6 ms·
California banned non-competes years ago. There should be plenty of evidence available to use as a counter argument to this one judge's opinion. Edit: In 1941,
by gibolt 2y ago
California banned non-competes years ago. There should be plenty of evidence available to use as a counter argument to this one judge's opinion.
Edit: In 1941, so it's been a while
- kube-system 2y agoCalifornia's state law is completely irrelevant in federal court.
- gibolt 2y agoThe argument was specifically a lack of evidence for a sweeping ban vs a targeted one. While the law can not be used as precedent, the evidence from nearly a century of business in the state with the highest GDP is a good starting point.
- kube-system 2y agoWhat specific evidence possibly exists in California that is relevant to the granularity of rule-making that the FTC can legally perform under federal law? The scope of a regulatory agency's authority isn't linked to the quality of their rulemaking.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- skhunted 2y agoWhat the judge said according to the article: The rule “is arbitrary and capricious because it is unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation” California’s experience can be used to show that the rule is not capricious or unreasonably broad. The act establishing the FTC gave it broad powers and it does have the authority to do what it did. However, it is clear that the Supreme Court is going in a direction to greatly reduce regulatory authority. This ruling will likely stand but it shouldn’t.
- yieldcrv 2y agoI would much prefer to see Congress regulate this under interstate commerce Just because Congress is gridlocked on dumb stuff doesnt mean I want agencies doing it. I’m glad those agencies got handicapped ensuring this wont survive on appeal. There are consensus bridging Americans that can be elected to Congress, I don’t think its so absurd to prefer the people take that route instead of trying to shove through conveniences or ideological things by any means.
- skhunted 2y agoCongress already gave the FTC the power to ban things that are unfair methods of competition and to ban acts that are unfair that affect commerce.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoAnd if the FTC Act and similar legislation provides them the necessary powers, then the courts will rule that way. If they do not, then the legislative branch can always amend the FTC Act, assuming it isn’t found unconstitutional.
- skhunted 2y agoThe issue is the dismantling of Chevron deference. For 40 years regulatory authority has been granted and written by Congress with the understanding that Chevron defference was the law of the land. Now the Supreme Court is demanding a level of specificity that isn’t practical and it means rewriting may decades worth of legislation. Given that SCOTUS has also decided to upend statute of limitations as it pertains to challenging established regulations we are going to enter a period of regulatory upheaval.
- yieldcrv 2y agoyay you know we’re going to have this Supreme Court’s law of the land for the next 50 years, instead of focusing on what’s impractical for you have you considered shaping the country in ways that are practical? Genuinely curious because thats what I don’t get about the SCOTUS dismay crowd. Isn't there some agency out there you hate? Some regulation thats set you back? Go after that one. Focus on what you can control instead of what you cant.
- otterley 2y agoFederal courts frequently hear cases involving state law. When they determine that California law applies to a case, they will apply it. However, they wouldn’t apply it to a case involving a New York based defendant and activity that took place exclusively in New York.
- kelnos 2y agoI haven't read the details (paywall), but my assumption here is that the objection is to the FTC making this rule without an act from Congress, not the general idea of banning non-competes. While the FTC theoretically has the authority to do this, of late there's been a conservative judicial push against the "regulatory state". Regardless, a federal judge need not consider the laws of any state when making a ruling on something like this. Edit: read via archive link. So yeah: > ... US District Judge Ada Brown in the Northern District of Texas wrote in the decision on Tuesday, concluding that the regulator “lacks statutory authority” to issue the rule. And: > Brown [...] was appointed by then-president Donald Trump So she's a conservative-leaning judge who's skeptical of the executive branch's regulatory powers. Not news.
- HideousKojima 2y ago>While the FTC theoretically has the authority to do this From which statute?
- drawkward 2y agoFrom the most cited supreme court precedent ever.
- HideousKojima 2y ago>From the most cited supreme court precedent ever. I'm not sure what a mostly boring procedural case about standards for summary judgement has to do with the FTC and/or non-compete clauses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_I....
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... Non-competes are unfair methods of competition, unfair practices affecting commerce, etc.
- hindsightbias 2y agoPatience, they’re just warming up. State minimum wages, fair labor act…
- naikrovek 2y agoYep. If there is anything that takes from an employer to give to an employee, it is on someone’s list to be undone. I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
- fastball 2y agoCalifornia specifically having to ban them is exactly why a decision like this makes sense. If there was anything in federal legislation that did so, California wouldn't need to.
- ceejayoz 2y agoBy that logic, the Feds don't need to ban marijuana, on the basis that it's illegal on the state level in Kansas. "If there was anything in federal legislation that [banned marijuana], [Kansas] wouldn't need to." It's entirely possible for a state to think the Feds have the ability but not the will to do something, and go further while they wait.
