If you feel like keeping up with employment law requires a second full-time job, you’re not alone.
In just a short span, we’ve seen the Federal Trade Commission’s ambitious non-compete ban stall and
ultimately get shelved, Florida pass a decidedly pro-employer non-compete statute, and the U.S.
Supreme Court weigh in on how easy it should be to sue over retirement plan fees. Together, these
developments are reshaping how employers draft contracts, how employees change jobs, and how
retirement-plan fiduciaries sleep at night.

In this deep dive, we’ll unpack three big pieces of the puzzle:

• The rise and fall of the FTC’s nationwide non-compete ban.
• Florida’s CHOICE Act, which pushes non-compete law in the opposite direction from much of the country.
• The Supreme Court’s Cunningham v. Cornell University pension case and why it matters for ERISA litigation.

1. The FTC Non-Compete Rule: From Bold Ban to Quiet Exit

Back in 2024, the FTC grabbed headlines by finalizing a sweeping Noncompete Rule that would
have banned most post-employment non-compete agreements nationwide. The agency framed non-competes as
an “unfair method of competition” and estimated that eliminating them could boost worker earnings and
spur new business formation.

What the FTC tried to do

Under the final rule, employers would have been barred from entering into new non-competes with nearly
all workers. For most employees, existing non-competes would have become unenforceable after the rule’s
effective date. Senior executives were treated differently: employers could not impose new non-competes
on them, but existing agreements could remain in place. The rule carved out narrow exceptions, such as
non-competes tied to the sale of a business.

The FTC initially targeted late summer 2024 for the rule to go into effect. But that’s where the story
turned from “regulatory rollout” to “litigation saga.”

How litigation delayed and ultimately derailed the rule

Almost as soon as the ink was dry, business groups and employers filed lawsuits in multiple federal
courts. Two cases became especially important:

• Ryan LLC v. FTC (N.D. Texas): A Texas federal court concluded the FTC was likely
  exceeding its authority by imposing a blanket non-compete ban, eventually vacating the rule nationwide.
• Properties of the Villages LLC v. FTC (M.D. Florida): A Florida court issued a
  preliminary injunction, raising “major questions doctrine” concerns about an agency making such a
  sweeping policy change without clear congressional authorization.

The end result was simple but dramatic: the FTC’s non-compete rule never actually took effect. A Texas
court’s August 2024 order barred enforcement nationwide, and the FTC’s own website now states plainly
that the Noncompete Rule is not in effect and is not enforceable. In October 2025, the
Commission dropped its appeals and repealed the rule, pivoting back to a more traditional strategy of
investigating individual employers and bringing case-by-case enforcement actions instead of relying on
a single nationwide ban.

For employers and employees, the takeaway is a bit anticlimactic: there is no federal, across-the-board
prohibition on non-competes. Instead, we’re back to a patchwork world, where state law and targeted
enforcement actions do most of the work.

2. Florida’s CHOICE Act: Doubling Down on Non-Competes

While many states have been tightening or outright banning non-compete agreements, Florida decided to
hit the gas in the opposite direction. In April 2025, lawmakers passed the
Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act,
which took effect in July 2025. The short version: Florida made it easier for employers to enforce
certain non-competes and garden-leave arrangements, especially for higher-paid workers.

Who is covered under the CHOICE Act?

The CHOICE Act applies to “covered employees,” a term that does a lot of work. In general, a covered
employee is someone who:

• Is an employee or individual contractor whose salary is greater than twice the annual mean wage
  in the relevant Florida county (either the county of the employer’s principal place of business or the
  employee’s county of residence, depending on the situation).
• Is not a licensed health-care practitioner. Doctors, nurses, and other licensed
  practitioners are specifically excluded from the CHOICE Act’s protections, although other Florida
  laws may still touch their contracts.

Because the salary threshold is tied to local wage data, the actual dollar figure can range widely, from
roughly the high-$80,000s to well above $150,000 depending on the county. In practice, the Act is
targeting managers, executives, and other higher-compensated staff, rather than hourly workers.

Key features that strengthen employer protections

For covered employees, Florida’s CHOICE Act:

• Requires non-competes to be in writing, include a defined geographic area, and cap the
  restricted period at four years or less a notably long maximum term compared to many states.
• Allows restrictions that bar the employee from providing services “similar to” those they performed in
  the prior three years or from taking roles where they are reasonably likely to use the employer’s
  confidential information or customer relationships.
• Mandates that the employer give the worker at least seven days to consider the agreement
  and advises the worker in writing to seek legal counsel.
• Requires the agreement to acknowledge that the worker will receive confidential information or access to
  customer relationships.
• Requires courts to issue preliminary injunctions enforcing covered non-competes, unless the employee can
  rebut enforcement by clear and convincing evidence a demanding standard.

The Act also gives teeth to garden-leave provisions, allowing employers to keep covered
employees on paid non-working status for extended periods while restricting them from jumping to
competitors. For employers looking for maximum control over high-value employees, Florida has become a
very attractive jurisdiction.

