Tag: Federal Trade Commission

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 Releases Controversial Interim Staff Report on PBMs’ Purported Impact on Drug Prices

At an Open Commission Meeting on August 1, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) presented a report prepared by its staff entitled Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The Powerful Middlemen Inflating Drug Costs and Squeezing Main Street Pharmacies.

Although characterized as “interim,” the report posits the following observations about pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs):

  • “PBMs have gained significant power over prescription drug access and prices through increased concentration and vertical integration.”
  • “Increased concentration and vertical integration may have enabled PBMs to lessen competition, disadvantage rivals, and inflate drug costs.”
  • “The largest PBMs’ outsized bargaining leverage may operate to the disadvantage of smaller unaffiliated pharmacies.”
  • “PBM and brand drug manufacturer rebate contracts may impair or block less expensive competing products, including generic and biosimilar drugs.”
  • “PBMs lead to higher prices” (a conclusion based on only two case studies).

Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, in dissenting from the release of the report, stated that “the Report was plagued by process irregularities and concerns over the substance—or lack thereof—of the original order. In fact, the politicized nature of the process appears to have led to the departure of at least one senior leader at the Commission.” Commissioner Holyoak added that “[e]ven if the Report’s assertions of increasing concentration are accurate, increased concentration ‘does not prove that competition in that market has declined.’ Though the Report baldly asserts that PBMs ‘have gained significant power over prescription drug access and prices,’ the Report does not present empirical evidence that demonstrates PBMs have market power—i.e., ‘the ability to raise price profitably by restricting output.”’

Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, although concurring in the release of the report, was likewise critical of the process and its findings. In particular, Commissioner Ferguson found the report to be “especially unusual” in that it “relies, throughout, in large part on public information that was not collected from the PBMs or their affiliates during the 6(b) process.” Furthermore, Commissioner Ferguson was critical of the finding, based on only two case-study drugs, that PBMs lead to higher prices and pleaded with the FTC “to determine whether these findings are representative of market dynamics for other drugs.” He added that “[w]e need to understand whether any anticompetitive or unfair or deceptive acts or practices on the part of PBMs or any other market participants are contributing to these prices.”

©2024 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more on PBMs, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug 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.

U.S. Sues TikTok for Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Violations

On Friday, August 2, 2024, the United States sued ByteDance, TikTok, and its affiliates for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”). In its complaint, the Department of Justice alleges TikTok collected, stored, and processed vast amounts of data from millions of child users of its popular social media app.

In June, the FTC voted to refer the matter to the DOJ, stating that it had determined there was reason to believe TikTok (f.k.a. Musical.ly, Inc.) had violated a FTC 2019 consent order and that the agency had also uncovered additional potential COPPA and FTC Act violations. The lawsuit filed today in the Central District of California, alleges that TikTok is directed to children under age 13, that Tik Tok has permitted children to evade its age gate, that TikTok has collected data from children without first notifying their parents and obtaining verifiable parental consent, that TikTok has failed to honor parents’ requests to delete their children’s accounts and information, and that TikTok has failed to delete the accounts and information of users the company knows are children. The complaint also alleges that TikTok failed to comply with COPPA even for accounts in the platform’s “Kids Mode” and that TikTok improperly amassed profiles on Kids Mode users. The complaint seeks civil penalties of up to $51,744 per violation per day from January 10, 2024, to present for the improper collection of children’s data, as well as permanent injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the COPPA Rule.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the U.S. Senate passage this week of the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) by a 91-3 bipartisan vote. It is unknown whether the House will take up the bills when it returns from recess in September.

Copyright © 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more on COPPA, visit the NLR Communications Media Internet section

Top Competition Enforcers in the US, EU, and UK Release Joint Statement on AI Competition – AI: The Washington Report

On July 23, the top competition enforcers at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and the European Commission (EC) released a Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI products. The statement outlines risks in the AI ecosystem and shared principles for protecting and fostering competition.

While the statement does not lay out specific enforcement actions, the statement’s release suggests that the top competition enforcers in all three jurisdictions are focusing on AI’s effects on competition in general and competition within the AI ecosystem—and are likely to take concrete action in the near future.

A Shared Focus on AI

The competition enforcers did not just discover AI. In recent years, the top competition enforcers in the US, UK, and EU have all been examining both the effects AI may have on competition in various sectors as well as competition within the AI ecosystem. In September 2023, the CMA released a report on AI Foundation Models, which described the “significant impact” that AI technologies may have on competition and consumers, followed by an updated April 2024 report on AI. In June 2024, French competition authorities released a report on Generative AI, which focused on competition issues related to AI. At its January 2024 Tech Summit, the FTC examined the “real-world impacts of AI on consumers and competition.”

