Background
On April 15, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with Rollins, Inc., the parent company of Orkin and other pest control brands, that requires Rollins to stop enforcing, and to rescind, non‑compete agreements for thousands of employees nationwide. The FTC alleged that Rollins’ broad use of non‑competes violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by restricting worker mobility and harming competition. The consent order bars Rollins from using non‑competes with most employees for ten years and requires affirmative notice to current and former workers that their non‑competes are void.

Why This Matters
Although the case arises in a single industry, its importance is broader. After the FTC abandoned its defense of the Biden‑era rule that would have banned most non‑competes outright, the agency has made clear it will continue to challenge non‑competes through enforcement actions instead. The Rollins settlement shows how that strategy is taking shape.

The FTC focused on the indiscriminate use of non‑competes across a wide range of positions, lengthy post‑employment restrictions, and enforcement practices that allegedly deterred employees from changing jobs or starting competing businesses. The remedy went beyond prospective relief. Rollins must unwind existing agreements and notify employees that they are free to compete. That type of mandatory notice amplifies both legal and employee‑relations risk for employers who have relied heavily on non‑competes. 

Practical Guidance for Employers
For employers that still use non‑competes, this settlement should prompt a careful reset. In practical terms, now is the time to:

• Take inventory of existing restrictive covenant agreements and identify where non‑competes are applied broadly rather than based on actual job duties or access to sensitive information.
• Reassess duration, geographic scope, and covered roles to ensure restrictions are supportable under current state law and defensible if reviewed by federal regulators.
• Evaluate whether confidentiality, trade secret protections, or narrowly drawn non‑solicitation provisions can address legitimate business concerns with less risk.
• Review onboarding and acquisition practices to avoid default use of non‑competes that may be hard to justify later.

Given the FTC’s increased scrutiny of non‑competes, employers should carefully evaluate their current agreements and enforcement practices. 

If you have questions about how these developments may affect your organization, please reach out to Jennifer Craighead Carey or any member of Barley Snyder’s Employment Practice Group for guidance.