Public Comment

The FTC moved in 2025 to accede to court vacatur of its broad noncompete rule, and a 2026 Federal Register notice removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. At the same time, the FTC has continued bringing case-specific enforcement actions against noncompete agreements it says harmed workers. The debate is whether noncompetes should be broadly banned, limited by wage level and role, handled through case-by-case enforcement, or left mostly to state law and contracts. A noncompete can protect a real business secret, but it can also trap ordinary workers. The rule should separate executives with confidential information from people just trying to get a better job.

How should the federal government handle noncompete agreements after the nationwide rule was removed?

Overall results

1
62% support · excluded by 4%
7

After the court fight, case-by-case enforcement may be more durable than another sweeping rule that gets blocked.

6

This avoids punishing legitimate agreements while still going after companies using noncompetes as a routine labor-control tool.

2
53% support · excluded by 10%
7

A wage threshold is easier to follow than a total ban, and it still lets businesses protect high-level confidential roles.

7

The cashier, aide, technician, and junior employee should not be blocked from taking another job. Start where the abuse is clearest.

3
48% support · excluded by 10%
3

Washington does not need one rule for every industry. States and courts can decide whether a contract is reasonable.

4
36% support · excluded by 14%
6

A person should not need permission from a former employer to earn a living. Trade secrets can be protected without locking people out of their field.

About the author