Why Florida’s CHOICE Act matters nationwide

The CHOICE Act doesn’t stay neatly within Florida’s borders. It applies when a worker’s primary place of work
is in Florida, and it also reaches agreements that use Florida law and involve employers whose principal
place of business is in the state. That means multi-state employers might find Florida law trying to
follow their agreements across state lines, even when other states are hostile to non-competes.

The result is more legal complexity: HR teams must juggle differing state regimes, and employees may face
very different post-employment restrictions depending on where they live, where they work, and which
state’s law their contract picks.

3. SCOTUS Pension Case: Cunningham v. Cornell University

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cunningham v. Cornell University, a case
that technically revolves around pleading standards but has real-world implications for retirement-plan
litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The plaintiffs, a class of Cornell employees, claimed that the university’s retirement plan fiduciaries
caused the plan to engage in “prohibited transactions” by paying excessive fees to recordkeeping and
investment service providers. Under ERISA Section 406 (29 U.S.C. §1106), plan fiduciaries generally can’t
cause the plan to transact with “parties in interest” which includes service providers unless an
exemption applies.

The key legal question

The central issue was: to state a claim for a prohibited transaction, must plaintiffs also plead that
no exemption under ERISA Section 408 (29 U.S.C. §1108) applies? Or is it enough to allege the
core elements of a prohibited transaction and let the defendant raise exemptions as an affirmative defense?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, chose the second path. The Court held that
plaintiffs need only plausibly allege the elements of the prohibited transaction itself that the plan
engaged in a transaction that involved furnishing services to or dealing with a party in interest. They
do not have to preemptively allege that every possible statutory exemption is off the table.

In other words, exemptions are treated like a classic affirmative defense: it’s the defendant’s
job to raise and prove them. The Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, sending the
case back for further proceedings.

Practical impact for retirement-plan sponsors

While Cunningham is “technical,” it matters for any employer sponsoring a 401(k), 403(b), or similar plan:

• It becomes easier for plaintiffs to survive an early motion to dismiss in some ERISA excessive-fee and
  prohibited-transaction cases.
• Plan fiduciaries should expect more scrutiny of recordkeeping and investment-fee arrangements, especially
  where large service providers are involved.
• Documentation and process become even more important. If you intend to rely on an exemption, you need a
  clean paper trail explaining why the arrangement is prudent and reasonably priced.

The Court also signaled that trial judges still have tools like requiring more detailed replies, enforcing
injury requirements, and sanctioning frivolous suits to prevent clearly meritless cases from going too far.
But the initial pleading hurdle is lower for plaintiffs than some defendants had hoped.

4. Connecting the Dots: What This Means for Employers and Workers

At first glance, a shelved federal non-compete rule, a Florida statute, and an ERISA pleading decision
might feel like unrelated headlines. But they share a theme: who gets to set the rules, and how hard is
it to challenge them?

• In the non-compete arena, courts have reined in federal agency authority, pushing the action back to
  state legislatures and case-by-case enforcement.
• Florida’s CHOICE Act shows how aggressively a state can choose to protect employer interests, even as
  other states race in the opposite direction.
• In pension litigation, the Supreme Court has made it easier for workers to get into court when they think
  plan fiduciaries have crossed the line, potentially increasing legal risk for employers.

For businesses, the challenge is navigating a map where the lines between federal and state power are
constantly being redrawn. For workers, the patchwork means your rights can change dramatically when you
cross a state line or change jobs and your retirement plan might be governed by a very different set of
rules than your neighbor’s.

One more important note: none of this is a substitute for legal advice. These developments are complex and
fact-specific. Employers, employees, and plan fiduciaries should work with experienced counsel to evaluate
their specific situation and documents.

5. Practical Steps for Employers Right Now

If you’re responsible for HR, legal, or benefits or you’re a small business owner wearing all three hats
here are practical steps inspired by these developments:

Audit your non-compete and restrictive covenant strategy

• Inventory existing agreements by role, state, and pay level. Pay particular attention to
  employees who work in or for Florida entities.
• Segment your workforce into high-risk/high-value roles and everyone else. In many states,
  broad non-competes for lower-wage workers are either unenforceable or politically unpopular.
• Emphasize alternatives like non-solicitation, confidentiality, and invention-assignment
  clauses that may be easier to enforce across multiple jurisdictions.
• Revisit choice-of-law and venue clauses with counsel, especially if you’ve historically
  favored Florida law or now employ remote workers scattered across the country.

Update agreements to align with Florida’s CHOICE Act (if applicable)

• Make sure non-competes with covered Florida employees meet the Act’s requirements: written form, clear
  geography, term of four years or less, and explicit notice and acknowledgment language.
• Double-check salary thresholds annually, since they’re tied to changing wage data.
• Coordinate non-compete terms with any garden-leave arrangements, ensuring you’re tracking time that must
  reduce the restricted period.

