News

The Federal Trade Commission’s “Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements” workshop on January 27, 2026, underscored the agency’s sharpened enforcement posture toward restrictive employment covenants. While the Trump/Vance FTC has formally abandoned the prior Administration’s proposed nationwide noncompete ban, leaders were unequivocal that robust case‑by‑case enforcement—anchored in traditional antitrust principles—will drive policy going forward. Chairman Andrew Ferguson emphasized that the FTC will act where noncompetes lack legitimate, procompetitive justification or are not narrowly tailored to protect bona fide interests such as trade secrets, training investments, or the sale of a business.

The FTC’s speakers repeatedly stressed that unjustified noncompetes remain unlawful under the FTC Act and the Sherman Act, particularly when used to suppress worker mobility, chill wage competition, or impede market entry by rivals. In articulating a clear break from the prior regulatory approach, Chairman Ferguson framed the agency’s mission as “education through enforcement,” predicting that targeted actions will have broad deterrent impact. Commissioners and FTC staff also signaled that employers should expect the agency to litigate if necessary—highlighting recent actions involving low‑wage workers, security personnel, and pet‑cremation services as templates for future cases.

A major theme—reflected across panels and in the evidence presented—was the particular risk posed by noncompetes in healthcare. FTC officials indicated they are reviewing significant public submissions describing how noncompetes in healthcare, particularly those relating to providers, limit patient access, restrict doctor mobility, and exacerbate shortages in rural and specialty markets. The Commission also highlighted that confidentiality and patient‑data‑protection rationales are often insufficient because HIPAA and other regimes already mitigate those concerns. Employers in healthcare were expressly urged to “consider alternatives,” such as non‑solicitation and confidentiality agreements, before imposing noncompetes.

Across the workshop, the agency delivered a consistent message: the era of boilerplate, one‑size‑fits‑all noncompetes is over. Companies should anticipate scrutiny of scope, duration, geography, and—critically—whether less restrictive alternatives could adequately protect legitimate business interests. The FTC’s ongoing investigations, coupled with an open invitation for workers to submit complaints, demonstrate a committed enforcement trajectory in 2026 and beyond.

Key Takeaways

• Rulemaking is off the table, but enforcement is ramping up: the FTC will pursue unjustified noncompetes under its existing antitrust authority, including under Sectinos 1 & 2 of the Sherman Act, and under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
• Justifications for noncompetes must be real and specific—generalized concerns about competition or retention will not suffice.
• Narrow tailoring is essential: employers should evaluate duration, geography, and job‑specific needs, and document why a noncompete is necessary.
• Healthcare is a priority sector, with concerns about patient access, rural shortages, and high barriers to entry for specialist practices.
• Alternatives matter: the FTC will scrutinize whether NDAs, non‑solicitation provisions, or fixed‑term contracts could address the same goal without suppressing mobility.
• Employers should proactively review existing agreements—and revise future agreements—to reduce enforcement risk under new agency priorities.