I agree journalism can exaggerate points for clicks, but this is a strange comment here when you look at the actual research cited. They are pointing to multip

I agree journalism can exaggerate points for clicks, but this is a strange comment here when you look at the actual research cited. They are pointing to multiple economic studies based on natural experiments where the total prohibition of NCAs can be compared with their use under similar circumstances. The studies strongly suggest that total repeal is better than permitting these contracts, and it's not obvious a simple modification would have the same results. You might worry those studies are not representative of all the literature on this, or more work needs to be done, fine. But I don't think we can dismiss the argument as silly offhand. The author makes at least a prima facie case.... Better than that, there's evidence supporting it from different contexts.