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 Lawyers
© 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 Lawyers
© 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
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026