DOJ Continues to Prioritize No-Poach Cases
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has tried three criminal no-poach cases to a jury, and in all three the defendants were acquitted. But expect the crackdown on the use of allegedly illegal no-poach agreements between employers to continue.
A “no-poach” is a tacit or express agreement between employers not to hire or solicit employees from one another. This type of agreement may be lawful under the “rule of reason” if it is reasonably necessary to promote a collaboration between employers. No-poach agreements that are either not ancillary to a larger collaborative agreement, so called ‘naked’ no poach agreements, or which are so broad they cannot be justified as reasonably necessary to enable business collaborations, have long been considered illegal and outside the rule of reason. However, enforcement against illegal no-poach agreements had until lately been limited to civil investigations and litigation. Recently, however, the DOJ has instead pursued criminal liability for both corporations and individual employees, representing a major shift and escalation in enforcement tactics. DOJ brought its first criminal indictment stemming from unlawful no-poach agreements in December 2020. Numerous others quickly followed.
Thus far, no jury has reached a guilty verdict on the antitrust charges. Most recently, in March 2023 a federal jury in Maine acquitted four executives of home healthcare agencies accused of entering no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. DOJ’s only successful prosecution for a criminal no-poach agreement stems from a pretrial agreement with healthcare staffing company VDA OC LLC, wherein the company paid a criminal fine and a former executive entered a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid a jail sentence.
Despite its relative lack of success prosecuting no-poach agreements at trial, employers should not assume criminal enforcement will wane, for several reasons:
- First, DOJ’s Antitrust Division updated its leniency policy in 2022 to include more stringent reporting and remediation requirements, reflecting the Biden administrations’ continued commitment to more stringent application of antitrust law.
- Second, agency leadership has explicitly reiterated their commitment to bringing criminal charges against parties to no-poach agreements, calling the failed prosecutions righteous and noting that public support is on the agency’s side.
- Third, even acquittals on antitrust charges leaves open the possibility of accompanying charges for obstruction of justice, perjury, or others, to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Even with the DOJ’s recent losses, naked no-poach agreements raise significant liability risk. DOJ investigations are burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. Companies should identify whether such agreements exist and confer with counsel on the appropriate course of action, which could include self-reporting violations under the DOJ’s leniency program.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Thus far, no jury has reached a guilty verdict on the antitrust charges. Most recently, in March 2023 a federal jury in Maine acquitted four executives of home healthcare agencies accused of entering no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. DOJ’s only successful prosecution for a criminal no-poach agreement stems from a pretrial agreement with healthcare staffing company VDA OC LLC, wherein the company paid a criminal fine and a former executive entered a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid a jail sentence.
Despite its relative lack of success prosecuting no-poach agreements at trial, employers should not assume criminal enforcement will wane, for several reasons:
- First, DOJ’s Antitrust Division updated its leniency policy in 2022 to include more stringent reporting and remediation requirements, reflecting the Biden administrations’ continued commitment to more stringent application of antitrust law.
- Second, agency leadership has explicitly reiterated their commitment to bringing criminal charges against parties to no-poach agreements, calling the failed prosecutions righteous and noting that public support is on the agency’s side.
- Third, even acquittals on antitrust charges leaves open the possibility of accompanying charges for obstruction of justice, perjury, or others, to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Even with the DOJ’s recent losses, naked no-poach agreements raise significant liability risk. DOJ investigations are burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. Companies should identify whether such agreements exist and confer with counsel on the appropriate course of action, which could include self-reporting violations under the DOJ’s leniency program.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 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.
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has tried three criminal no-poach cases to a jury, and in all three the defendants were acquitted. But expect the crackdown on the use of allegedly illegal no-poach agreements between employers to continue.
A “no-poach” is a tacit or express agreement between employers not to hire or solicit employees from one another. This type of agreement may be lawful under the “rule of reason” if it is reasonably necessary to promote a collaboration between employers. No-poach agreements that are either not ancillary to a larger collaborative agreement, so called ‘naked’ no poach agreements, or which are so broad they cannot be justified as reasonably necessary to enable business collaborations, have long been considered illegal and outside the rule of reason. However, enforcement against illegal no-poach agreements had until lately been limited to civil investigations and litigation. Recently, however, the DOJ has instead pursued criminal liability for both corporations and individual employees, representing a major shift and escalation in enforcement tactics. DOJ brought its first criminal indictment stemming from unlawful no-poach agreements in December 2020. Numerous others quickly followed.
Thus far, no jury has reached a guilty verdict on the antitrust charges. Most recently, in March 2023 a federal jury in Maine acquitted four executives of home healthcare agencies accused of entering no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. DOJ’s only successful prosecution for a criminal no-poach agreement stems from a pretrial agreement with healthcare staffing company VDA OC LLC, wherein the company paid a criminal fine and a former executive entered a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid a jail sentence.
Despite its relative lack of success prosecuting no-poach agreements at trial, employers should not assume criminal enforcement will wane, for several reasons:
- First, DOJ’s Antitrust Division updated its leniency policy in 2022 to include more stringent reporting and remediation requirements, reflecting the Biden administrations’ continued commitment to more stringent application of antitrust law.
- Second, agency leadership has explicitly reiterated their commitment to bringing criminal charges against parties to no-poach agreements, calling the failed prosecutions righteous and noting that public support is on the agency’s side.
- Third, even acquittals on antitrust charges leaves open the possibility of accompanying charges for obstruction of justice, perjury, or others, to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Even with the DOJ’s recent losses, naked no-poach agreements raise significant liability risk. DOJ investigations are burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. Companies should identify whether such agreements exist and confer with counsel on the appropriate course of action, which could include self-reporting violations under the DOJ’s leniency program.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Thus far, no jury has reached a guilty verdict on the antitrust charges. Most recently, in March 2023 a federal jury in Maine acquitted four executives of home healthcare agencies accused of entering no-poach and wage-fixing agreements. DOJ’s only successful prosecution for a criminal no-poach agreement stems from a pretrial agreement with healthcare staffing company VDA OC LLC, wherein the company paid a criminal fine and a former executive entered a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid a jail sentence.
Despite its relative lack of success prosecuting no-poach agreements at trial, employers should not assume criminal enforcement will wane, for several reasons:
- First, DOJ’s Antitrust Division updated its leniency policy in 2022 to include more stringent reporting and remediation requirements, reflecting the Biden administrations’ continued commitment to more stringent application of antitrust law.
- Second, agency leadership has explicitly reiterated their commitment to bringing criminal charges against parties to no-poach agreements, calling the failed prosecutions righteous and noting that public support is on the agency’s side.
- Third, even acquittals on antitrust charges leaves open the possibility of accompanying charges for obstruction of justice, perjury, or others, to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Even with the DOJ’s recent losses, naked no-poach agreements raise significant liability risk. DOJ investigations are burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. Companies should identify whether such agreements exist and confer with counsel on the appropriate course of action, which could include self-reporting violations under the DOJ’s leniency program.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 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