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...
But Chevron is about a different project. It's ambition is to fulfill the Federalist Society fantasy of de-governance.
What comes from that isn't direct authoritarianism by government. It's unchecked corporate greed control & influence, with a government maimed and without ability to respond or act. Making rulemaking & regulation impossible, preventing defense of consumers, is the plan for Federalist Society's unchecked economic totalitarianism.
Maybe perhaps possibly we see a legislature better able to wield and use power, after this redefinition of government. But with the shape of the Senate favoring small states >> 10x big states, it seems unlikely that the will to govern will finally get upper hand over the will to de-govern.
If only legislators would legislate!
> ....enabling its competitors to poach valuable employees, whose knowledge and training would go out the door.
Thats the funniest thing I read all week.
If we stop sending small children into coal mines the economy shall collapse!
> 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 a statement Wednesday evening, the FTC said its authority is supported by both statute and precedent.
I’m not entirely against this outcome. Things that have big impact or are controversial or are visible enough to warrant public discussion should just be acted on by congressional legislation rather than assumed executive authority.
That said I think noncompetes and similar restrictions on employees are too broad and go too far in practice. They are essentially anti competitive. Still, the main problem for competition is the size and capital of incumbent mega corporations, and not JUST their noncompetes. The FTC needs to do something about that.
Dumb middle managers drive out the good people in CA. It's as simple as that. If they could prevent the good people from plying their trade elsewhere, there'd be no discipline on them at all.
Congress can do their job and pass laws. I’m tired of law making delegated to faceless bureaucrats.
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.
> They did. They wrote a law that established the FTC and tasked it with regulating these things.
What law gave the FTC the authority to regulate employment agreements?
I appreciate the lack of non-competes in California. That being said, it is the responsibility of Congress to either write employment laws or to delegate that authority.
> 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.
Wait until you hear about legislators.
Almost every “crazy” decision you’ve heard about in recent years comes from this one district.
The shape of everything to come.
I wonder when those in the techworld will hear that little klaxon ringing in their head.
“She is the first African-American woman federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump”
If the experts are fine with her, on what basis should we normies be concerned?
Imagine how disillusioned the general public would be if something like that were to happen.
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.
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, rule, finding, regulation, fee / fine, and press release will now be litigated by the courts.
The Roberts Court's campaign for judicial primacy has usurped all the power of the (executive branch's) administrative state.
Because of course federal policy is best determined by life time appointees (beholden to their plantation class patrons) and not the anti-corporate democracy loving common citizenry.
Prove me wrong.
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.
The distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t exist.
does exist. We're just arguing about the metes and bounds of their legislatively-granted authority.
I can't tell you don't agree about SCOTUS but I believe there were over 1,200 comments about that this week and there's no point in adding to it.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
Congress said unfair competition is outlawed. The FTC can determine what unfair competition means and enforce it.
