FTC takes action against B2B no-poach agreements

Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decided to abandon a Biden-era rule that would have barred virtually all non-compete agreements across the country. Despite this, we cautioned at the time that the FTC still intended to scrutinize business practices that the commission views as anti-competitive. The FTC has now provided a glimpse into one such practice.

On December 19, 2025, the FTC announced an enforcement action against business-to-business no‑poach practices in the New York area. In Adamas Amenity Services LLC, et al., the FTC alleges that Adamas Amenity Services LLC and affiliated building-services entities used contract terms that restricted customers and competing vendors from soliciting or hiring their employees during and after their employment, which unlawfully restrained competition for labor and harmed workers. 

Specifically, the FTC alleges that Adamas routinely included no-hire clauses in service contracts with residential building owners and management companies, which limited employee mobility and suppressed employees’ ability to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and improved working conditions. The FTC also alleges that these provisions negatively impacted Adamas’s customers because they impaired customers’ willingness to switch to competing service vendors, thereby reducing rivals’ incentives to invest and meet demand for higher quality or more varied services. 

In light of these no-poach provisions, the FTC claims that Adamas’s conduct constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As a result of these allegations, the FTC issued a proposed order that would require Adamas to comply with the following remedial requirements:  

• Cease enforcing no-hire provisions. Adamas must immediately cease enforcing all existing no-hire agreements and refrain from seeking any related fees or penalties.

• Provide specified notices. Adamas would be required to notify the following parties if this order becomes effective: 

  • Managers. Adamas must distribute the order and complaint to relevant managers within 30 days and, for 10 years going forward, collect acknowledgments that they received the order, and retain compliance records. 

  • Customers. Adamas must provide notice to all affected customers within 30 days, by mail, email with read receipt, or hand delivery, using a prescribed letter that clarifies the clauses are null and void. 

  • Employees. Adamas must provide notice to affected employees within 30 days, in English and Spanish, affirming they may accept employment with building owners or any replacement vendor, and that the no-hire provisions will not be enforced. 

  • New-hires. Adamas must post clear notices to new hires and in shared employee spaces, including union bulletin boards, communicating that employment is not subject to no-hire constraints. 

• Implement compliance and monitoring measures. Adamas must submit interim compliance reports 30 days after issuance and then every 150 days for the first year, followed by annual reports for nine additional years, with sufficient detail to allow independent verification and subject to document-retention duties. The order also includes change‑of‑entity notifications and Commission access provisions.

The proposed complaint and order underscore a clear policy signal from the FTC: contractual provisions that suppress competition for workers—by barring or taxing hiring across firms—are viewed as anti-competitive by the Commission. Forward-looking remedies emphasizing worker mobility, transparency, and long‑tail compliance oversight are not things of the past. While the Trump-era FTC did not pursue the sweeping non-compete ban proposed by the prior administration’s FTC, its actions in Adamas suggest a more targeted, case-by-case approach to overly restrictive no-hire and non-solicit clauses moving forward.