Non-Competes Under Attack
In January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed rule that would render virtually all non-competes, including even most agreed to as part of a sale of a business, unfair methods of competition and, therefore, illegal in response to a Presidential Executive Order. The FTC’s rule also would apply to both current and future non-competes and would require employers to proactively notify current and former employees that their non-competes are no longer in effect and cannot be enforced against them. Additionally, the rule contains a “functional test” that captures any workaround that could achieve the same effect as a non-compete, including certain non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements. While California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have long banned non-competes, they are used in many other states, including major business states like New York and Delaware, so this rule would interfere with a major way that companies do business in the United States. Because the proposed rule was met with significant pushback from the business community with over 5,000 comments filed, the FTC has delayed the date for the issuance of its final rulemaking to April 2024. However, companies should begin planning now.
In addition, several traditionally pro-business states recently enacted or have proposed legislation that ban most non-competes. For example, a prospective non-compete ban was recently signed into law in Minnesota that bans agreements that restrict employees or independent contractors from working for another employer for a specified period of time, within a certain geographic area, or in a capacity similar to that of their current employment. It also prohibits provisions in employment contracts to evaluate non-competes under a different state’s law if the employee is located in Minnesota. Surprisingly, the New York legislature has passed a bill that currently is on the governor’s desk to sign or veto that bans agreements restricting virtually all employees or independent contractors from obtaining employment after conclusion of their current term of employment. Like the FTC rule, this bill also applies to other agreements that function similarly to non-competes.
Also, recently the Delaware court, which tends to be very pro-business, invalidated two non-competes that were part of a sale of a business even though such non-competes generally are evaluated using a more lenient standard. Both cases, Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022) and Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Eastman, C.A. No. 2022-0853-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2022), involved non-competes with the sold entities’ high-level employees made in exchange for significant financial consideration. Yet the court still struck down both agreements as overly broad and not tailored to any legitimate business interest, particularly because they both prohibited future work far beyond the sold entities’ business activities and geographic reach. In doing so, the court refused to “blue pencil”—or revise to make enforceable—the agreements, finding that rewriting the provisions in favor of the buyer companies would be inequitable.
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。
In addition, several traditionally pro-business states recently enacted or have proposed legislation that ban most non-competes. For example, a prospective non-compete ban was recently signed into law in Minnesota that bans agreements that restrict employees or independent contractors from working for another employer for a specified period of time, within a certain geographic area, or in a capacity similar to that of their current employment. It also prohibits provisions in employment contracts to evaluate non-competes under a different state’s law if the employee is located in Minnesota. Surprisingly, the New York legislature has passed a bill that currently is on the governor’s desk to sign or veto that bans agreements restricting virtually all employees or independent contractors from obtaining employment after conclusion of their current term of employment. Like the FTC rule, this bill also applies to other agreements that function similarly to non-competes.
Also, recently the Delaware court, which tends to be very pro-business, invalidated two non-competes that were part of a sale of a business even though such non-competes generally are evaluated using a more lenient standard. Both cases, Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022) and Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Eastman, C.A. No. 2022-0853-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2022), involved non-competes with the sold entities’ high-level employees made in exchange for significant financial consideration. Yet the court still struck down both agreements as overly broad and not tailored to any legitimate business interest, particularly because they both prohibited future work far beyond the sold entities’ business activities and geographic reach. In doing so, the court refused to “blue pencil”—or revise to make enforceable—the agreements, finding that rewriting the provisions in favor of the buyer companies would be inequitable.
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 Lawyers
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 January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed rule that would render virtually all non-competes, including even most agreed to as part of a sale of a business, unfair methods of competition and, therefore, illegal in response to a Presidential Executive Order. The FTC’s rule also would apply to both current and future non-competes and would require employers to proactively notify current and former employees that their non-competes are no longer in effect and cannot be enforced against them. Additionally, the rule contains a “functional test” that captures any workaround that could achieve the same effect as a non-compete, including certain non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements. While California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have long banned non-competes, they are used in many other states, including major business states like New York and Delaware, so this rule would interfere with a major way that companies do business in the United States. Because the proposed rule was met with significant pushback from the business community with over 5,000 comments filed, the FTC has delayed the date for the issuance of its final rulemaking to April 2024. However, companies should begin planning now.
