3 ms·

I don’t think this is really an argument for or against non-complete agreements in the United States. It’s basic United States separation of powers. If Congre

I don’t think this is really an argument for or against non-complete agreements in the United States. It’s basic United States separation of powers. If Congress passed a law eliminating or banning non-completes, then it would be legal. As an asdie, it seems that the Biden administration is positioning itself to overstep it’s authority with things it feels would be popular with specific voting blocks that will obviously be overturned by the courts and then position that the courts are too partisan. They are satisfied with how this works with voters even if the actual policies cannot actually be implmemented. I don’t think most serious observers felt this would make it through court review.

hyeonwho4 2y ago
In this case the US Congress has delegated to the FTC the power to regulate competition in interstate trade and markets. The relevant law is as follows: " (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. (2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." The FTC has argued noncompetes constitute unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. The judge has disagreed.
- lumb63 2y ago
  The term “unfair” is extremely vague, and now (as it probably should be, IMO), laws are interpreted by the judiciary. If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit.
  - Hnrobert42 2y ago
    It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      > Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
      - consteval 2y ago
        It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
        2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- daft_pink 2y ago
  I understand your framing of this issue as judge vs FTC, but the reality is that delegation of authority the way this was written has never historically meant that they could create new laws, but simply that gave them the jurisdiction to enforce and create rules regarding existing laws related to unfair compeititon or deceptive business practices. Since the FTC can’t point to an existing law that makes non-compete contracts illegal, it lacks the power to unilaterally declare them illegal. Most observers didn’t think that this rule would pass court scrutiny.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    I feel like this framing is extremely convenient and ignores how things work in other aspects of when congress delegates power to a specialized committee. For example, OSHA doesn’t need to find a specific law to deem a certain work practice unsafe and prohibit it, FDA doesn’t need to find a law against arsenic poisoning to take unsafe food product of the market, and the TSA doesn’t need a law against liquids in an airplane before they prohibit passengers from taking them onto the flight. In every other instance what is required is that experts in the field back up their reasons with adequate research. In this case the FTC has done that, they have argued that non-compete is an unfair practice and shouldn’t be allowed, just like the NHTSA has argued that Airbags are an important enough safety feature that all new cars should be required to have it. Both have plenty enough research to back up their claims, but only the FTC needs a specific law? I wonder why that is.
  - nativeit 2y ago
    Who are “most observers” and when were they all polled about this?

hyeonwho4 2y ago

In this case the US Congress has delegated to the FTC the power to regulate competition in interstate trade and markets. The relevant law is as follows: " (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. (2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." The FTC has argued noncompetes constitute unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. The judge has disagreed.

lumb63 2y ago
The term “unfair” is extremely vague, and now (as it probably should be, IMO), laws are interpreted by the judiciary. If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
    - consteval 2y ago
      It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
      - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
daft_pink 2y ago
I understand your framing of this issue as judge vs FTC, but the reality is that delegation of authority the way this was written has never historically meant that they could create new laws, but simply that gave them the jurisdiction to enforce and create rules regarding existing laws related to unfair compeititon or deceptive business practices. Since the FTC can’t point to an existing law that makes non-compete contracts illegal, it lacks the power to unilaterally declare them illegal. Most observers didn’t think that this rule would pass court scrutiny.
- runarberg 2y ago
  I feel like this framing is extremely convenient and ignores how things work in other aspects of when congress delegates power to a specialized committee. For example, OSHA doesn’t need to find a specific law to deem a certain work practice unsafe and prohibit it, FDA doesn’t need to find a law against arsenic poisoning to take unsafe food product of the market, and the TSA doesn’t need a law against liquids in an airplane before they prohibit passengers from taking them onto the flight. In every other instance what is required is that experts in the field back up their reasons with adequate research. In this case the FTC has done that, they have argued that non-compete is an unfair practice and shouldn’t be allowed, just like the NHTSA has argued that Airbags are an important enough safety feature that all new cars should be required to have it. Both have plenty enough research to back up their claims, but only the FTC needs a specific law? I wonder why that is.
- nativeit 2y ago
  Who are “most observers” and when were they all polled about this?