United States: Ski Manufacturers Hit For Off-Piste Non-Compete

When it comes to the US Federal Trade Commission, healthy competition for ski manufacturers is just as important off the slopes as on. Ski equipment makers, Tecnica Group and Marker Völkl, learned this lesson on Monday when they agreed to settle FTC charges that they unlawfully agreed not to compete for each company's respective ski endorsers or employees.1 This case serves as an important reminder that non-compete agreements remain an area of focus for the US antitrust authorities.

Ski Manufacturers Barred from Non-Compete Agreements

In 1992, Tecnica Group and Marker Völkl entered into a legitimate collaboration to market and distribute complementary ski equipment. At the time, Tecnica was an Italian manufacturer of ski boots, and the Swiss-based Marker Völkl sold skis. Around 2004, in conjunction with their collaboration, the companies agreed not to compete with each other for prominent skiers' endorsements.

Ski equipment companies typically compete to secure a skier's endorsement. Endorsements from prominent skiers are an effective tool for marketing ski equipment and increasing sales, but the compensation, support services and discounted gear can make such endorsements costly. According to the FTC, the alleged purpose of the non-compete agreement was to prevent Tecnica and Marker Völkl from bidding up the cost of securing a skier's endorsement.

During the course of the collaboration, Tecnica acquired ski brands Nordica and Blizzard, product lines that competed directly with Marker Völkl. Although Tecnica's ski brands remained outside the scope of the marketing and distribution collaboration, the non-compete provision applied company-wide to all products. In 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their 2004 agreement not to solicit, recruit or contact any skier who had previously endorsed their rival's skis to also apply to each company's employees. The collaboration ended in 2008. Although the FTC's Complaint provides no details, it appears that the non-compete agreements may have survived past the end of the marketing and distribution collaboration.

In its Complaint, the FTC alleged that the agreements not to compete were "not reasonably necessary for the formation or efficient operation of the collaboration between the companies." According to the FTC, the companies' failure to provide a "legitimate (cognizable and plausible) efficiency justification" for the non-competes supported its determination that the non-competition agreements "adversely affected competition for – and the compensation available to – athletes and employees whose services were unrelated to the collaboration."

Applying the analysis used in the Polygram case, in which two music producers agreed to a non-compete in conjunction with their joint venture to distribute albums from a Three Tenors concert,2 the FTC alleged that the non-competition agreement between Tecnica and Marker Völkl was overly broad because its application exceeded the scope of the collaboration. Similar to the Polygram case, the FTC appears to have condemned the agreements in question as "inherently suspect" or quasi per se unlawful. The FTC appears to have presumed harm to skiers and employees without any market analysis or finding of market power. For example, it is far from clear on the meager facts provided in the Complaint that athletes did not have multiple alternative options for lucrative ski equipment endorsements.

While it is not part of the FTC's analysis, it seems probable that, had the non-compete been limited to the ski endorsers and employees covered by the marketing and distribution collaboration (and not broadly to products outside the scope of the collaboration), an otherwise "inherently suspect" agreement may have been defendable because it could be supported by a cognizable justification. The proposed consent orders prohibit each company from entering into similar unlawful agreements in the future.

The FTC's History of Policing Non-Competes

The case against the ski manufacturers is only the latest in the FTC's quest to eliminate unlawful non-compete agreements. In 2008, Dick's Sporting Goods agreed to settle FTC charges that its subsidiary, Golf Galaxy, had illegally agreed with a potential competitor, Golf Canada, to divide up the US market for the sale of golf equipment.3 As was the case with Tecnica and Marker Völkl, the market allocation agreement originated as part of a legitimate collaboration, in place from 1998 until 2004, under which Golf Galaxy to provide certain consulting and training services to Golf Canada in return for shares of Golf Canada, a seat on its board and cash payments. The consulting agreement also barred Golf Canada from competing with Golf Galaxy.4 In 2004, the parties entered into a new contract which terminated the consulting services but extended the duration of the provision barring Golf Canada from establishing retail operations in the US. The new contract also prohibited Golf Galaxy from opening a store in Canada for at least four years.

Applying an analysis similar to the one most recently used in the case against the ski manufacturers, the FTC alleged that the 2004 agreement between Golf Galaxy and Golf Canada was "not reasonably necessary for the formation, efficient operation, or dissolution of the collaboration between the parties." The consent agreement prohibits Golf Galaxy from allocating markets for the sale of golf equipment and from enforcing the non-compete provisions in the 2004 agreement.

