3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI 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 agoWho are “most observers” and when were they all polled about this?