Tag Archives: Regulation

Jim Cramer Advises Against Using Binance — Says Crypto Exchange Is ‘Way Too Sketchy’ – Regulation Bitcoin News – Bitcoin News

  1. Jim Cramer Advises Against Using Binance — Says Crypto Exchange Is ‘Way Too Sketchy’ – Regulation Bitcoin News Bitcoin News
  2. Binance, NBA star Jimmy Butler, and crypto influencers hit with $1 billion suit for promoting unregistered securities Fortune
  3. Binance.US Volume Rises to New All-Time High, Plans Transition to New Banking Partners BeInCrypto
  4. Jim Cramer vs. CZ: ‘Mad Money’ Host Says Binance ‘Way Too Sketchy’ BSC NEWS
  5. CZ, Binance, influencers face $1B lawsuit for unregistered securities promo Cointelegraph
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Gary Gensler: SEC Needs New Tools, Expertise, and Resources to Regulate Crypto Industry – Regulation Bitcoin News – Bitcoin News

  1. Gary Gensler: SEC Needs New Tools, Expertise, and Resources to Regulate Crypto Industry – Regulation Bitcoin News Bitcoin News
  2. No Settlement in Lawsuit as Ripple CEO and General Counsel Blast SEC in Recent Tweets The Crypto Basic
  3. SEC Chair Gensler welcomes Biden’s $2.4 billion in funding, will use funds to fight ‘misconduct’ in crypto Kitco NEWS
  4. SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s latest call signals tough times ahead for crypto players FXStreet
  5. Fair crypto laws ‘possible’ in the US but needs ‘a lot of work’ — Crypto Council adviser Cointelegraph
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey Announces Emergency Regulation on Gender Transition Interventions for Minors – Missouri Attorney General’s Office

  1. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey Announces Emergency Regulation on Gender Transition Interventions for Minors Missouri Attorney General’s Office
  2. Missouri AG announces rule aimed as ending transgender care for minors St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  3. Missouri attorney general issues rules to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender kids St. Louis Public Radio
  4. Missouri Attorney General Bailey issues emergency regulation against gender transition interventi… KMOV St. Louis
  5. Missouri attorney general announces rule aimed at ending transgender care for minors St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Read original article here

Bernie Sanders says Silicon Valley Bank’s failure is the ‘direct result’ of a Trump-era bank regulation policy – Yahoo! Voices

  1. Bernie Sanders says Silicon Valley Bank’s failure is the ‘direct result’ of a Trump-era bank regulation policy Yahoo! Voices
  2. GOP presidential candidates react to Silicon Valley Bank collapse; Trump blames ‘out-of-control Democrats’ Fox News
  3. Mitt Romney Drops Truth Bomb on Silicon Valley Bank: Shareholders Should ‘Lose It All’ msnNOW
  4. Silicon Valley Bank collapse: GOP’s Vivek Ramaswamy says more regulation would encourage ‘crony capitalism’ Fox Business
  5. James Comer slams Silicon Valley Bank as ‘one of the most woke banks’ Business Insider
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Silicon Valley Bank collapse: GOP’s Vivek Ramaswamy says more regulation would encourage ‘crony capitalism’ – Fox Business

  1. Silicon Valley Bank collapse: GOP’s Vivek Ramaswamy says more regulation would encourage ‘crony capitalism’ Fox Business
  2. GOP presidential candidates react to Silicon Valley Bank collapse; Trump blames ‘out-of-control Democrats’ Fox News
  3. This is how SVB depositors will get their money back CNN
  4. Silicon Valley Bank Collapse Becomes Campaign Topic as GOP Warns Against Bailout The Wall Street Journal
  5. Biden admin’s response to Silicon Valley Bank collapse is the ‘greatest form of corporate cronyism’: Tim Scott Fox News
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Ripple CEO Warns of Harm to Crypto Industry if SEC Wins Lawsuit Over XRP – Regulation Bitcoin News – Bitcoin News

  1. Ripple CEO Warns of Harm to Crypto Industry if SEC Wins Lawsuit Over XRP – Regulation Bitcoin News Bitcoin News
  2. The crypto industry has ‘already started’ moving outside US, says Ripple CEO Cointelegraph
  3. Ripple: Lawyer expects SEC case to end ‘any day, as soon as the end of this month’ – XRP price to explode if Ripple labs wins Crypto News Flash
  4. Ripple v. SEC court case update as of March 5, 2023 Finbold – Finance in Bold
  5. Ripple CEO: SEC Pushing Crypto Industry Overseas – The Street Crypto: Bitcoin and cryptocurrency news, advice, analysis and more TheStreet
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read original article here

Airbus Revives Order From Qatar Airways Following Paint-Dispute Settlement

LONDON—

Airbus

EADSY 2.36%

SE agreed to revive orders for close to 75 aircraft from Qatar Airways after reaching a settlement with the Middle East airline over a long-running dispute about chipping paint on its A350 wide-body models.

