Albany Law School professor Meredith R. Miller examines the complex and evolving legal landscape of non-compete agreements in the United States, highlighting how their enforceability varies widely across states and is influenced by shifting political and legal tides, especially after the abandonment of a federal ban by the FTC. Professor Miller argues that outright bans on non-competes, as adopted by a few states, are the most effective policy approach because they provide clarity, protect workers' mobility and bargaining power, and still allow employers to safeguard their interests through less restrictive legal tools.

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate Alexander Gelfond discuss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed rule to ban all non-compete clauses in employment agreements, examining the agency’s four main justifications: that non-competes reduce workers’ wages, stifle new business and innovation, exploit workers, and are unnecessary for protecting trade secrets. While supportive of a limited ban on non-competes for workers without access to trade secrets, Professor Estreicher and Mr. Gelfond argue that the FTC needs to further justify its proposed nationwide ban, especially considering potential drawbacks like reduced worker training and lower investment in capital assets.