Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#11

Post by jbm »

CPLX wrote: post #5
jbm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brown was unanimously rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association.[23] If the experts are fine with her, on what basis should we normies be concerned?

Good point. There’s no sign at all in our culture of a complete breakdown of the concept of “experts” whereby everyone with a claim of academic or positional authority uses it in service of partisan wars. Imagine how disillusioned the general public would be if something like that were to happen.

My experience is that people attack experts incessantly when it conflicts with their politics. (Think: Anti-vaxxers attacking the medical system). In my experience they may raise good points, but those are usually tangential to the matter at hand.

WRT this specific expert group, is there something wrong with them? I haven't heard such but am willing to be educated.

Disillusionment is easy when one accepts sweeping generalities, but much harder when dealing with specifics. Again, only my experience, but "They are all (something)" only lasts until you take a closer look.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#12

Post by ceejayoz »

monero-xmr wrote: post #8

I don’t like noncompetes but I don’t like unelected officials making economy-wide decisions even more. Congress can do their job and pass laws. I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats.

> Congress can do their job and pass laws.

They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things.

> I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats.

They're not faceless, but a group of nine (well, six) unelected bureaucrats are currently making a whole bunch of law.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#13

Post by [deleted] »

specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

[deleted]

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#14

Post by granzymes »

The question before the Court in this case was whether the FTC has the power to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition. The Court concludes[0] that the FTC does not have that power, and that Section 6(g) of the FTC Act permits the FTC only to issue "housekeeping" rules related to agency organization, procedure, or practice.

That follows from three main statutory and historical clues:

1) Section 6(g) contains no penalty provision—which indicates a lack of substantive force. Other grants of substantive rulemaking specify what happens if regulated entities don't follow the rule.

2) The location of Section 6(g) is suspect. It's the seventh in a list of twelve almost entirely investigative powers, and starts with a grant of organizational power to "from time to time classify corporations". This is hardly where you would expect to find sweeping substantive rulemaking power if Congress had in fact chosen to grant it.

3) The FTC has not historically seen itself as possessing the power to issue substantive rules on unfair methods of competition. Courts are skeptical of agencies discovering latent powers decades later.

Overall, this is exactly what commentators expected to happen. Banning noncompetes may well be good policy, but it's up to the legislature (whether Congress or in individual states) to enact that policy. In addition, nothing in this decision prevents the FTC from using its adjudicatory powers to go after individual examples of noncompetes which it believes are unfair methods of competition.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#15

Post by AlbertCory »

specialist wrote: post #6

From TFA: In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." They're certainly not wasting any time; the bloody corpse of The Chevron Doctrine is still warm. This is the new reality. Every single decision,…

> federal policy is best determined by life time appointees

Prove you wrong? For sure. It's best determined by elected officials. Second best is judges. In last place we have bureaucrats never elected by anyone nor even appointed by someone who was.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#16

Post by dec0dedab0de »

jandrese wrote: post #7
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #4

> "While this order is preliminary, the Court intends to rule on the ultimate merits of this action on or before August 30, 2024," she wrote. > In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. > Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." > Through…

IMHO we already have good evidence about the harm to corporations we can expect to see by banning non-competes. California banned them in 1941 and everybody can see how no big business, especially tech businesses, want to be in California.

did you forget your /s?

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#19

Post by kogus »

granzymes wrote: post #14

The question before the Court in this case was whether the FTC has the power to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition. The Court concludes[0] that the FTC does not have that power, and that Section 6(g) of the FTC Act permits the FTC only to issue "housekeeping" rules related to agency organization, procedure, or practice. That follows from three main statutory and historical clues: 1) Sect…

Thank you for a thoughtful summary of what really happened. So many people are focused on outcomes that they would destroy the plumbing of government to get where they want to be.

Re: Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes

#20

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

jandrese wrote: post #7
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #4

> "While this order is preliminary, the Court intends to rule on the ultimate merits of this action on or before August 30, 2024," she wrote. > In its complaint, Ryan LLC accused the FTC of overstepping its statutory authority in declaring all noncompetes unfair and anticompetitive. > Judge Brown agreed, writing, "The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition." > Through…

IMHO we already have good evidence about the harm to corporations we can expect to see by banning non-competes. California banned them in 1941 and everybody can see how no big business, especially tech businesses, want to be in California.

Not that I believe this, but it’s always possible there would have been even more economic success, and that the historical success is despite the ban not because of it.
Post reply on HN