Home » Posts tagged 'Noncompetes'
Tag Archives: Noncompetes
Trade Secrets & Restrictive Covenants: 2025 Recap, 2026 Outlook (Fairly Competing, Episode 28)
In this episode of the Fairly Competing podcast, recorded on December 19, 2025, John, Ben, and Russell take a look back on some of the significant developments in trade secret and restrictive covenant law in 2025, make some predictions about what to expect in 2026, and provide some practical takeaways.
The episode covers the sharp shift in federal noncompete policy, highlighting how the FTC and NLRB moved from pursuing sweeping nationwide bans to a strategy of individualized enforcement actions, with the FTC particularly targeting the healthcare and staffing industries. At the state level, John, Ben, and Russell identify the continuing wave of new legislation — most notably Florida’s “CHOICE Act,” which dramatically strengthened noncompete enforceability, contrasting sharply with stricter trends in states like California, Wyoming, and many others. The discussion then turns to a deep dive into AI-driven trade secret litigation with guest Sarah Tishler, and concludes with a review of high-profile and high-stakes trade secret disputes and their implications for litigation moving forward.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or YouTube.
Trade Secrets & Restrictive Covenants: 2024 Recap, 2025 Outlook (Fairly Competing, Episode 27)
In this episode, recorded on January 3, 2025, John, Ben, and Russell take a look back on some of the more significant developments in trade secret and restrictive covenant law in 2024, and try to give some insight into what to expect in 2025. We discuss the FTC’s noncompete ban, extraterritoriality of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, damages in trade secret cases, legislative changes to state noncompete laws, noteworthy cases from various states and the Third Circuit, and other issues and predictions.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
FTC’s noncompete ban is no more. Now what?
On April 23, 2024, the FTC adopted a rule to ban virtually all employee noncompetes. The rule was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. But 15 days before – on August 20, 2024 – the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated the rule.
Companies and employees have a reprieve, but they should not let their guard down.
Join John, Ben, and Russell for a discussion of what happened, what to expect going forward, and what companies should do now to protect their trade secrets, confidential information, customer goodwill, and the integrity of their workforce.
Listen to us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
FTC to ban noncompetes: What you need to know
On April 23, 2024, the FTC adopted a rule that bans virtually all employee noncompetes. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. If that happens, how will companies protect their trade secrets, confidential information, customer goodwill, and the integrity of their workforce?
Join John, Ben, and Russell for a discussion of what the FTC’s noncompete rule will do, when it will go into effect, legal challenges to the rule, and what companies can do to limit the impact of the new rule.
Listen to us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Preparing for California’s newly expanded noncompete ban and anti-restrictive covenant laws (Episode 23)
On January 1, 2024, California will officially begin exporting its ban on noncompetes, nonsolicits, broad confidentiality agreements, and likely no-recruits to the rest of the country — whether the other states like it or not.
Here’s what happened: This fall (in September and October), California passed two laws that together will: (1) expand the scope of California’s already-sweeping ban on employee noncompetes and other restrictive covenants; (2) export California’s law nationwide to void contracts between non-California residents signed outside of California; (3) require companies to provide notice to their employees and certain former employees that their noncompetes are void; and (4) impose penalties for violations.
According to the legislation, “California’s public policy against restraint of trade law trumps other state laws . . . .”
In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell discuss California’s new laws, what the laws purport to do, and what companies can do to limit the impact of the new laws.
Listen to us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
And if you just can’t get enough, when you are finished listening to the podcast, here is a link to a brainstorming session on the new laws with over 40 of the leading trade secret / restrictive covenant / employee mobility lawyers from around the country: Responding to California’s New, Expanded, Anti Restrictive Covenant Laws.
(Episode 23)
Guest Starr Discusses The Research Behind the FTC’s Proposed Noncompete Ban (Fairly Competing, Episode 21)
The FTC’s proposed ban on noncompete agreements (and other “de facto” noncompetes) relies in large part of the research of University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business Professor Evan Starr — one of the leading scholars in the field.
Join John, Ben, and Russell as they talk with Professor Starr about the strengths and weakness of his research, key insights he has into other research in the field, and an important working paper of HEC Paris Professor Jessica Jeffers, The Impact of Restricting Labor Mobility on Corporate Investment and Entrepreneurship.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
2022 Year In Review (Fairly Competing, Episode 19)
Happy Holidays!
Join John, Ben, and Russell as they take a look back on some of the more significant developments in trade secret and restrictive covenant law from the past year and what to be expecting in the coming year. They discuss recent criminal prosecutions for use of no-poach agreements, legislative changes to state noncompete and nonsolicitation laws, federal regulatory and legislative efforts to limit or ban noncompetes, eye-popping trade secret damage awards, and developing trends in the way trade secret cases are being handled and tried.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Don’t go too far when investigating trade secret misappropriation by an employee (Fairly Competing, Episode 17)
When an employee leaves for a competitor, it’s not uncommon for the former employer to investigate whether the employee took information on the way out the door. But, a recent case from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Patel v. Duke Hospitality LLC, highlights some limits on what the former employer can do.