A spokesman for Airbus said it would now go ahead with delivering 50 A321 narrow-bodies and 23 remaining A350 twin-aisles previously ordered by Qatar.

The orders had been scrapped as part of an escalating, multibillion-dollar legal battle over the paint issue, which the airline had claimed could pose a safety concern. Airbus repeatedly denied the claims.

Airbus and Qatar Airways earlier Wednesday said in a joint statement that they had reached an “amicable and mutually agreeable settlement” in relation to the legal dispute. The companies didn’t disclose the details of the settlement other than to say the agreement didn’t amount to an admission of liability from either party. A program to repair the degradation on Qatar’s current fleet is under way, the companies added.

Qatar Airways had previously grounded 29 of its A350 jets and refused new deliveries over the issue, reducing its capacity amid a surge in travel to Doha for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The airline has said the peeling paint was exposing the meshed copper foil that is designed to protect the aircraft from lightning strikes.

That led Qatar Airways to initiate legal proceedings against Airbus in London, in which the carrier had sought damages partly based on the impact on its operations from not being able to use the aircraft. A possible trial had been scheduled for later this year.

While the paint issue has also affected other A350s in service at other Airbus customers, only Qatar Airways had taken the step to unilaterally ground the aircraft. Airbus and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which oversees the Toulouse, France-based plane maker, have insisted that the issue is only cosmetic.

The situation had led to a broad fallout between Airbus and one of its biggest customers. In August, Airbus ended all new business with Qatar Airways, canceling contracts valued at more than $13 billion according to the latest available list prices and before the hefty discounts plane makers typically give to customers.

After Airbus canceled a deal to sell Qatar Airways 50 of its A321 jets, the Gulf carrier ordered up to 50 of rival

Boeing Co.

’s 737 MAX 10 single-aisle jets within two weeks. Qatar Airways had previously canceled most of an existing MAX order in 2020 after receiving five of the planes.

Airbus lawyers alleged that Qatar Airways had exaggerated concerns about the issue in an attempt to claim compensation and refuse delivery of aircraft that it didn’t need as the pandemic hit demand for air travel. The plane maker complained in court that the airline and its regulator, the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority, had failed to provide documentation that showed the technical justifications behind grounding the aircraft.

Qatar Airways has said it provided images of the damage, which it purported showed the scale of the issue and the potential safety risk.

Qatar Airways Chief Executive

Akbar Al Baker

has long had a reputation as a tough customer, publicly lashing out at both Airbus and Boeing when he perceives delivery or quality issues.

Write to Benjamin Katz at ben.katz@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Russia Seeks Gains in Ukraine Before Western Tanks Turn Up

Russian forces pressed an offensive in eastern Ukraine on Friday, seeking to seize an advantage in the months before tanks pledged by Kyiv’s Western allies begin to arrive on the battlefield.

Ukrainian forces said on Friday they had repelled Russian attacks on Vuhledar and several other villages in the eastern Donetsk region over the preceding 24 hours. Russia also launched 148 attacks along the front line with Ukrainian forces in the southern Zaporizhzhia region over the past day using tanks, rockets and artillery, the regional military administration said. 

Russia’s Defense Ministry said it had undertaken more offensive maneuvers over the past 24 hours both in Zaporizhzhia and Vuhledar, where it said it had launched strikes on Ukraine’s 72nd Brigade and had downed a Ukrainian Su-25 warplane.

The European Union on Friday, meanwhile, extended its economic sanctions on Russia for the next six months. The decision affects a swath of sanctions imposed last year, from financial sanctions on Russian banks and its central bank to export and import bans. 

There had been concerns that Hungarian Prime Minister

Viktor Orban

could push to weaken the sanctions package. In recent months, he has attacked the EU’s sanctions, especially the EU oil import embargo on Moscow, saying they are more costly for Europe than for Russia. Decisions on sanctions are taken by consensus among the EU’s 27 member states. 