In addition, several traditionally pro-business states recently enacted or have proposed legislation that ban most non-competes. For example, a prospective non-compete ban was recently signed into law in Minnesota that bans agreements that restrict employees or independent contractors from working for another employer for a specified period of time, within a certain geographic area, or in a capacity similar to that of their current employment. It also prohibits provisions in employment contracts to evaluate non-competes under a different state’s law if the employee is located in Minnesota. Surprisingly, the New York legislature has passed a bill that currently is on the governor’s desk to sign or veto that bans agreements restricting virtually all employees or independent contractors from obtaining employment after conclusion of their current term of employment. Like the FTC rule, this bill also applies to other agreements that function similarly to non-competes.
Also, recently the Delaware court, which tends to be very pro-business, invalidated two non-competes that were part of a sale of a business even though such non-competes generally are evaluated using a more lenient standard. Both cases, Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022) and Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Eastman, C.A. No. 2022-0853-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2022), involved non-competes with the sold entities’ high-level employees made in exchange for significant financial consideration. Yet the court still struck down both agreements as overly broad and not tailored to any legitimate business interest, particularly because they both prohibited future work far beyond the sold entities’ business activities and geographic reach. In doing so, the court refused to “blue pencil”—or revise to make enforceable—the agreements, finding that rewriting the provisions in favor of the buyer companies would be inequitable.
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。
In addition, several traditionally pro-business states recently enacted or have proposed legislation that ban most non-competes. For example, a prospective non-compete ban was recently signed into law in Minnesota that bans agreements that restrict employees or independent contractors from working for another employer for a specified period of time, within a certain geographic area, or in a capacity similar to that of their current employment. It also prohibits provisions in employment contracts to evaluate non-competes under a different state’s law if the employee is located in Minnesota. Surprisingly, the New York legislature has passed a bill that currently is on the governor’s desk to sign or veto that bans agreements restricting virtually all employees or independent contractors from obtaining employment after conclusion of their current term of employment. Like the FTC rule, this bill also applies to other agreements that function similarly to non-competes.
Also, recently the Delaware court, which tends to be very pro-business, invalidated two non-competes that were part of a sale of a business even though such non-competes generally are evaluated using a more lenient standard. Both cases, Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022) and Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Eastman, C.A. No. 2022-0853-LWW (Del. Ch. Dec. 7, 2022), involved non-competes with the sold entities’ high-level employees made in exchange for significant financial consideration. Yet the court still struck down both agreements as overly broad and not tailored to any legitimate business interest, particularly because they both prohibited future work far beyond the sold entities’ business activities and geographic reach. In doing so, the court refused to “blue pencil”—or revise to make enforceable—the agreements, finding that rewriting the provisions in favor of the buyer companies would be inequitable.
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 Lawyers
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
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
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026
Publications
Partner Ashley Callen Discusses Potential Congressional Investigations in Reuters
Partner Ashley Callen was quoted in a Reuters article examining how Democrats could ramp up congressional investigations into Trump family business dealings if they win control of the House or Senate in the 2026 midterm elections this November.
September 30, 2026
Event
Associate Steven Arango Addresses North Korean IT Worker Threat in Talks to Business Executives for National Security Members in Texas
On September 29 and 30, Associate Steven Arango led luncheon discussions titled "North Korea's IT Worker Threat: Corporate Risk and Response" for Business Executives for National Security (BENS) members in Dallas and Austin, Texas, speaking to an audience of CEOs, CISOs, and other senior leaders from the national security, finance, and healthcare sectors.
September 2026