Court Declares Non-Competes Back in Business
Client Alerts
August 21, 2024
By: Debbie Berman, Jason M. Bradford, Emma Sullivan, Joseph Torres, Matt Renaud, Andrew W. Vail, Casey L.M. Carlson
On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Ryan LLC et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, granted Ryan LLC and the US Chamber of Commerce’s motion for summary judgment and barred the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from enforcing its broad non-compete ban with nationwide effect. The FTC’s rule, which would have banned non-compete agreements in most employment contexts, was set to go into effect in two weeks, on September 4, 2024.[1]
The Court held that the non-compete ban exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.[2] On the latter point, the Court took particular issue with the rule’s “one-size-fits-all approach” and further expressed that the non‑compete ban “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.”[3] As a result, the Court set aside the FTC’s rule.
The important takeaway is that, in light of the Ryan decision, if undisturbed by a higher court, employers across the country no longer will need to comply with the FTC’s non-compete ban or its requirement to provide notice to current and former employees with active noncompetes that those agreements are unenforceable by September 4. Employers, however, should stay abreast of the legal landscape as the Ryan decision will not be the final word on the issue. The FTC will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.[4] Beyond Ryan, litigation on the rule remains pending in a few other federal courts, including in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania signaled that it likely would uphold the FTC rule.[5] Decisions in those cases may well lead to their own appeals. In any event, the Supreme Court likely will take up this issue.
Moreover, although the Ryan decision provides some immediate relief to employers that were staring down the September 4th deadline to comply with the ban, uncertainty in this area of the law remains. With the federal rule in jeopardy, some states may step up their efforts to restrict noncompetes through new legislation, regulations, or enforcement efforts. Without a federal standard, the patchwork of state statutes and standards will continue, posing challenges for employers with personnel across multiple jurisdictions. Further, employers’ valid interests in protecting their confidential information remain, with or without the non-compete ban. We recommend partnering with experienced outside counsel to help your business navigate this rapidly changing landscape. Jenner & Block’s Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants team is ready to help.
The important takeaway is that, in light of the Ryan decision, if undisturbed by a higher court, employers across the country no longer will need to comply with the FTC’s non-compete ban or its requirement to provide notice to current and former employees with active noncompetes that those agreements are unenforceable by September 4. Employers, however, should stay abreast of the legal landscape as the Ryan decision will not be the final word on the issue. The FTC will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.[4] Beyond Ryan, litigation on the rule remains pending in a few other federal courts, including in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania signaled that it likely would uphold the FTC rule.[5] Decisions in those cases may well lead to their own appeals. In any event, the Supreme Court likely will take up this issue.
Moreover, although the Ryan decision provides some immediate relief to employers that were staring down the September 4th deadline to comply with the ban, uncertainty in this area of the law remains. With the federal rule in jeopardy, some states may step up their efforts to restrict noncompetes through new legislation, regulations, or enforcement efforts. Without a federal standard, the patchwork of state statutes and standards will continue, posing challenges for employers with personnel across multiple jurisdictions. Further, employers’ valid interests in protecting their confidential information remain, with or without the non-compete ban. We recommend partnering with experienced outside counsel to help your business navigate this rapidly changing landscape. Jenner & Block’s Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants team is ready to help.
[1] FTC Finalizes Near Total Ban of Noncompetes – How You Can Prepare Now (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/steps-for-employers-to-consider-in-light-of-ftcs-near-total-ban-of-non-competes.
[2] Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, ECF No. 211 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).
[3] Id. at 24.
[4] While unlikely, the Fifth Circuit could stay the Ryan court’s order pending appeal, which would leave the rule in effect until the appeal is resolved.
[5] ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., No. 24-1743 (E.D. Penn.); see also Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024-cv-00316 (M.D. Fla.).
Footnotes
[1] FTC Finalizes Near Total Ban of Noncompetes – How You Can Prepare Now (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/steps-for-employers-to-consider-in-light-of-ftcs-near-total-ban-of-non-competes.
[2] Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, ECF No. 211 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).
[3] Id. at 24.
[4] While unlikely, the Fifth Circuit could stay the Ryan court’s order pending appeal, which would leave the rule in effect until the appeal is resolved.
[5] ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., No. 24-1743 (E.D. Penn.); see also Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024-cv-00316 (M.D. Fla.).