While Hungary stepped back from objecting to renewing the economic sanctions, it is pushing for the EU to drop sanctions on several Russian executives who have been blacklisted by the EU, according to several EU diplomats. A decision is due in March on rolling over these sanctions. 

Ukraine’s President

Volodymyr Zelensky

discussed the situation in Vuhledar and the city of Bakhmut at a meeting with military chiefs on Thursday, he said in his nightly address.

Russian servicemen in Ukraine launch rockets in an image released Friday by the Russian Defense Ministry.



Photo:

Russian Defense Ministry Press O/Zuma Press

After months of setbacks, Russian forces earlier this month broke through Ukrainian defenses in the east to seize the town of Soledar. That has made it harder for Ukraine to keep hold of neighboring Bakhmut, which has been at the epicenter of the war for several months. The city is central to Russia’s main goal: to take over the remainder of Donetsk, and the wider industrial area known as Donbas. But the fighting there has come at huge cost for both sides.

“The more Russia loses in this battle for Donbas, the less its overall potential will be,” the Ukrainian president said. “We know what the occupiers are planning. We are countering it.”

Ukrainian officials warn that Russia is gearing up for a renewed onslaught this spring after mobilizing some 300,000 men to shore up its faltering campaign last fall. For Moscow, there is a window before tanks pledged this week by Kyiv’s Western allies arrive in Ukraine, potentially tilting the battlefield again. 

Russia’s Defense Ministry said Friday its forces had launched a series of strikes over the past day on Ukrainian military and infrastructure targets that had disrupted the transfer of weapons, including those from countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, being delivered to the front.

Kyiv’s allies are rushing to assemble two battalions’ worth of Leopard 2 tanks from a range of European countries after Germany and the U.S. committed to provide their own tanks. The initial battalion is expected to arrive in Ukraine within three months.

A Ukrainian serviceman in Bakhmut rests next to an armored medical vehicle.



Photo:

anatolii stepanov/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Poland, which has been at the forefront of pushing for increased military support for Ukraine, on Friday said it would send 60 upgraded T-72 tanks—half of them Polish-made PT-91 Twardy tanks—in addition to its contribution of 14 Leopards.

The U.S. has also pledged 31 M1 Abrams tanks, but those will take much longer to arrive in Ukraine because they are being procured through the defense industry instead of being pulled from existing American defense stocks. 

Mr. Zelensky has urged Western countries to speed up the delivery of tanks and the training of Ukrainian forces to use them as Russia regains initiative.

Russian officials have said the tanks won’t alter dynamics on the battlefield and will only lead to escalation in the war.

Stefano Sannino,

secretary-general of the European Union’s European External Action Service, said during a visit to Japan that German and U.S. tank provisions weren’t escalatory and were meant to help Ukrainians defend themselves, rather than making them attackers. The decision to supply them is in response to Russian escalation, Mr. Sannino said, accusing Moscow of carrying out indiscriminate attacks on civilians and cities. 

Shelling has caused damage in central Bakhmut as Ukrainian and Russian forces fight over the city.



Photo:

Emanuele Satolli for The Wall Street Journal

The tanks will enable Ukraine to destroy enemy tanks, offer greater protection and support combined operations, the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense said.

Assessing recent Russian claims of advances, the U.K.’s Defense Ministry said Russian forces had likely conducted local, probing attacks near Vuhledar in the east and Orikhiv in the Zaporizhzhia region but that Russia hadn’t achieved substantial gains. 

Russian military sources are deliberately spreading misinformation in an effort to imply that the Russian operation is sustaining momentum, the ministry said.

Write to Isabel Coles at isabel.coles@wsj.com

As the U.S. and its allies start sending Abrams, Leopards and other tanks to help Ukraine, those vehicles are set to change the dynamics of the war along the front lines. WSJ examines how the tanks that Ukraine will receive from the West compare with Russia’s vehicles. Illustration: Adam Adada

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business

The Justice Department is seeking the breakup of Google’s business brokering digital advertising across much of the internet, a major expansion of the legal challenges the company faces to its business in the U.S. and abroad.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Justice Department’s second against the

Alphabet Inc.

GOOG -1.98%

unit following one filed in 2020, alleges that Google abuses its role as one of the largest brokers, suppliers and online auctioneers of ads placed on websites and mobile applications. The filing promises a protracted court battle with wide-ranging implications for the digital-advertising industry.

