LaborSpeak: Pennsylvania Court Declines to Preliminarily Enjoin FTC Non-Compete Ban

July 24, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

On July 23, a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a company’s motion to stay the September 4 effective date of and preliminarily enjoin the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule banning non-competes for almost all employees and independent contractors (the Rule).

This decision comes on the heels of a July 3 decision out of the Northern District of Texas that enjoined the FTC from enforcing and implementing the Rule and stayed the Rule’s effective date against the plaintiff and other plaintiffs that intervened in the case, but not against anyone else.

The main issue in these cases is whether Section 6(g) of the FTC Act grants the FTC the authority to issue substantive rules to prevent unfair methods of competition, such as the Rule. The Texas court held that the FTC Act does not grant the FTC such authority, calling Section 6(g) a “housekeeping statute” that authorizes the FTC to issue procedural, but not substantive, rules, while the Pennsylvania court held that through Section 6(g), “the FTC is empowered to make both procedural and substantive rules as is necessary to prevent unfair methods of competition.” The Texas court held that compliance with the Rule would result in financial injury and irreparable harm necessary to obtain injunctive relief and recognized that “[s]tates have historically regulated non-competes through caselaw and statute.” The Pennsylvania court held that the Rule would not result in irreparable harm because monetary loss and business expenses spent to comply with the Rule alone were not sufficient bases for injunctive relief and the plaintiff could not show that any of its employees would leave the plaintiff’s employ due to the Rule. The Pennsylvania court also held that “the existence of state regulations of non-competes does not preclude the FTC from issuing [the Rule].”

Despite the Pennsylvania court’s ruling, our recommendation is still for companies to hold off on making changes to their employment agreements, non-compete provisions or other restrictive covenants. The judge in the Northern District of Texas case plans to issue a final decision by August 30, which could still stop the Rule from going into effect. Further, there is another pending challenge to the Rule in the Middle District of Florida. We will continue to watch these cases closely.

Please click here for more of our LaborSpeak updates.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

LaborSpeak

December 9, 2025

New York City recently enacted changes to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act that will impact how all private employers provide leave to employees. These amendments expand employee rights and will go into effect February 22, 2026.

...

Read More

LaborSpeak

December 2, 2025

On October 1, 2025, California amended its existing mini-WARN Act, imposing on employers, who are conducting a mass layoff, termination, or relocation of its workforce, an additional obligation to include specific information in their WARN notices.    

...

Read More

LaborSpeak

October 8, 2025

For employers, the increasing number of pay transparency laws create a patchwork of additional requirements with which they must comply, and employers in Vermont, Massachusetts, Cleveland, and Delaware should be aware of recent and upcoming changes in this area.

...

Read More

LaborSpeak

September 29, 2025

In this installment we explore how the FTC voted to drop appeals defending its nationwide ban, but also launched an enforcement action against non-compete agreements, and sent letters to several large healthcare employers and staffing firms urging them to review their non-compete agreements.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.