Planned Companies; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment, 649-651 [2024-31763]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
The proposed order contains
provisions designed to prevent
accessiBe from engaging in these and
similar acts and practices in the future.
Provision I prohibits accessiBe from
representing that its automated
products, including accessWidget’s
artificial intelligence and other
automated technology, can make any
website WCAG compliant, or can ensure
continued compliance with WCAG over
time as web content changes, unless the
company has competent and reliable
evidence to support the representations.
Provision II prohibits accessiBe from
misrepresenting any fact material to
consumers about any of the company’s
products or services, such as the value
or total cost; any material restrictions,
limitations, or conditions; or any
material aspect of its performance,
features, benefits, efficacy, nature, or
central characteristics. Provision III
prohibits accessiBe from
misrepresenting that statements made in
third-party reviews, articles, or blog
posts about its automated products,
including accessWidget’s artificial
intelligence and other automated
technology, are independent opinions
by impartial authors; that an endorser is
an independent or ordinary user of the
automated product; or that the endorser
is an independent organization or is
providing objective information.
Provision IV requires accessiBe to
disclose clearly and conspicuously, and
in close proximity to representations
about its automated products, including
accessWidget’s artificial intelligence
and other automated technology, any
unexpected material connection that an
endorser has to accessiBe, to the
product or service, or to affiliated
individuals or entities. Provision V
requires accessiBe to disclose, in
connection with representations that
accessWidget or the company’s other
artificial intelligence or automated
products correct accessibility barriers on
a website, that such products or services
will not correct barriers on third-party
web domains or subdomains that may
be part of the overall user experience,
unless those domains also use the
product. Such disclosure must be made
clearly and conspicuously, and prior to
the consumer incurring any financial
obligation.
Provision VI requires accessiBe to pay
the Commission $1,000,000 in monetary
relief. Provision VII describes
procedures and legal rights related to
that payment. Provision VIII requires
accessiBe to provide sufficient customer
information to enable the Commission
to efficiently administer consumer
redress. Provisions IX through XIII are
reporting and compliance provisions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
Provision IX mandates that accessiBe
acknowledge receipt of the order,
distribute the order to principals,
officers, and certain employees and
agents, and obtain signed
acknowledgments from them. Provision
X requires accessiBe to submit
compliance reports to the Commission
one year after the order’s issuance and
submit notifications when certain
events occur. Under Provision XI,
accessiBe must create certain records for
10 years and retain them for five years.
Provision XII requires accessiBe to
provide information or documents
necessary for the Commission to
monitor compliance with the order
during the period of the order’s effective
dates. Finally, Provision XIII provides
the order’s effective dates, including
that, with exceptions, the order will
terminate in 20 years.
The purpose of this analysis is to
facilitate public comment on the
proposed order. It is not intended to
constitute an official interpretation of
the complaint or proposed order, or to
modify the proposed order’s terms in
any way.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
Concurring Statement of Commissioner
Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by
Commissioner Melissa Holyoak
Today we vote to approve an
administrative complaint and proposed
consent order with accessiBe, which
advertised its accessWidget as ‘‘the #1
fully automated ADA [Americans with
Disabilities Act] and WCAG [Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines]
compliance solution,’’ ‘‘always ensuring
compliance by rescanning and reanalyzing your website every 24 hours
to remediate new content, widgets,
pages, and anything else you may add.’’
The complaint alleges that accessiBe’s
automated solution fell far short of its
promise and failed to correct many
website accessibility issues.1 The
complaint also accuses accessiBe of
misrepresenting that various reviews
and testimonials of accessWidget were
independent and impartial when they
were in fact bought and paid for by
accessiBe.2
I write separately to clarify my vote in
favor of the count accusing accessiBe of
misrepresenting its product’s
performance. Each subscription to
accessWidget covers only one domain,
but websites sometimes depend on
subdomains or third-party domains for
critical functionality, like making a
reservation or processing a payment.3
The complaint alleges that ‘‘[accessiBe]
also fail[ed] to disclose, or disclose
adequately, that accessWidget does not
remediate website content hosted on
third-party web domains or subdomains
(unless the third party or subdomains
also happen to use accessWidget).’’ 4
The consent order requires that
accessiBe disclose this limitation in the
future. My vote should not be taken as
endorsing the position that the ADA, or
the WCAG, require a website operator to
ensure that some or all of the third-party
domains or subdomains with which it
integrates are accessible. I take no
position on that question, which
involves the interpretation of a complex
law that Congress has tasked other
agencies with interpreting and
enforcing. I concur in the deception
count because the remaining allegations
involving misrepresentations of the
product’s ability to bring the user’s own
domain into compliance are sufficient to
state a claim of deception against
accessiBe. Subject to that clarification, I
concur in the filing of this complaint
and settlement.
[FR Doc. 2024–31765 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 241 0082]
Planned Companies; Analysis of
Agreement Containing Consent Order
To Aid Public Comment
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The consent agreement in this
matter settles alleged violations of
Federal law prohibiting unfair methods
of competition. The attached Analysis of
Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public
Comment describes both the allegations
in the complaint and the terms of the
consent order—embodied in the consent
agreement—that would settle these
allegations.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before February 5, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments online or on paper by
following the instructions in the
Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. Please write: ‘‘Planned
Companies; File No. 241 0029’’ on your
comment and file your comment online
DATES:
1 Complaint
3 See
2 Id.
4 Id.
PO 00000
¶¶ 77–90.
¶¶ 52–76, 91–96.
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
649
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
id. ¶ 85.
¶ 86.
