[granzymes]

The problem is not that the FTC has been silent on non-competes in the past. The problem is that the FTC has never used Section 5 this way before in any context. Courts are skeptical of agencies "discovering" new powers based on vague sections of their enabling statutes.

[wpietri]

Courts are increasingly skeptical of regulatory powers at all. Which, gosh golly, might have something to do with the increasing funding by the super-rich of groups that push for judges that think that way.

[granzymes]

I think courts will be rightly skeptical of unelected agency commissioners preempting the laws of 50 states based on 9 words that the FTC has never before relied upon. I also think that this is obvious and should not be controversial.

[Buttons840]

Presumably those 9 words mean something though. The FTC clearly has the power to prohibit deceptive acts that effect commerce, this is spelled out in the law. If that power doesn't apply to making changes that interfere with state rights, then I would ask what does that power apply to? In practice, does it apply to anything at all?

(One conclusion I can imagine for this debate is that laws are not coherent, they are self contradictory in some cases, and this might be one of those cases.)

However this turns out, I'm glad more people are talking about this issue, because I think 95% of the people agree non-competes are unfair, which is enough that maybe things will change.

[wpietri]

I'm sure you do. I think that is obvious that regulatory agencies were established to solve complex and dynamic problems, and so broad language should be interpreted, well, broadly. If Congress wants something else done in response to changing circumstances, they can always change the laws. I think that should not be controversial. But we live in an age of billionaire-driven propaganda about this topic, so controversial it will be.