Employers have long believed that a non-compete allows them to protect their trade secrets. They believed non-competes allowed them to protect their financial investment in workers. And, employees often had no choice. If you wanted to take a job, a non-compete was just part of the arrangement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to stop a rule issued by the FTC banning noncompete clauses.

Non-compete agreements may soon become non-existent for nearly all employees in the U.S. after a final rule from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a 3-2 vote from commissioners. A non-compete is a contractual term between an employer and employee that blocks the worker from starting a competing business or working for a competitor for a specific amount of time after their employment ends.

The Federal Trade Commission said the deal would eliminate direct head-to-head competition between the fashion companies’ brands like Coach and Michael Kors.

Experts said the ruling could see judicial challenges, but that workers would nevertheless benefit in the meantime.

In one move, the Federal Trade Commission voted to ban noncompete agreements, which prevent millions of workers from taking a job at a competitor for a specific period of time.

U.S. companies would no longer be able to bar employees from taking jobs with competitors under the rule, though the rule is sure to be challenged in court.

HOUSTON - In a move to boost worker mobility, the FTC bans non-compete agreements for most workers. FOX 26 Houston is now on the FOX LOCAL app available through Apple TV, Amazon FireTV, Roku, Google Android TV,

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has greenlit a rule banning noncompete agreements, asserting that such contracts restrict worker mobility and suppress wages. Passed in a 3-2 vote, the decision represents a pivotal shift in labor dynamics,