« Should Joe Biden Run in 2024? [UPDATED] | Main | BILETA Amsterdam/Tilburg this week »
Monday, April 10, 2023
Bill to Strengthen California's NonCompete Ban
California has had a longstanding policy against noncompetes and other restraints on pursuing one's profession (or another way I prefer to describe it - a longstanding policy to allow talent to be free and flowing and to support labor market competition). And yet, the research pervasively shows that even in California many employees are asked to sign noncompetes. A new bill I helped draft creates an enforcement mechanism when employers unlawfully insert clauses into contracts that are void under California's 16600. The bill also clarifies/codifies the caselaw, as the California courts have long held, that employees have the right to compete in California even if they had signed in the past a noncompete outside of the state. A group of law professors from various fields: IP, contracts, employment and labor law, antitrust law are joining together to send a letter to the California legislature in support of the bill - hearing is set for tomorrow.
If you are interested in joining the letter, email me for more details [email protected]. [and also if you are interested in joining a comment to the FTC in support of the proposed rule to nationally ban noncompetes, email me on that too, but less time-sensitive].
Posted by Orly Lobel on April 10, 2023 at 11:57 AM | Permalink
Comments
Thank you so much for bringing this article to my attention since I think it is just incredible. It is precisely what I had been looking forward to finding, and I genuinely hope that you will continue to contribute content of such high quality in the years to come.
Posted by: quordle game | Dec 28, 2023 3:16:58 AM
The bill also clarifies/codifies the caselaw, as the California courts have long held, that employees have the right to compete in California even if they had signed in the past a noncompete outside of the state.
Posted by: snow rider 3d | Nov 12, 2023 9:35:48 PM
So, in accordance with the terms of this Act, is a non-disclosure of trade secret information agreement that forbids its use and provides for injunctive remedies a non-compete agreement? It serves that goal. Its purpose is to stop someone from stealing intellectual property and opening a business to compete with the property's owner. That is one of the UTSA's goals. This phrasing strikes me as being overly general and ambiguous. I do concur with the inclusion of the clause stating that a non-compete is void in California even if it is legal elsewhere. However, I see pointless legal disputes sparked by trade secret bounties and expenses.
Posted by: geometry dash | Apr 12, 2023 11:39:58 PM
So, under this act's language is a non-dislcosure of trade secret information agreement, which includes a prohibition of its use including injunctive relief, a non-compete agreement? That is its purpose. It is to prevent someone from misappropriating intellectual property and setting up shop to compete with the owner of the property. That is a purpose of the UTSA. It seems to me that this language is too broad and vague. I do agree with including the language that a non-compete is void in California even if it is permissible in another jurisdiction. But, I foresee needless litigation spurred by bounties and fees in the trade secret area.
Posted by: John L Romaker | Apr 10, 2023 8:11:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.