08 Your options

On April 23, 2024, the FTC voted 3–2 to issue a rule against non-compete clauses for workers. Its page announcing the rule now opens: “The Noncompete Rule is not in effect and it is not enforceable.”

8.30 Decided FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes (press release, April 23, 2024), with the notice now at its head Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · April 23, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas held that the FTC “lacks statutory authority” to make the rule and that the rule “is arbitrary and capricious.” It set the rule aside for everyone, not just those who sued: it “shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”

8.31 Decided Memorandum Opinion and Order, Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E (N.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 211), parts III to V U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (copy in CourtListener's RECAP archive) · August 20, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

On September 5, 2025, the FTC voted 3–1 to drop its appeals and accept the court’s ruling. On February 12, 2026, it removed the rule, “codified at 16 CFR part 910,” from the Code of Federal Regulations, the official collection of federal rules.

8.32 Decided Revision of the Negative Option Rule, Withdrawal of the CARS Rule, Removal of the Non-Compete Rule To Conform These Rules to Federal Court Decisions, 91 FR 6507 (February 12, 2026) Federal Trade Commission, in the Federal Register (copy on govinfo.gov) · February 12, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026

Explaining the vote to drop the appeals, the FTC’s chairman, joined by one commissioner, wrote on September 5, 2025: “we will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements. But we will leave the legislating to the people’s representatives in Congress and in the States.”

8.33 Reported Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Ryan, LLC v. FTC (September 5, 2025) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · September 5, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

Under the FTC’s final order of November 25, 2025, agreed by Gateway, it must at once stop enforcing covered non-competes and stop making them, for 10 years. Gateway signed “for settlement purposes only,” without admitting that it broke the law.

8.34 Settled Decision and Order, In the Matter of Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4825 Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · November 25, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

The order makes Gateway write to each covered worker within 45 days: “any Covered Non-Compete Agreement between you and Gateway is null and void,” and it “will not reinstate these Covered Non-Compete Agreements for 10 years.”

8.35 Settled Decision and Order, In the Matter of Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4825, section III and Appendix B Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · November 25, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

The FTC alleged in September 2025 that Gateway, the largest US pet cremation company, had since 2019 required non-competes of “all newly hired employees, regardless of their position or responsibilities”: typically one year barred from the industry, anywhere in the United States.

8.36 Alleged Complaint, In the Matter of Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc. (FTC Docket No. C-4825) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · September 4, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

The complaint counted “over 1,780 U.S.-based Gateway employees” under non-competes, out of 1,992 based in the US: every employee, it alleged, except those working in California.

8.37 Alleged Complaint, In the Matter of Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc. (FTC Docket No. C-4825) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · September 4, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

In June 2026 the FTC made final an agreed order requiring the pest-control company Rollins to stop enforcing non-competes “against more than 18,000 employees nationwide.” The FTC had alleged that they typically barred work in pest control for two years after leaving.

8.38 Settled FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Pest-Control Noncompete Matter (press release, June 22, 2026) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · June 22, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026

The FTC’s final order of June 22, 2026 records that Rollins signed “for settlement purposes only,” without admitting that the law was violated as alleged, or that the facts alleged, other than those on jurisdiction, are true.

8.54 Settled Decision and Order, In the Matter of Rollins, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4835 (redacted public version, issued June 22, 2026; Internet Archive capture of September 16, 2026) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · June 22, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026

On September 10, 2025, the FTC’s chairman sent letters to several large health-care employers and staffing firms, urging them to review their employment agreements, “including any noncompetes,” to make sure they “comply with the law.” The FTC’s release names none of them.

8.39 Reported FTC Chairman Ferguson Issues Noncompete Warning Letters to Healthcare Employers and Staffing Companies (press release, September 10, 2025) Federal Trade Commission (copy in the Internet Archive) · September 10, 2025 · as of October 16, 2026

On September 4, 2024 the CMA found that the hires and the agreements that came with them were a “relevant merger situation,” a deal UK merger law covers, but that they did “not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition” through the loss of Inflection as a rival.