AI as a Technological Inflection Point

In the new joint statement, the top enforcers described the recent evolution of AI technologies, including foundational models and generative AI, as “a technological inflection point.” As “one of the most significant technological developments of the past couple decades,” AI has the potential to increase innovation and economic growth and benefit the lives of citizens around the world.

But with any technological inflection point, which may create “new means of competing” and catalyze innovation and growth, the enforcers must act “to ensure the public reaps the full benefits” of the AI evolution. The enforcers are concerned that several risks, described below, could undermine competition in the AI ecosystem. According to the enforcers, they are “committed to using our available powers to address any such risks before they become entrenched or irreversible harms.”

Risks to Competition in the AI Ecosystem

The top enforcers highlight three main risks to competition in the AI ecosystem.

  1. Concentrated control of key inputs – Because AI technologies rely on a few specific “critical ingredients,” including specialized chips and technical expertise, a number of firms may be “in a position to exploit existing or emerging bottlenecks across the AI stack and to have outside influence over the future development of these tools.” This concentration may stifle competition, disrupt innovation, or be exploited by certain firms.
  2. Entrenching or extending market power in AI-related markets – The recent advancements in AI technologies come “at a time when large incumbent digital firms already enjoy strong accumulated advantages.” The regulators are concerned that these firms, due to their power, may have “the ability to protect against AI-driven disruption, or harness it to their particular advantage,” potentially to extend or strengthen their positions.
  3. Arrangements involving key players could amplify risks – While arrangements between firms, including investments and partnerships, related to the development of AI may not necessarily harm competition, major firms may use these partnerships and investments to “undermine or coopt competitive threats and steer market outcomes” to their advantage.

Beyond these three main risks, the statement also acknowledges that other competition and consumer risks are also associated with AI. Algorithms may “allow competitors to share competitively sensitive information” and engage in price discrimination and fixing. Consumers may be harmed, too, by AI. As the CMA, DOJ, and the FTC have consumer protection authority, these authorities will “also be vigilant of any consumer protection threats that may derive from the use and application of AI.”

Sovereign Jurisdictions but Shared Concerns

While the enforcers share areas of concern, the joint statement recognizes that the EU, UK, and US’s “legal powers and jurisdictions contexts differ, and ultimately, our decisions will always remain sovereign and independent.” Nonetheless, the competition enforcers assert that “if the risks described [in the statement] materialize, they will likely do so in a way that does not respect international boundaries,” making it necessary for the different jurisdictions to “share an understanding of the issues” and be “committed to using our respective powers where appropriate.”

Three Unifying Principles

With the goal of acting together, the enforcers outline three shared principles that will “serve to enable competition and foster innovation.”

  1. Fair Dealing – Firms that engage in fair dealing will make the AI ecosystem as a whole better off. Exclusionary tactics often “discourage investments and innovation” and undermine competition.
  2. Interoperability – Interoperability, the ability of different systems to communicate and work together seamlessly, will increase competition and innovation around AI. The enforcers note that “any claims that interoperability requires sacrifice to privacy and security will be closely scrutinized.”
  3. Choice – Everyone in the AI ecosystem, from businesses to consumers, will benefit from having “choices among the diverse products and business models resulting from a competitive process.” Regulators may scrutinize three activities in particular: (1) company lock-in mechanisms that could limit choices for companies and individuals, (2) partnerships between incumbents and newcomers that could “sidestep merger enforcement” or provide “incumbents undue influence or control in ways that undermine competition,” and (3) for content creators, “choice among buyers,” which could be used to limit the “free flow of information in the marketplace of ideas.”

Conclusion: Potential Future Activity

While the statement does not address specific enforcement tools and actions the enforcers may take, the statement’s release suggests that the enforcers may all be gearing up to take action related to AI competition in the near future. Interested stakeholders, especially international ones, should closely track potential activity from these enforcers. We will continue to closely monitor and analyze activity by the DOJ and FTC on AI competition issues.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more on AI Competition, visit the NLR Communications Media Internet 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.

Pennsylvania Federal Court Declines to Preliminarily Enjoin FTC Rule Banning Non-Competes

Earlier today (July 23, 2024), Judge Hodge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a tree care company’s motion to stay the effective date and preliminarily enjoin the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposed final rule (“Final Rule”) banning nearly all non-competes. ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 2:24-cv-01743-KBH (E.D. Pa.). The decision comes in the wake of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas’ July 3, 2024 ruling to the contrary in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, which stayed the Final Rule’s effective date as to the plaintiffs in that case, but had no nationwide effect.

The Pennsylvania Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania court denied Plaintiff ATS Tree Services, LLC’s (“ATS”) request for a preliminary injunction based on its conclusion that the company failed to establish that it (i) would suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief was not issued; and had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claims.