Take a fresh look at your retirement plan governance

• Review recordkeeping and investment-fee structures with your advisors, focusing on whether fees are
  reasonable compared with market benchmarks.
• Document the fiduciary process: how you selected providers, what alternatives you considered, and why your
  choices make sense for participants.
• Train committee members on ERISA duties and on how decisions could look if challenged in a complaint like
  the one in Cunningham.

6. Real-World Experiences and Lessons Learned (500+ Words)

To make all of this more concrete, imagine three real-world organizations navigating the post-FTC,
post-CHOICE Act, post-Cunningham environment.

Scenario 1: A multi-state tech company rewrites its playbook

A mid-size software company based in Florida employs sales and product teams across the country. Before
the FTC acted, the company used a one-size-fits-all non-compete agreement that looked the same for a
junior marketer in Minnesota as it did for a senior sales director in Miami.

When the FTC’s non-compete ban was announced, leadership briefly considered scrapping non-competes
altogether to avoid future regulatory whiplash. But as litigation mounted and the rule stalled, they
shifted strategy. With counsel, they redesigned their contracts in tiers:

• Tier 1: High-level executives and senior sales leaders in Florida received
  CHOICE-compliant non-competes with four-year maximums and robust garden-leave options.
• Tier 2: Key technical staff outside Florida were covered by narrower non-solicitation
  and confidentiality clauses, tailored to states where non-competes are disfavored or banned.
• Tier 3: Junior employees saw most non-compete language removed entirely, reducing both
  legal risk and employee frustration.

The HR team quickly learned that “compliance by template” no longer works. Instead, they now consult a
simple internal decision tree: Where does the employee work? How much do they earn? What kind of
competitively sensitive information do they access? The company’s agreements became more complex on the
back end, but far more defensible if challenged.

Scenario 2: A Florida health system navigates the CHOICE carve-out

A large hospital system in Florida initially celebrated the CHOICE Act, assuming it could lock in
physicians and advanced practice providers with stronger non-competes. Then legal flagged a key detail:
licensed health-care practitioners are excluded from the Act’s definition of covered employees.

That forced a pivot. For doctors, nurses, and other practitioners, the system had to lean on existing
Florida statutes and more targeted tools:

• Carefully drafted non-solicitation clauses aimed at protecting patient relationships.
• Confidentiality and HIPAA-compliant data protections to safeguard sensitive information.
• Repayment provisions tied to signing bonuses or relocation assistance, where permitted.

At the same time, the system used the CHOICE Act to secure enhanced non-competes for certain
non-practitioner executives think CFOs, COOs, and senior IT leaders with access to strategic plans,
pricing models, and merger discussions. The organization ended up with a surprising message for
employees: physicians actually had more freedom to move than some non-clinical executives.

The experience underscored a key lesson: big, flashy statutes often have narrow definitions and carve-outs
that completely flip day-to-day expectations.

Scenario 3: A university rethinks its retirement-plan oversight

After the Cunningham decision, a private university’s benefits committee suddenly saw its routine
meeting agenda take on new urgency. Like Cornell, the school offered multiple investment options and
had longstanding relationships with large recordkeepers.

Concerned about potential litigation, the committee did three things:

• Launched an independent fee review, comparing what the plan was paying against
  peer institutions and available market benchmarks.
• Consolidated duplicative investment options that confused participants and made monitoring harder.
• Adopted a formal fiduciary charter that documented how often the committee would meet,
  how it would review fees, and how it would respond to participant complaints.

None of these changes guaranteed immunity from lawsuits, but they did make the committee far more
comfortable that it could explain and defend its decisions if questioned in court. The Cunningham case
didn’t change what ERISA requires but it did change how easily a plaintiff can force a fiduciary to
explain their decisions under oath.

Across these scenarios, one theme repeats: companies that treat these developments as a one-time
“news item” tend to get surprised later. Organizations that treat them as a prompt to review documents,
update processes, and train decision-makers tend to stay out of the worst trouble and have better
relationships with their employees and plan participants along the way.

Conclusion

The collapse of the FTC’s non-compete rule, Florida’s aggressive CHOICE Act, and the Supreme Court’s
Cunningham decision all point to the same reality: the legal landscape around work, mobility, and
retirement security is changing, but not in a single direction.

For employers, the safest path forward is to:

• Right-size non-competes and related clauses by role and state.
• Pay special attention to Florida if you have higher-paid employees there.
• Take ERISA fiduciary duties and fee documentation more seriously than ever.

For workers, it’s a reminder to read contracts closely, understand your state’s laws, and pay attention
to retirement-plan communications. The headlines may come and go, but the fine print in your agreements
can shape your career moves and your financial security for decades.

SEO JSON

The post FTC Non-Compete Delay, Florida CHOICE Act, SCOTUS Pension Case appeared first on Global Travel Notes.