Related Attorneys
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Client Alerts
August 21, 2024
By: Debbie Berman, Jason M. Bradford, Emma Sullivan, Joseph Torres, Matt Renaud, Andrew W. Vail, Casey L.M. Carlson
On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Ryan LLC et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, granted Ryan LLC and the US Chamber of Commerce’s motion for summary judgment and barred the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from enforcing its broad non-compete ban with nationwide effect. The FTC’s rule, which would have banned non-compete agreements in most employment contexts, was set to go into effect in two weeks, on September 4, 2024.[1]
The Court held that the non-compete ban exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.[2] On the latter point, the Court took particular issue with the rule’s “one-size-fits-all approach” and further expressed that the non‑compete ban “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.”[3] As a result, the Court set aside the FTC’s rule.
The important takeaway is that, in light of the Ryan decision, if undisturbed by a higher court, employers across the country no longer will need to comply with the FTC’s non-compete ban or its requirement to provide notice to current and former employees with active noncompetes that those agreements are unenforceable by September 4. Employers, however, should stay abreast of the legal landscape as the Ryan decision will not be the final word on the issue. The FTC will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.[4] Beyond Ryan, litigation on the rule remains pending in a few other federal courts, including in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania signaled that it likely would uphold the FTC rule.[5] Decisions in those cases may well lead to their own appeals. In any event, the Supreme Court likely will take up this issue.
Moreover, although the Ryan decision provides some immediate relief to employers that were staring down the September 4th deadline to comply with the ban, uncertainty in this area of the law remains. With the federal rule in jeopardy, some states may step up their efforts to restrict noncompetes through new legislation, regulations, or enforcement efforts. Without a federal standard, the patchwork of state statutes and standards will continue, posing challenges for employers with personnel across multiple jurisdictions. Further, employers’ valid interests in protecting their confidential information remain, with or without the non-compete ban. We recommend partnering with experienced outside counsel to help your business navigate this rapidly changing landscape. Jenner & Block’s Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants team is ready to help.
The important takeaway is that, in light of the Ryan decision, if undisturbed by a higher court, employers across the country no longer will need to comply with the FTC’s non-compete ban or its requirement to provide notice to current and former employees with active noncompetes that those agreements are unenforceable by September 4. Employers, however, should stay abreast of the legal landscape as the Ryan decision will not be the final word on the issue. The FTC will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.[4] Beyond Ryan, litigation on the rule remains pending in a few other federal courts, including in ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania signaled that it likely would uphold the FTC rule.[5] Decisions in those cases may well lead to their own appeals. In any event, the Supreme Court likely will take up this issue.
Moreover, although the Ryan decision provides some immediate relief to employers that were staring down the September 4th deadline to comply with the ban, uncertainty in this area of the law remains. With the federal rule in jeopardy, some states may step up their efforts to restrict noncompetes through new legislation, regulations, or enforcement efforts. Without a federal standard, the patchwork of state statutes and standards will continue, posing challenges for employers with personnel across multiple jurisdictions. Further, employers’ valid interests in protecting their confidential information remain, with or without the non-compete ban. We recommend partnering with experienced outside counsel to help your business navigate this rapidly changing landscape. Jenner & Block’s Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants team is ready to help.
[1] FTC Finalizes Near Total Ban of Noncompetes – How You Can Prepare Now (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/steps-for-employers-to-consider-in-light-of-ftcs-near-total-ban-of-non-competes.
[2] Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, ECF No. 211 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).
[3] Id. at 24.
[4] While unlikely, the Fifth Circuit could stay the Ryan court’s order pending appeal, which would leave the rule in effect until the appeal is resolved.
[5] ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., No. 24-1743 (E.D. Penn.); see also Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024-cv-00316 (M.D. Fla.).
Footnotes
[1] FTC Finalizes Near Total Ban of Noncompetes – How You Can Prepare Now (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/steps-for-employers-to-consider-in-light-of-ftcs-near-total-ban-of-non-competes.
[2] Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, ECF No. 211 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).
[3] Id. at 24.
[4] While unlikely, the Fifth Circuit could stay the Ryan court’s order pending appeal, which would leave the rule in effect until the appeal is resolved.
[5] ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., No. 24-1743 (E.D. Penn.); see also Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 2024-cv-00316 (M.D. Fla.).
Related Attorneys
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026