In early 2013, the FTC again demonstrated its intolerance for non-competition agreements that serve no pro-competitive purpose when it filed a complaint against bleach producers and distributors, Oltrin Solutions and JCI Jones Chemicals.5 Under an agreement the parties entered in 2010, North Carolina-based Oltrin agreed to pay JCI $5.5 million for, among other things, JCI's promise to no longer sell bleach in North or South Carolina for a period of six years.

According to the FTC, the agreement eliminated competition between the companies in North and South Carolina. The parties agreed to a consent order that required Oltrin not only to release JCI from the non-compete agreement, but also to take actions to facilitate JCI's re-entry into the North and South Carolina bleach market.

Non-Compete Challenges by the Antitrust Division

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division has demonstrated equal determination in its battle against unlawful non-compete agreements. In 2010, the Antitrust Division reached a settlement with six high tech companies that prevents them from entering into non-solicitation agreements for employees.6 According to the Antitrust Division's Complaint, Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar entered into bilateral "no cold call" (or "no poach") agreements that prevented them from soliciting each other's employees.

Cold calling, which involves communicating directly with another company's employee who has not otherwise applied for a job opening, is an effective method of recruiting in the high tech industry. The Antitrust Division's Complaint alleged that no cold call agreements reduced the companies' ability to compete for high tech workers and lacked any pro-competitive justification. The settlement not only prohibits the companies from agreeing to a ban on cold calling, but also more broadly prohibits the companies from entering into agreements that prevent soliciting, recruiting or otherwise competing for employees.

eBay Inc. was one of the most recent targets of the Antitrust Division's unlawful non-compete crusade when, in 2012, the Antitrust Division filed a complaint alleging that the company had entered into an agreement with Intuit that prevented each company from recruiting employees from the other and that further prohibited eBay from hiring Intuit employees who approached eBay.7 The Antitrust Division alleged that the agreement's sole purpose was to limit competition for employees between the two companies, which resulted in employees' lost opportunities for better jobs or higher pay.

Earlier this month, eBay agreed to a settlement that would bar it for five years from entering or maintaining competitive agreements relating to the hiring and retention of employees.

Lessons Learned

The aforementioned cases suggest that the US antitrust authorities are not afraid to question the scope or purpose of non-competition agreements between competitors. While non-competition obligations are common features in many collaborations, joint ventures and transactions, they must be carefully crafted to ensure they are truly ancillary to a legitimate venture and limited in scope to that which is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the parties. A further reason for caution is the potential for follow-on civil litigation that often follows agency enforcement in the US. A class action following the Antitrust Division's no poach prosecutions recently settled for $324 million.8

The FTC's Complaint also serves as an important reminder that the antitrust laws apply equally to agreements not to compete by buyers (i.e., those purchasing labor or endorsement services) and not just to sellers.

Footnotes

1 In re Marker Völkl, File No. 121 0004, available at, http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/121-0004/marker-volkl-matter; In re Tecnica Group, File No. 121 0004, available at, http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/121-0004/tecnica-group-matter.

2 In re Polygram Holding, Inc., 136 F.T.C. 310 (2003), aff'd, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

3 In re Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., No. C-4240, available at, http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/071-0196/dicks-sporting-goods-incmatter.

4 Specifically, Golf Canada was prohibited from operating retail stores in the US during the term of the agreement plus five years and from engaging in business outside Canada that competed with or was similar to Golf Galaxy's business for the duration of the agreement plus two years.

5 Oltrin Solutions, LLC; JCI Jones Chemicals, Inc., No. C-4388, available at, http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/1110078/oltrin-solutions-llc-company-jci-jones-chemicals-inc.

6 United States v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc., and Pixar, Case No. 1:10-cv-01629 (D.D.C.), available at, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/adobe.htm.

7 United States v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv05869 (N.D. Cal.), available at, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ebay2.html.

8 Although recent news suggests that the settlement may be in doubt as inadequate. See Silicon Valley no-poaching settlement in doubt, Howard Mintz, MERCURY NEWS, May 12, 2014, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25745903/silicon-valley-no-poaching-settlement-doubt.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions