Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Do Your Employment Practices Violate Antitrust Law? They Might!
Did you know that your employment practices could violate antitrust law? This is the message to be gleaned from joint guidance recently issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (collectively, the “Agencies”). The Agencies issued this guidance to remind employers that, like any other market, the job market is subject to antitrust laws. Not only could failure to abide by the antitrust laws result in significant civil penalties, but criminal prosecution is even a possibility!
One very important point that emerges from the guidance is the Agencies' very broad view of what employers are considered “competitors” for antitrust purposes: “[F]irms that compete to hire or retain employees are competitors in the employment marketplace, regardless of whether the firms make the same products or compete to provide the same services.” Thus the issue is the talents you seek, not your business!
For example, a computer professional could go to work for a financial services company to help operate the specialized financial software that it uses, or he/she could work for the computer company that develops the software in the first place and acts as a vendor to the financial services company. He/she could also work for an accounting firm or other consulting firm using this type of software. All these employers would consider themselves in entirely different markets. However, the Agencies would likely consider these companies to be competitors in the employment marketplace precisely because all of them could hire this same employee. Thus, if these companies agree not to target each others' employees/candidates, they may in fact violate antitrust laws.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.