8.40 Decided Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

Can hiring a team be a merger? Sometimes, the CMA says: what UK law calls an enterprise “may include a group of employees and their know-how where this enables a particular business activity to be continued,” even “without further assets.”

8.41 Decided Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

Among its reasons, the CMA found that Inflection’s chatbot Pi “is not a material competitive constraint” on Microsoft’s Copilot, on ChatGPT or on other rivals, and that Inflection “had not been able to materially increase or sustain its chatbot user numbers.”

8.42 Decided Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

A “relevant merger situation” is a deal UK merger law covers. In 2024 it needed three things: two or more businesses “cease to be distinct”; the UK turnover test or the share-of-supply test is met; and, for a completed deal, the CMA decides within four months of the deal or, if later, of its facts being made known.

8.43 Reported Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 17, 2026

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) understood the hires to amount to “almost all of Inflection’s team,” and said Microsoft also took “a non-exclusive licensing deal to utilise Inflection IP.”

8.44 Reported Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

What did Microsoft pay? The CMA’s published decision does not say. In its sentence on “the expected total consideration for the Transaction,” each sum is replaced by a deletion mark, under UK rules on what may be disclosed.

8.45 Reported Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Full text decision, page 1 and paragraph 34 Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · October 24, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

Reuters reported on June 6, 2024, citing a person familiar with the matter, that the FTC was looking into “Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI,” over concerns about whether it was “a play to skirt merger disclosure requirements.”

8.46 Reported US Regulators to Open Antitrust Inquiries of Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Reuters (copy published by Insurance Journal) · June 6, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

For the purposes of this decision, the CMA counted OpenAI’s products, such as ChatGPT, as part of Microsoft’s activities, because Microsoft’s 2019 investment gave it “the ability to materially influence OpenAI’s policy.”

8.47 Decided Microsoft Corporation’s hiring of certain former employees of Inflection and its entry into associated arrangements with Inflection, ME 7103/24, Summary of phase 1 decision Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 4, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

On September 27, 2024 the CMA decided that Amazon’s partnership with Anthropic fell outside UK merger control: Anthropic’s UK turnover did not exceed £70 million, and on the evidence available the two did not supply 25% or more of anything in the UK. So it “did not need to reach a conclusion on material influence.”

8.48 Decided Amazon.com Inc.’s partnership with Anthropic PBC, ME 7100/24, Decision on relevant merger situation (full text) Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · September 27, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

On November 19, 2024 the CMA decided that Google’s partnership with Anthropic was also outside UK merger control. This time it did answer the control question: it did “not believe that Google has acquired material influence over Anthropic.” Anthropic’s UK turnover again did not exceed £70 million.

8.49 Decided Alphabet Inc.’s partnership with Anthropic PBC, ME/7108/24, Decision on relevant merger situation, Summary Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · November 19, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

On March 5, 2025 the CMA decided that Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI, as it then stood, did not qualify for UK merger review: Microsoft, with “material influence” since 2019, as it acknowledged, exerted “a high level” of it, but not control. That, it said, was not a finding “that no competition concerns arise.”

8.55 Decided Microsoft Corporation’s partnership with OpenAI, Inc., Decision on relevant merger situation, Summary (March 5, 2025) Competition and Markets Authority (UK) · March 5, 2025 · as of October 17, 2026

In December 2024 the European Commission cleared, without conditions, Nvidia’s purchase of Run:ai. It found that Nvidia “likely holds a dominant position” in data-center graphics chips (GPUs), but would have “neither the technical ability nor the incentive” to hamper their compatibility with rivals’ software.

8.51 Decided Commission approves acquisition of Run:ai by NVIDIA (press release IP/24/6548, December 20, 2024) European Commission · December 20, 2024 · as of October 16, 2026

Nvidia’s own quarterly report of August 26, 2026 says: “We have also received, and continue to receive, broad requests for information from competition regulators” in the EU, the US, the UK, China and South Korea, including about its investments and partnerships with AI model developers.

8.52 Reported NVIDIA Corporation, Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 26, 2026, Part II, Item 1A (Risk Factors) NVIDIA Corporation (filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; copy in the Internet Archive) · August 26, 2026 · as of October 16, 2026