforcing non-compete clauses with workers and senior executives. Several lawsuits were quickly filed challenging the rules. Separate parties filed in Texas (in which cases were consolidated), and ATS Tree Services, LLC, filed an action in Pennsylvania.

On July 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a ruling denying ATS Tree Services’ motion for a stay and a preliminary injunction against the Rule. ATS Tree Services, LLC v FTC, No: 2:24-cv-01743-KBH, at p.18 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2024). The Court held that ATS had not demonstrated the irreparable harm necessary to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction and also held that ATS failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its action.

The ruling is diametrically opposed to the July 3, 2024, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which preliminarily enjoined the Rule and postponed its effective date in Ryan, LLC v. U.S., No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, 2024 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024). However, the district court declined to issue a universal injunction, making its ruling applicable only to the Ryan plaintiffs.

The Decisions

In ATS Tree Services, the court first held that nonrecoverable costs of compliance do not rise to the level of irreparable harm, in that “monetary loss and business expenses alone are insufficient bases for injunctive relief.” ATS Tree Services at p.18. Additionally, the court held that the claimed loss of contractual benefits was too speculative. Id. 20-21.

Even though the court found that ATS failed to establish irreparable harm, it added an analysis of ATS’s likelihood of success on the merits, spending the majority of its decision assessing (just as the Ryan Court had) whether “[s]ection 6(g) empowers the FTC with the authority to make substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, or whether the rulemaking authority therein is limited to procedural rules relating to adjudications of unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce.” ATS Tree Services, at p.8. Notably, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263 (2024) to “independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.” Id. at 25. In doing so, the Court harmonized sections 5 and 6 of the FTC Act, concluding:

When taken in the context of the goal of the Act and the FTC’s purpose, the Court finds it clear that the FTC is empowered to make both procedural and substantive rules as is necessary to prevent unfair methods of competition. Thus, the Court rejects ATS’s argument that it should read the word “procedural” but not the word “substantive” into the statutory text defining the FTC’s rulemaking authority. This argument is inherently inconsistent and therefore untenable. Id. at 26.

This was directly contrary to the Ryan decision where the court found under section 6(g) that the FTC lacks the authority to create substantive rules because the Act is only a “housekeeping statute” that allows the FTC to promulgate general “rules of agency organization procedure or practice,” not “substantive rules.” Ryan at *15 (citing Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 310 (1979)).

The court in ATS Tree Services went on to address the FTC’s mandate to “prevent prohibited ‘unfair methods of competition’” under section 5, thereby acknowledging Congress’s terms were “intended to act prophylactically to stop ‘incipient’ threats of unfair methods of competition, not solely responsively through adjudications, as courts interpreting the statute have confirmed.” ATS Tree Services, at p. 28. In addition, the court found that the FTC’s rulemaking authority had been confirmed by other circuit courts. Finally, in the rest of the decision, the Court disposed of the other alternative challenges made by ATS. This was contrary to the Ryan decision, where the Texas court had held that the FTC acted arbitrarily and capriciously, because the Rule was “unreasonably broad without a reasonable explanation” and did not sufficiently address alternatives to issuing the Rule.

Key Takeaways

The two courts have issued opinions with conflicting analyses. While Texas has issued a preliminary injunction specific to the Ryan plaintiffs, the court did indicate it intends to make a final determination on the merits by August 30, 2024, prior to the Rule’s effective date. The Ryan Court will have the opportunity to vacate the Rule in its entirety as unlawful and issue a permanent injunction, with the scope of the relief ordered yet to be decided. This new ruling sets up the potential for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and possibly seek direct relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

*This post was co-authored by Lily Denslow, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Lily is not admitted to practice law.

Copyright © 2024 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on Noncompetes, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section

It’s a Cruel Summer (for Employers Still Facing Uncertainty of Looming Federal Trade Commission Noncompete Rule)

Summer 2024 may be remembered for its uncertainty. On top of the surprises in political campaigns and the Supreme Court’s overruling of decades-old precedents, employers nationwide still face uncertainty with the FTC’s looming rule banning the vast majority of employee noncompetes across the United States. This uncertainty was underscored on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined to enjoin the FTC’s Noncompete Rule (the “Rule”) from taking effect September 4, 2024.

What will happen in September remains unclear, as the nation still awaits a final ruling next month from U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas. On July 3, 2024, Judge Brown temporarily enjoined the Rule, but only for the named plaintiffs — not nationwide.

One thing is certain: Without a nationwide vacatur of the Rule or an injunction against its enforcement, employers will face further uncertainty.

Back in the Northern District of Texas, Plaintiff Ryan LLC and Intervenor U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed briefs this week requesting that Judge Brown’s injunction against the Rule be expanded nationwide. They argued that expanding the injunction nationally would “spare tens of thousands of American businesses the illegal burdens imposed by the rule,” promptly conclude litigation, and avoid “a torrent of lawsuits.”

The FTC’s responsive brief in Texas is expected late next week, with a final ruling from Judge Brown expected on or before August 30, 2024.

What Should Employers Be Doing Now?

Our advice from the July 5, 2024, article remains relevant — for now. We will continue monitoring developments in the courts and providing updates on best practices.

  • Get ready to distribute the required notices informing employees that their noncompetes will no longer be enforced. The Noncompete Rule requires notifying current and former employees that their noncompete agreements will not be — and cannot be — enforced going forward, with notice being provided at the employees’ last known street address, email address, or phone number. For large employers, this could be a significant undertaking to prepare. Since no courts have stopped the FTC rule from taking effect on a nationwide basis, it would be prudent for employers to start gathering all the information they would need to comply with the notice requirement. That said, employers should still wait until after further action is taken by the courts, or in another one of the cases challenging the Rule, before sending the notices.
  • Businesses should explore whether they might have other ways to accomplish some of the same goals as noncompetes, such as nondisclosure agreements or fixed-duration employment contracts.
  • Businesses should review their other restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation and no-hire clauses, to ensure those clauses are narrowly tailored to protect their legitimate interests, thereby reducing the risk that they will be challenged as being within the Rule’s catchall provision prohibiting terms that “function[ ] to prevent” a worker from working for a different company after employment.
  • Businesses should have confidentiality agreements in place with employees and should prepare for a potential wave of trade secret litigation as employees are increasingly enticed to leave their employment to work for competitors. This means businesses will need to be prepared for increased costs of data and forensic work that are generally prevalent in trade secret and confidentiality litigation matters.
  • It may be time for businesses potentially impacted by the Rule to substantively review their existing agreements and policies as described in the points above and get started on drafting replacement forms of agreements that will comply with the Rule — if it goes into effect.
© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more news on the Looming Federal Trade Commission Noncompete Rule, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation and Labor Employment sections.