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
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026