The Federal Trade Commission’s newly proposed rules that would prohibit most noncompete clauses in employment represent a seismic shift for business. In this Barron’s article, McDermott Partner Michael Peregrine says corporate leadership should “take very seriously” the threat that federal antitrust policy presents to business operations and strategic development.
“This government activity has risen to a level that demands serious board and executive attention as a possible corporate enterprise risk,” Peregrine writes.
On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed rule that would prohibit employers from using noncompete agreements with their employees or independent contractors. This proposal arises from a preliminary finding by the FTC that noncompetes constitute an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). It comes on the heels of the FTC’s November policy statement asserting its intention to rigorously enforce and expand the scope of Section 5 of the FTC Act’s ban on unfair methods of competition.
If adopted, this rule would make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete agreement with a worker, maintain a noncompete with a worker or represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a noncompete. Employers would also be required to rescind existing noncompetes and inform workers that they are no longer enforceable.
Employment background checks help employers hire individuals with integrity whom they can trust, and who do not present a risk to the business, other employees, or the customers and clients that the business serves. Buyers in transactions may view target businesses that run background checks as lower risk for employee performance and retention issues. Background checks also constitute an important area for employment diligence in transactions because an employer or background check vendor’s failure to follow the hypertechnical disclosure and authorization requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other applicable state and local laws risks potentially material class action exposure and $1,000 penalties per violation. This article explores mitigation strategies that buyers may use in due diligence to identify and valuate potential FCRA exposure.
Restrictive covenants were once the exclusive province of the courts in each state. That is no longer the case. Although case law still governs restrictive covenants, states also are enacting restrictive covenants statutes.
Today, 30 states (including Washington, DC) have laws affecting restrictive covenants. Unlike state statutes regulating trade secrets (which largely follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act), the state statutes governing restrictive covenants run a wide gamut. These changes reflect an increasing hostility towards restrictive covenants. In this Westlaw Today article, McDermott’s Brian Mead and Aaron P. Sayers provide an overview of state statutes that became effective in late 2021 or are becoming effective in 2022.
On September 15, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3–2 along party lines (with Republican commissioners dissenting) to issue a policy statement announcing an expansive interpretation of the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule, 16 CFR Part 318 (the Rule). According to the policy statement, the Rule applies to health apps and connected devices that are not subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) but are capable of drawing information from multiple sources—for example, through a combination of consumer inputs and application programming interfaces (APIs).
Telemedicine in the United States is facing an important crossroads. While telehealth services have demonstrated their value as an integral part of care delivery, federal and state waivers instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to expire soon. As lawmakers and agency officials consider updated or expanded digital health rules, regulators are expected to intensify their scrutiny of providers.
President Biden’s July 9, 2021, Executive Order—which seeks to increase competition throughout the American economy—takes aim at prescription drug prices. In this article, published in Law360, McDermott partner Emily Jane Cook says Biden’s focus on drug prices is unsurprising given the “significant public interest and frustration” with drug costs.
Throughout 2017, the health care and life sciences industries experienced a widespread proliferation of digital health innovation that presents challenges to traditional notions of health care delivery and payment as well as product research, development and commercialization for both long-standing and new stakeholders. At the same time, lawmakers and regulators made meaningful progress toward modernizing the existing legal framework in a way that will both adequately protect patients and consumers and support and encourage continued innovation, but their efforts have not kept pace with what has become the light speed of innovation. As a result, some obstacles, misalignment and ambiguity remain.
We are pleased to bring you this review of key developments that shaped digital health in 2017, along with planning considerations and predictions for the digital health frontier in the year ahead.
As the Federal Communications Commission repeals the Open Internet Order—more commonly known as the net-neutrality rules—health care consumers and providers have been left wondering how this change will affect their ability to receive and deliver health care using digital health tools. In this On the Subject, we outline how changes in internet access will affect digital health and what the regulatory landscape will look like in the coming months and years.
On October 20, 2016, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued joint Antitrust Guidance to Human Resource (HR) Professionals (the Guidance) involved in hiring and compensation decisions. The agencies issued the guidance to educate HR professionals about how the antitrust laws apply in the employment context.