Federal Developments
In press releases on September 4 & 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it would no longer pursue appeals to the cases that blocked its nationwide ban on employee non-competes. While this move was expected with the change of administration, the FTC was quick to stress that it is not backing away from the issue of non-competes. Instead, the FTC underscored its scrutiny on a case-by-case enforcement basis, and issued a broad request for public information about the use of non-competes, with health care specifically identified as a priority industry for targeted antitrust enforcement actions against unlawful non-compete agreements.
The message from the FTC is clear: non-competes will remain a front-line concern for regulators, and overly broad provisions in the health care sector are especially vulnerable.
Important Reminders for Connecticut Providers
Nothing in the FTC announcement changes the applicability or enforceability of Connecticut’s law restricting noncompetition provisions applicable to physicians, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and physician assistants (PAs). The FTC’s renewed attention should serve as a reminder of the need to revisit agreements with these practitioners to ensure continued compliance with Connecticut’s ever evolving law, including, but not limited to:
- agreements to not compete must be limited to no more than one year and a geographic scope of fifteen miles from the primary site of practice;
- the “primary site of practice” must be defined in the agreement and be a single office, facility, or location;
- the practitioner must separately sign a noncompetition provision initially, as well as upon any amendment or renewal; and
- agreements to not compete are unenforceable if the physician is terminated without cause.
The 2023 changes to Connecticut’s law also introduced a new limit on enforceability for physicians: in larger practices or those not majority-owned by physicians, an employer may not enforce a non-compete if it has proposed a material change in compensation that the physician rejects. For APRNs and PAs, this same protection applies regardless of practice size or ownership.
Connecticut case law also underscores how closely courts will scrutinize these provisions. In 2020, a Connecticut Superior Court decision held that a physician’s non-compete was unenforceable because the agreement had automatically renewed annually without the physician separately signing the covenant each year, as required by statute. The court found that failure to obtain a separate signature each time on renewal was not just a technical oversight, but rather violated statutory requirements and rendered the covenant void. The decision highlights how strict compliance with the statute’s signature requirements is essential for enforceability.
Ensuring that covenants are narrowly tailored, comply with the one-year and fifteen-mile limits, and are properly executed at each renewal is critical not only to preserve enforceability but also to minimize exposure to further scrutiny. With the FTC inviting reports from healthcare workers, warning of more investigations to come, and strict enforcement of Connecticut law requirements, now is the time for providers to dust off their agreements and related policies and procedures and confirm that they are complaint.
Should you have any questions regarding the above or wish to have a proposed arrangement evaluated for compliance with applicable laws, please contact the authors, the Garfunkel Wild attorney with whom you regularly work, or contact us at [email protected].