Filed in federal court in Virginia, the case alleges that Google abuses monopoly power in the ad-tech industry, hurting web publishers and advertisers that try to use competing products. Eight states, including California and New York, joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to unwind Google’s “anticompetitive acquisitions,” such as its 2008 purchase of ad-serving company DoubleClick, and calls for the divestiture of its ad exchange.

“For 15 years Google has pursued a course of anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to halt the rise of rival technologies, manipulate auction mechanics, insulate itself from competition, and forced advertisers and publishers to use its tools,” Attorney General

Merrick Garland

said at a press conference Tuesday. “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct that has severely weakened if not destroyed competition in the ad-tech industry.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday that the digital-advertising industry was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct.



Photo:

Al Drago/Bloomberg News

A Google spokesman said the lawsuit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” the spokesman said.

By calling for specific divestitures from Google’s ad-tech business, the Justice Department lawsuit went further in seeking a breakup than some antitrust experts had expected. Shares of Alphabet fell by about 2% in trading on Tuesday.

Though largely invisible to internet users, the ad-tech tools controlled by Google facilitate much of the buying and selling of digital ads that helps fund online publishers. Google’s business includes a tool publishers can use to offer ad space, a product for advertisers to buy those slots and an exchange that automatically links bidders with webpages as they are being loaded for individual users.

Big tech companies such as Google are under a barrage from lawmakers and regulators across multiple continents who have targeted the companies’ dominance in online markets. Justice Department officials also are investigating

Apple Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued

Meta Platforms Inc.’s

Facebook unit over antitrust allegations and

Microsoft Corp.

to block its planned $75 billion acquisition of

Activision Blizzard Inc.

President Biden recently urged lawmakers from both parties to unite behind legislation seeking to rein in tech giants. The European Union also has opened cases looking at alleged anticompetitive conduct by Google, Meta and other companies.

The Justice Department’s 2020 lawsuit against Google targeted its position in online search markets, including an agreement to make Google search the default in Apple’s Safari web browser. Google is fighting the case, which is expected to go to trial this year.

Alphabet gets about 80% of its business from advertising. The Justice Department’s new suit targets the subset of that ad business that brokers the buying and selling of ads on other websites and apps. Google reported $31.7 billion in revenue in 2021 from that ad-brokering activity, or about 12% of Alphabet’s total revenue. Google distributes about 70% of that revenue to web publishers and developers.

Last year, Google offered to split off parts of its ad-tech business into a separate company under the Alphabet umbrella to fend off the most recent Justice Department investigation. DOJ officials rejected the offer and decided to pursue the lawsuit instead.

For years, Google has faced allegations from advertising- and media-industry executives, lawmakers and regulators that its presence at multiple points of the online ad-buying process harms publishers and gives it an unfair advantage over rivals. Google also operates the most popular search engine and the largest online video-streaming site, YouTube, giving rise to allegations it has tilted the market in its own favor.

Rivals say that Google’s power in digital advertising stems from a series of acquisitions Google used to build its ad-tech business, beginning with the company’s $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick. The FTC approved the merger in a controversial decision. Google went on to purchase a host of other startups including the mobile-advertising company AdMob.

“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the complaint read.

Google has said it has no plans to sell or exit the ad-tech business. It has also strongly contested claims in a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, led by Texas, containing allegations similar to the Justice Department complaint. A federal judge denied the bulk of Google’s motion to dismiss the case last year, allowing it to proceed to the discovery stage and ultimately toward trial.

Google’s Android operating system is the most popular in the world—you can find Android code on everything from Peloton bikes to kitchen appliances and even NASA satellites. WSJ’s Dalvin Brown explains why it is the world’s most-used OS. Illustration: Rami Abukalam

Any divestiture of parts of Google’s ad-tech business would cause big ripple effects across the online advertising industry, which has recently shown signs of weakness as consumers dial back purchases in response to worsening economic conditions.

Breaking off parts of Google’s ad-tech business from the rest of the company could take years of litigation to resolve. Depending on the outcome of the case, ad-tech executives have said the results could range from a higher share of ad dollars flowing to publishers to lower overall spending because digital ads would be less efficient without Google brokering them.

The 149-page complaint makes detailed allegations about the internal workings of Google’s ad-tech operations. The suit alleges, for instance, that Google used anticompetitive tactics to build up the market share of its own ad server, which issues requests for advertisements on behalf of websites, and then used that market power to effectively push publishers into sending their ad inventory only to Google’s in-house ad exchange, AdX.