ATS argued it would be harmed by incurring “nonrecoverable efforts to comply” with the Rule, and by losing “the contractual benefits from its existing non-compete agreements.” ATS described its nonrecoverable compliance costs as: costs associated with notifying its twelve employees of the change in accordance with the Rule’s notice provision; the costs and efforts to “review and modify [its] business strategy”; and the unquantifiable costs and efforts of altering its specialized training program. But court found these either insufficient or too speculative to support injunctive relief. ATS further argued it would face the risk that its employees would leave and transfer confidential information to direct competitors. The court found these risks too speculative.

ATS also unsuccessfully argued that it would succeed on the merits because, it asserted, the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority under its enabling statute, the FTC exceeded its authority, and Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the FTC. The court rejected each argument. The court further found that the “major questions doctrine” did not apply, because the Final Rule falls within the FTC’s core mandate, and the FTC has previously used its Section 6(g) rulemaking power in similar ways to the Final Rule.

Looking Forward

The Pennsylvania court’s decision did not analyze the Ryan decision, which reached contrary conclusions. It is likely that the dispute will ascend to the Third and Fifth Circuits, respectively. Notably, the Ryan court has indicated that it intends to issue a final judgment on the merits by August 30, 2024, which is likely to be appealed, and the Final Rule is scheduled to become effective by September 4, 2024.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s decision in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.

FTC/FDA Send Letters to THC Edibles Companies Warning of Risks to Children

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent cease-and-desist letters to several companies warning them that their products, which were marketed to mimic popular children’s snacks, ran the risk of unintended consumption of the Delta-8 THC by children. In addition to the FDA’s concerns regarding marketing an unsafe food additive, the agencies warned that imitating non-THC-containing food products often consumed by children through the use of advertising or labeling is misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC noted that “preventing practices that present unwarranted health and safety risks, particularly to children, is one of the Commission’s highest priorities.”

The FTC’s focus on these particular companies and products shouldn’t come as a surprise. One such company advertises edible products labelled as “Stoney Ranchers Hard Candy,” mimicking the common Jolly Ranchers candy, and “Trips Ahoy” closely resembling the well-known “Chips Ahoy.” Another company advertises a product closely resembling a Nerds Rope candy, with similar background coloring, and copy-cats of the Nerds logo and mascot. This is not the first time the FTC has warned companies about the dangers of advertising products containing THC in a way that could mislead consumers, particularly minors. In July of 2023, the FTC sent cease-and-desist letters to six organizations for the same violations alleged this week – there companies copied popular snack brands such as Doritos and Cheetos, mimicking the brands’ color, mascot, font, bag style, and more.

This batch of warning letters orders the companies to stop marketing the edibles immediately, to review their products for compliance, and to inform the FTC within 15 days of the specific actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns. The companies also are required to report to the FDA on corrective actions taken.

Copyright © 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Cannabis, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section

Mid-Year Recap: Think Beyond US State Laws!

Much of the focus on US privacy has been US state laws, and the potential of a federal privacy law. This focus can lead one to forget, however, that US privacy and data security law follows a patchwork approach both at a state level and a federal level. “Comprehensive” privacy laws are thus only one piece of the puzzle. There are federal and state privacy and security laws that apply based on a company’s (1) industry (financial services, health care, telecommunications, gaming, etc.), (2) activity (making calls, sending emails, collecting information at point of purchase, etc.), and (3) the type of individual from whom information is being collected (children, students, employees, etc.). There have been developments this year in each of these areas.

On the industry law, there has been activity focused on data brokers, those in the health space, and for those that sell motor vehicles. The FTC has focused on the activities of data brokers this year, beginning the year with a settlement with lead-generation company Response Tree. It also settled with X-Mode Social over the company’s collection and use of sensitive information. There have also been ongoing regulation and scrutiny of companies in the health space, including HHS’s new AI transparency rule. Finally, in this area is a new law in Utah, with a Motor Vehicle Data Protection Act applicable to data systems used by car dealers to house consumer information.

On the activity side, there has been less news, although in this area the “activity” of protecting information (or failing to do so) has continued to receive regulatory focus. This includes the SEC’s new cybersecurity reporting obligations for public companies, as well as minor modifications to Utah’s data breach notification law.

Finally, there have been new laws directed to particular individuals. In particular, laws intended to protect children. These include social media laws in Florida and Utah, effective January 1, 2025 and October 1, 2024 respectively. These are similar to attempts to regulate social media’s collection of information from children in Arkansas, California, Ohio and Texas, but the drafters hope sufficiently different to survive challenges currently being faced by those laws. The FTC is also exploring updates to its decades’ old Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Putting It Into Practice: As we approach the mid-point of the year, now is a good time to look back at privacy developments over the past six months. There have been many developments in the privacy patchwork, and companies may want to take the time now to ensure that their privacy programs have incorporated and addressed those laws’ obligations.

Listen to this post

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Privacy, visit the NLR Consumer Protection section.