ForbesPro
Recent regulatory developments across multiple jurisdictions have placed non-compete agreements under unprecedented scrutiny, threatening to upend longstanding business practices designed to protect trade secrets and client relationships. Governments in developed economies are challenging whether these clauses unfairly stifle labor market mobility, and employers worldwide are bracing for a future where non-competes may be heavily restricted—or banned outright.
United States Moves First
The United States Federal Trade Commission triggered a sea change by finalizing a rule in April 2024 to ban nearly all non-compete agreements, exempting only some business sale contracts and senior executives earning more than $151,164 a year. The new rule has faced judicial challenges, with injunctions granted in some states, leaving its ultimate fate uncertain. However, its existence has sparked debate among labor and business circles about how far governments can—and should—go to ensure fair competition in the employment market.
United Kingdom Follows Suit
In parallel with U.S. developments, the UK’s regulatory authorities proposed legislation to cap non-compete clauses at just three months—far shorter than many historically common durations. This marks a stark departure from UK precedent and underscores an emerging consensus that lengthy non-competes may hamper innovation and job growth.
Australia’s Growing Debate—and Tamvakologos’ Perspective
Australia has found itself at the epicentre of discussions on non-compete reform. Following the release of an Australian Treasury Issues Paper in April 2024, the federal government is contemplating a ban (or severe limitation) of non-compete agreements for a broad swathe of workers. Some, such as one of Australia’s leading employment lawyers, see this as eroding necessary protections for confidential information and client relationships, while proponents celebrate new opportunities for employee mobility and start-up innovation.
Among the most notable global voices advocating a measured approach is Michael Tamvakologos, who Vanity Fair recognized as Australia’s “go-to” employment lawyer.
Cited by Best Lawyers as Employee Benefits Lawyer of the Year in 2023 and with an Executive MBA from the prestigious INSEAD University (named the top global program by the Financial Times in 2020), Tamvakologos has been lauded for his commercial nous and strategic mind.
“What’s unfolding in Australia closely resembles the same flawed criticisms raised before the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, where the FTC voted 3 to 2 to rule those non-competes were an unfair trading practice,” Tamvakologos observes. “While there may be a few downsides, non-compete clauses generally serve their purpose effectively by ensuring a company’s key intellectual property and customer connections remain protected for a reasonable period, supporting greater investment and employee development.”
“I am fortunate to be able to work closely with colleagues in North America, London and Asia where Seyfarth is the market leader in labor and employment – this global reach gives us a good sense of how different laws applicable in different geographies have an effect on companies and their staff, and the business environment generally. This is not a winner-take-all all issue – it is about balance and understanding the trade-offs.”
Tamvakologos points to the high hurdles employers face in enforcing non-competes in Australian courts—restraints are presumed invalid unless the company shows the clause is necessary and narrowly tailored to the situation. He says that a blanket ban by the federal government would upend equilibrium, making it too easy for larger companies to poach talent from small and medium enterprises.
“What is often downplayed in debates amongst academics and government bureaucrats is that restraints are presumed invalid unless the company relying on it can go to court and justify why it is necessary and within reasonable limits. The courts apply stringent standards in making these decisions, and a range of systemic inbuilt protections prevent these instruments being used to the disadvantage of employees.”
Economic Considerations
Tamvakologos notes that small-to-medium businesses (SMEs) may bear the brunt if non-compete bans proliferate. Large conglomerates can poach key employees without enforceable non-competes and quickly absorb proprietary know-how. “In an age where service industries, technology, and intellectual property dominate economies, preventing companies from taking steps to protect proprietary information is counter-productive,” he notes.
Spotlight on Israel’s Position
While debates in Australia and the U.S. often grab headlines, Israel’s legal system provides an instructive example of how courts grapple with balancing freedom of occupation and legitimate business interests. Israeli jurisprudence does not rely on a specific statutory ban against non-competes, yet courts typically interpret these clauses narrowly, prioritizing employees’ freedom of occupation.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny
Israeli courts generally regard non-compete clauses with suspicion because they can impinge upon a constitutional right to seek gainful employment. Nevertheless, participating in the same market as one’s former employer is not inherently forbidden; rather, a non-compete must be justified by demonstrating that it safeguards legitimate business interests, such as genuinely valuable confidential or proprietary information. Courts are also more inclined to uphold a clause when there is manifestly unfair competition (e.g., poaching clients) or a breach of good faith and fiduciary duty. Moreover, if the employer provides distinct remuneration or special training as part of the agreement, the courts may be more receptive—provided the scope of the clause is reasonable and tailored to the specific circumstances.
In practice, Israeli non-compete clauses are often deemed unenforceable unless the employer can show a strong and specific legitimate interest that cannot be safeguarded by lesser means (like non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements). This approach forces employers to plan carefully and incentivize loyalty through strategies beyond blanket bans.
Strategic Considerations for Multinational Employers
Companies implementing non-compete agreements must remain vigilant by crafting clauses that align with legitimate business interests, narrowly defined timeframes, and suitable employee compensation. As courts increasingly invalidate overly restrictive covenants, many enterprises are bolstering confidentiality measures to protect genuine trade secrets while respecting employee mobility. Equally, employers may rely on other incentives—such as performance bonuses, equity awards, or a strong workplace culture—to retain top talent, especially when litigation risks make non-competes less viable.
Employers must adapt as governmental scrutiny intensifies worldwide—from Australia’s potential federal ban to the FTC’s ongoing battle in the U.S. courts. Michael Tamvakologos continues to emphasize that non-compete clauses can be fair tools for safeguarding intellectual property if they are carefully limited and serve a legitimate business purpose. In Israel, courts favor a narrow construction that balances employee freedom with vital business protections.
Ultimately, the global backlash against broad non-competes is real, and the regulatory winds are blowing in favor of employee mobility. Yet, the final word is far from written. Courts and legislatures continue to weigh whether these clauses inhibit innovation or provide companies—particularly smaller ones—a necessary shield to encourage investment and growth. Where that line is drawn will decide the non-competes’ fate in the years ahead.
Tamvakologos suggests that businesses would be wise to prepare alternative or complementary mechanisms—enhanced confidentiality covenants, retention bonuses, robust IP protections, and narrower, evidence-based restrictions—while staying tuned to the evolving legal landscape.
ForbesPro is Forbes Israel’s Promotional Content Brand