The Justice Department argues, in part, that this conduct locked out rival ad-tech providers, increasing prices for advertisers and costs of publishers.

“Google keeps at least thirty cents—and sometimes far more—of each advertising dollar flowing from advertisers to website publishers through Google’s ad tech tools,” the lawsuit alleges. “Google’s own internal documents concede that Google would earn far less in a competitive market.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Google executives worked to kill a rival online-bidding technology called “header bidding,” which the lawsuit says the company referred to internally as an “existential threat.” As part of a plan dubbed Project Poirot, the company allegedly changed its own ad-buying tools to underbid on behalf of advertisers when they turned to outside ad exchanges that used header bidding, so those rivals would lose more auctions and “dry out,” the complaint says.

At one point, Google also approached

Amazon.com Inc.,

to ask “what it would take for Amazon to stop investing in its header bidding product,” the complaint alleges, adding that Amazon rebuffed those requests.

“Google uses its dominion over digital advertising technology to funnel more transactions to its own ad tech products where it extracts inflated fees to line its own pockets at the expense of the advertisers and publishers it purportedly serves,” the complaint read.

The Justice Department case overlaps in some ways with the late 2020 lawsuit from the group of U.S. states led by Texas.

In Tuesday’s complaint, the Justice Department quotes some of the same internal communications as the Texas-led lawsuit, including how one Google executive compared the company’s control over ad-tech to the financial sector: “The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.

The case also shares similarities with an investigation that the EU’s top antitrust enforcer, the European Commission, opened in 2021, as well as one by the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority. Those probes are exploring allegations that Google favors its own ad-buying tools in the advertising auctions it runs, but also look at other elements of Google’s ad-tech business. The EU, for instance, is also looking at Google’s alleged exclusion of competitors from brokering ad-buys on its video site YouTube.

Mr. Garland said Tuesday that the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit because the federal government was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct. Federal agencies have since 2019 spent over $100 million on display ads, the complaint says. The government paid inflated fees and was harmed by manipulated advertising prices because of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the lawsuit alleges.

Microsoft is deepening its partnership with OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and Dall-E. That has investors and analysts speculating whether Microsoft could challenge Google’s dominance in search. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist Dan Gallagher joins host Zoe Thomas to discuss how AI could affect search and at what cost.

Jonathan Kanter,

the assistant attorney general for antitrust, said while there are similarities with other lawsuits against Google, the Justice Department’s complaint is based on its own investigation that yielded “meticulous detail” about Google’s ad-tech business.

“We detail many facts, many episodes that in the individual and in the aggregate have maintained numerous monopolies,” Mr. Kanter said.

Google has attempted to settle the claims against its ad-tech business. In addition to offering to split off parts of its ad-tech business to avoid the Justice Department suit, the company last year discussed with the EU an offer to allow competitors to broker the sale of ads directly on the video service.

In 2021, the company agreed to give U.K. antitrust regulators effective veto power over elements of its plans to remove a technology called third-party cookies from its Chrome browser to settle an investigation there into the plan.

In France, Google agreed to pay a fine of 220 million euros, equivalent to about $239 million, and to improve data access to competing ad-tech companies, to not use its data in ways rivals couldn’t reproduce to settle a similar antitrust investigation in the country.

Write to Miles Kruppa at miles.kruppa@wsj.com and Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

FTC Plan to Ban Noncompete Clauses Shifts Companies’ Focus

Businesses and lawyers are beginning to assess what the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed ban of noncompete clauses in employment contracts could mean for worker mobility, wages and the way future compensation agreements are structured. 

While a full or partial ban could expand the pool of potential hires, it also would weaken a tool that employers have come to rely on to retain talent and protect trade secrets and other proprietary information, lawyers say. More companies likely would turn to a patchwork of alternative mechanisms to keep people from leaving and taking valuable information with them, including nondisclosure agreements and employment contracts that reward longevity, they say. 

“Employers have operated with an understanding that they can protect their interests through noncompetes,” said Matthew Durham, a Salt Lake City-based attorney with Dorsey & Whitney LLP who advises companies on employment matters. “What you’re seeing, reflected in the FTC proposal and elsewhere, is a growing hostility to the idea that there should be those kinds of restrictions, and it’s changing the environment that employers have been comfortable with in the last number of years.”