- kube-system 2y agoA very large number of things that are federally illegal are also illegal under state law. States have their own courts, sentencing, etc, and often want to bring cases under their own laws.
- _moof 2y agoThis has nothing to do with the general legality of banning non-competes. It's about whether the FTC has the authority to do so.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoAlready seeing the crappy effects of Chevron's revokation, I see. Row v Wade was awful but I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking even more about Chevron for decades to come if congress doesn't do anything.
- _moof 2y agoYeah, this project of toppling the administrative state is a slow-motion disaster for consumer protection, environmental protection, basically any limitation that keeps greedy people from taking advantage of people and laying waste to the commons.
- _heimdall 2y agoThe Chevron overturn will be an issue here. The question isn't whether non-competes can be banned, its whether the FTC has jurisdiction and authority.
- FireBeyond 2y agoHah. The judge even said that even if the FTC had the jurisdiction and authority to do this, it still "had not justified" it. Not only do you need to have the jurisdiction and authority, but some random judge can decide you haven't justified it to her liking and block it anyway.
- mlinhares 2y agoForum shopping at its best, glad Texas is setting a great example here, showing that if you have enough money you can do everything.
- hk1337 2y agoThe way I read it the judge said it was too broad.
- FireBeyond 2y agoIf it was within their authority[1], then it is of no relevance what a particular judge thinks of its scope. [1] Acknowledging that in this case, the judge also believes it's not within their authority.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoRulings, and the agencies that make them, have very little legislative authority after Chevron’s collapse.
- jquery 2y agoBut they judge shopped for this. It makes a mockery of our system.
- cortesoft 2y agoThis will help California keep its competitive advantage.
- next_xibalba 2y agoThe net negative migration from California to other states might indicate otherwise. My wife and I are currently contemplating moving to California. I'm comparing cost of living (housing, taxes, transpo, food, etc.). Using real data, it currently pencils out to >40% increase in our expenses. Pretty tough sell. Edit: to the replies– It's not just housing. Granted, housing is a big chunk of the budget. But it's everything else too. My grocery bill would go up 33%. My state income tax would go from zero to 8%. Gas is, on average, 43% more expensive. And I'm not looking at moving to the Bay Area. I'm looking at moving to Fresno.
- lovecg 2y agoIt’s a complex feedback loop. On one hand the economy is great. On the other the housing policy is completely messed up. So you get a lot of new wealth that than chases too few houses, pushing everyone else out.
- jquery 2y agoHousing policy is finally changing, with the state government forcing municipalities to build. Hopefully that leads to a slower growth in prices (with such a red hot economy, I don't expect prices to fall much, if at all).
- renewiltord 2y agoIt’s true that California is experiencing outmigration but that’s primarily driven by the fact that Democratic Party voters like to use the phrase “preserve our community” to mean the same sentiment as “build the wall”. The anti-non-compete is a good thing but it’s not anywhere near a big factor for the vast majority of people.
- jquery 2y agoGiven how populous California is, it could be one of the most desirable states and still lose people. Likewise, a low population state like Idaho doesn't need much net inflow to grow by large percentage margins.
- dragonwriter 2y agoThe question in the case isn't whether banning non-competes are good policy, or whether the federal government has the power to ban non-competes, but: 1. Whether Congress gave rulemaking power to the FTC under the provision cited supporting the ban on non-competes, and 2. Whether, assuming FTC had been granted the authority by Congress to issue the rules, it acted properly procedurally under the Administrative Procedure Act when it did so. The court ruled "no" on both. (I haven't reviewed it in detail to have an opinion on whether it is correct on either point; banning non-competes is good policy, and it would be good if Congress did so directly.)
- fargle 2y agoagree! they should be banned, but the FTC was clearly (over)-reaching here. the correct way to do it is via law. even though it is the right thing to do, it's just the wrong way to do it. blocking and de-incentivizing monopolistic behavior like this is one of the most useful things a government should do.
- gibolt 2y agoWere they though? The Federal Trade Commission has say in how businesses operate, including their relationship with employees. While the best approach would be a law, relatively few questioned the initial change because 1) It is good for nearly all parties 2) It makes sense that they could 3) Congress obviously was in no rush to make this change soon, if ever
- cyrnel 2y agoThis judge did actually rule that it was "arbitrary and capricious". Which is rich considering the FTC published a 500+ page document explaining their exact reasoning, including analysis of public comments, their legal authority, alternatives, and studies about the effects of non-compete bans in specific states.
- fallingknife 2y agoJumping through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and writing a 500 page report doesn't make you right.
- pokstad 2y agoI’m guessing salaries are higher where non competes are banned since you are able to leave for a better paying job. So it’s good for the worker but bad for the employers.