Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Competition: VOLUME 34, NUMBER 1, FALL 2024
Content
- A Devil's Bargain?—the Competitive Birth and Fracturing of Nils For the Student Athlete
- AI AND ANTITRUST: "THE ALGORITHM MADE ME DO IT"
- Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section Executive Committee 2024-2025
- BEYOND MAGNUSON-MOSS AND KODAK—"RIGHT TO REPAIR" AS AN ANTITRUST ISSUE
- Does the Compelled-speech Doctrine Limit the Duty To Disclose Product Defects?
- Economic Evidence In Criminal Labor Cases
- EVOLVING OR RUNNING IN PLACE? EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO "COMMON IMPACT" IN ANTITRUST CLASS ACTIONS
- Inside This Issue
- Masthead
- Table of Contents
- Trends In Non-compete Litigation and Enforcement
TRENDS IN NON-COMPETE LITIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT
By Bonnie Laua1, Margaret Webbb2, Anissa Chitourc3
INTRODUCTION
Prosecution of no-poach agreements has been a recent focus for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division. But in the past two years, DOJ has seen several losses, including a judgment of acquittal from the bench in United States v. Patel,4 a jury acquittal in United States v. DaVita,5 and a voluntary dismissal by the Division in November 2023.6 Despite DOJ’s recent string of losses in its criminal prosecution of no-poach agreements, federal and state enforcement agencies have continued to closely scrutinize employment agreements through new legislation and rulemaking intended to crack down on a wide range of "non- compete" clauses. Private plaintiffs also have been aggressively exploring novel avenues of potential liability.
California has prohibited such provisions in employment agreements for years. California recently expanded its legislation, and other states have enacted similar legislation. The California Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has signaled a renewed interest in criminal enforcement of its antitrust statute, alongside heavy scrutiny of non-compete agreements.