The FTC proposed a ban this month on nearly all noncompetes, saying that the clauses—which typically prohibit workers from moving to a new employer or starting new ventures of their own—hamper competition in the labor market, suppress wages and hold back innovation and entrepreneurship. The proposal came in response to an executive order from President Biden in 2021.

Businesses say they impose noncompete clauses on employees to protect trade secrets and other confidential information, including customer lists and financial data.

The FTC contends that noncompete clauses discourage innovation and entrepreneurship.



Photo:

Eric Lee for The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Durham and others say they believe the FTC may narrow its rule after hearing comments from the public, including employers and business organizations that have already signaled their opposition to the current proposal. The agency could, for example, allow noncompetes for highly compensated workers.

Noncompetes are common in employment contracts for senior employees like software engineers, sales representatives and top executives. Over time, they have been applied to many parts of the U.S. workforce, including some janitors, baristas, schoolteachers and entry-level workers. According to the FTC, one in five U.S. workers is currently subject to a noncompete clause.

Noncompetes are regulated at the state level, and many states have already taken action to limit use of the clauses by, in some cases, forbidding employers from imposing them on people earning under a particular wage threshold or for certain types of workers. 

“The vast majority of people in America can’t afford a lawyer to defend a noncompete case,” said Jonathan Pollard, an attorney in Florida who represents workers whose employers are trying to enforce noncompete clauses. “Just the threat of enforcement is often enough to restrain talent in the labor market.”

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a new ban on noncompete clauses, which the agency says hurts workers and competition. Companies argue they protect trade secrets. WSJ breaks down what a federal ban could mean for workers and businesses. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds

Some states, such as California and Oklahoma, hold that the clauses are unenforceable in all or nearly all employment contracts. 

A number of studies suggest noncompetes suppress wages and innovation. A review of Oregon’s 2008 ban on noncompetes for hourly workers found that wages rose an average of 2% to 3%. Another study, examining Hawaii’s 2015 ban on noncompete agreements for high-tech workers, found an 11% increase in job moves and a 4% increase in new-hire salaries.

The clauses restrain not just pay and entrepreneurship, but also professional development, workers and some attorneys say. 

Daniel Bachhuber had worked as a software consultant for years when he decided to take an in-house job in the fall of 2018. His new employer required that he sign a one-year noncompete agreement, which he said was so broad it would have prevented him from practicing his core skills if he were to leave the company or be fired.

Mr. Bachhuber balked. Earlier in his career, he had been laid off a few weeks into a new job, just after his first child was born. If that happened at the new job, he recalled thinking, he would be unable to earn a living for a year. “I’m always thinking, worst case scenario, what kind of downstream protection do I have?” the 35-year-old said. “Even if I was employed just one day, I couldn’t go back to the same clients I had.”

Daniel Bachhuber turned down a job after an employer wouldn’t change a noncompete clause.



Photo:

Mason Trinca for The Wall Street Journal

He consulted a lawyer and tried to renegotiate the contract, hoping to salvage a role that would have expanded his skills and given him a chance to work directly with the chief technology officer on special projects. The company declined to change the noncompete clause and, reluctantly, Mr. Bachhuber turned down the position. 

Employers have other tools to protect information besides noncompete agreements, including nondisclosure agreements, trade secret laws and nonsolicitation agreements, which prohibit workers from poaching customers or employees of their prior firm. 

But those tools generally can only be used after an employee violates the agreement, said Julie Levinson Werner, who represents employers as a partner with law firm Lowenstein Sandler LLP. “Once someone goes to another company, you’re really on the honor system. You have no way to monitor what information is being disclosed or not,” she said.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think noncompetes should be banned? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

Observers on both sides say that limitations on the clauses will compel employers to get more creative about how they retain talent, using everything from compensation to career advancement to keep workers engaged and loyal to the company. Some companies use deferred compensation—such as retention bonuses or rolling stock options that vest after, say, three years—to give people incentives to stay.

“Do you get better results with honey or vinegar?” said Ms. Werner. “If you want to motivate people and have them happy to stay, you have to look at compensation, the overall environment, how you treat them.”

The fate of the FTC’s final rule is up in the air. After a 60-day comment period, the commissioners will consider potential changes to the initial proposal and then issue a final rule. That rule will likely be challenged by business groups or individual companies, and courts will determine its trajectory, attorneys say.

Write to Lauren Weber at Lauren.Weber@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here