As Ben discusses in a recent article about the case, “Employers often assume they are empowered to exercise broad discretion when investigating employee computer misconduct, especially when employees are suspected of using company emails or computers to engage in the misconduct. However, employers should be aware of potential liability that could arise from their digital investigations and monitoring of employee computer and email use.”
In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell discuss how the teachings of the Patel v. Duke Hospitality LLC case affect what employers can and cannot do when they suspect misappropriation by a departing employee.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
The Key to Seeking and Defending Against Temporary Restraining Orders (Fairly Competing, Episode 16)
Temporary retraining orders (called, “TROs”) are a staple of trade secret and restrictive covenant litigation. In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell discuss what you need to know when you are either seeking or defending against a TRO in a trade secret or noncompete case.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 14: Irreparable Harm in Trade Secret Cases
In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell discuss the requirement of irreparable harm for injunctive relief in trade secret disputes through a discussion with special guest Vicki Cundiff, one of the true deans of the trade secret bar.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 13: Year in Review
In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell take a look back on some of the more significant developments in trade secret and restrictive covenant law over the past year, and try to give some insight into what to expect in the coming year.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed to load into your reader, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 12: Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc. (How to Avoid Dismissal and Get an Injunction in Trade Secret Cases)
In this episode, John, Ben, and Russell explore an important, extremely well-reasoned, recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick in Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.
The case offers an object lesson about preliminary injunctions in trade secret cases, highlighting that it’s no longer safe to assume you will get a preliminary injunction simply because a former employee downloaded 5,000 documents — even if he invokes the 5th Amendment… well, at least in California — and, as we discuss, probably beyond California too. But, good news: Your case probably won’t be dismissed. We explain all of this through an examination of the decision, why the court came out as it did, what it signals, and what we can learn from it.
So, come join us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed to load into your reader, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 7: Trade Secret Roundtable on Developments and Emerging Issues (NERA Economic Consulting Program, Part 2)
This episode is a departure from our usual. We are making available (through this episode and the last) Trade Secret Roundtable on Developments and Emerging Issues, a program presented by NERA Economic Consulting at which John, Ben, and Russell were panelists, along with Dr. Stephanie Demperio and Vicki Cundiff.
In our last episode, part one of the program, we covered what satisfies the reasonable efforts requirement and considerations in early case assessment, including when and how to involve an expert.
In today’s episode, part two of the program, we cover how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted trade secret litigation and new developments in noncompete legislation and the expected impact on trade secrets litigation.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 6: Trade Secret Roundtable on Developments and Emerging Issues (NERA Economic Consulting Program)
This episode is a departure from our usual. We are making available (through this episode and the next) Trade Secret Roundtable on Developments and Emerging Issues, a program presented by NERA Economic Consulting at which John, Ben, and Russell were panelists, along with Dr. Stephanie Demperio and Vicki Cundiff.
The program covers emerging issues in trade secrets litigation, including what satisfies the reasonable efforts requirement; considerations in early case assessment, including when and how to involve an expert; how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted trade secret litigation; and new developments in noncompete agreements and the expected impact on trade secrets litigation.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 5: Litigating Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Injunctions, Generally and in the COVID Era
This episode covers the standards that apply and issues that arise when seeking or defending against an injunction in a trade secret or restrictive covenant case, and how they’ve been impacted by COVID. We also discuss the “Unicorn Case” and whether geographic restrictions make sense anymore.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 4: Protecting Trade Secrets – More Hot Issues
This episode covers two additional hot topics in trade secret and noncompete law, particularly during COVID-19: protecting trade secrets through technologies like Zoom (a close look at Smash Franchise Partners, LLC v. Kanda Holdings, Inc.) and the importance of exit interviews and how to manage the departure of remote workers.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 3: Protecting Trade Secrets – Hot Issues
This episode covers two hot topics in trade secret and noncompete law, particularly during COVID-19: employee surveillance and protecting legitimate business interests when an employee’s employment is terminated without cause.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing, Episode 2: The Basics of Noncompete Law, and What Lies Ahead
This episode is all about level setting: making sure everyone knows what noncompetes and other restrictive covenants are, how they are enforced, how the laws have been changing, and what legislative and regulatory changes we can expect to see on both the state and federal levels in the near future.
You can follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Or, if you’re just looking for the feed, it’s here: Fairly Competing RSS feed.
Fairly Competing 