06JAN1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
650
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
at https://www.regulations.gov by
following the instructions on the webbased form. If you prefer to file your
comment on paper, please mail your
comment to the following address:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Mail Stop H–144 (Annex N),
Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik
Herron (202–326–3535), Bureau of
Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 400 7th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20024.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and
FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is
hereby given that the above-captioned
consent agreement containing a consent
order to cease and desist, having been
filed with and accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, has been
placed on the public record for a period
of 30 days. The following Analysis of
Agreement Containing Consent Order to
Aid Public Comment describes the
terms of the consent agreement and the
allegations in the complaint. An
electronic copy of the full text of the
consent agreement package can be
obtained from the FTC website at this
web address: https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/commission-actions.
The public is invited to submit
comments on this document. For the
Commission to consider your comment,
we must receive it on or before February
5, 2025. Write ‘‘Planned Companies;
File No. 241 0029’’ on your comment.
Your comment—including your name
and your State—will be placed on the
public record of this proceeding,
including, to the extent practicable, on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website.
Because of the agency’s heightened
security screening, postal mail
addressed to the Commission will be
delayed. We strongly encourage you to
submit your comments online through
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. If you prefer to file your
comment on paper, write ‘‘Planned
Companies; File No. 241 0029’’ on your
comment and on the envelope, and mail
your comment by overnight service to:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Mail Stop H–144 (Annex N),
Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed
on the publicly accessible website at
https://www.regulations.gov, you are
solely responsible for making sure your
comment does not include any sensitive
or confidential information. In
particular, your comment should not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
include sensitive personal information,
such as your or anyone else’s Social
Security number; date of birth; driver’s
license number or other State
identification number, or foreign
country equivalent; passport number;
financial account number; or credit or
debit card number. You are also solely
responsible for making sure your
comment does not include sensitive
health information, such as medical
records or other individually
identifiable health information. In
addition, your comment should not
include any ‘‘trade secret or any
commercial or financial information
which . . . is privileged or
confidential’’—as provided by section
6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and
FTC Rule § 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR
4.10(a)(2)—including competitively
sensitive information such as costs,
sales statistics, inventories, formulas,
patterns, devices, manufacturing
processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for
which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form,
must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’
and must comply with FTC Rule
§ 4.9(c). In particular, the written
request for confidential treatment that
accompanies the comment must include
the factual and legal basis for the
request and must identify the specific
portions of the comment to be withheld
from the public record. See FTC Rule
§ 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the General Counsel
grants your request in accordance with
the law and the public interest. Once
your comment has been posted on
https://www.regulations.gov—as legally
required by FTC Rule § 4.9(b)—we
cannot redact or remove your comment
from that website, unless you submit a
confidentiality request that meets the
requirements for such treatment under
FTC Rule § 4.9(c), and the General
Counsel grants that request.
Visit the FTC website at https://
www.ftc.gov to read this document and
the news release describing this matter.
The FTC Act and other laws the
Commission administers permit the
collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding, as
appropriate. The Commission will
consider all timely and responsive
public comments it receives on or before
February 5, 2025. For information on
the Commission’s privacy policy,
including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/
site-information/privacy-policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis of Agreement Containing
Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
I. Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public
comment, subject to final approval, an
Agreement Containing Consent Order
(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) with Planned
Building Services, Inc., Planned
Lifestyle Services Inc., Planned Security
Services, Inc., and Planned
Technologies Services, Inc. (collectively
and separately, ‘‘Planned’’ or
‘‘Respondents’’). The proposed Decision
and Order (‘‘Order’’), included in the
Consent Agreement and subject to final
Commission approval, is designed to
remedy the anticompetitive effects that
have resulted from Respondents’ use of
restrictive covenants in some of their
contracts with building owners and
managers that limit the ability of those
building owners and managers to solicit
or hire Respondents’ employees (‘‘NoHire Agreements’’). The term No-Hire
Agreement refers to a term in an
agreement between two or more
companies that restricts, imposes
conditions on, or otherwise limits a
company’s ability to solicit, recruit, or
hire another company’s employees,
during employment or afterwards,
directly or indirectly, including by
imposing a fee or damages in
connection with such conduct, or that
otherwise inhibits competition between
companies for each other’s employees’
services.
The Consent Agreement settles
charges that Respondents have engaged
in unfair methods of competition in
violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by entering into
No-Hire Agreements with customers.
Respondents’ No-Hire Agreements
constitute unreasonable restraints of
trade that are unlawful under section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are
thus unfair methods of competition in
violation of section 5 of the FTC Act.
Independent of the Sherman Act,
Respondents’ use of the No-Hire
Agreements constitutes an unfair
method of competition with a tendency
or likelihood to harm competition,
consumers, and employees in the
building services industry, in violation
of section 5.
The proposed Order has been placed
on the public record for 30 days in order
to receive comments from interested
persons. Comments received during this
period will become part of the public
record. After 30 days, the Commission
will again review the Consent
Agreement and the comments received
and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the Consent Agreement
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
and take appropriate action or make the
proposed Order final.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
II. The Respondents
Respondents, Planned Building
Services, Inc. (‘‘PBS’’), Planned Lifestyle
Services Inc. (‘‘PLS’’), Planned Security
Services, Inc. (‘‘PSS’’), and Planned
Technologies Services, Inc. (‘‘PTS’’), are
divisions of Planned Companies
Holdings, Inc. Planned Companies
Holdings, Inc., is a non-wholly owned,
loosely controlled subsidiary of
FirstService Corporation, a publicly
traded Canadian company and one of
the largest property management
companies in North America. PBS
provides cleaning and maintenance
services at residential and commercial
buildings; PLS provides doorperson and
concierge services at residential
buildings; PSS provides security guard
services at residential and commercial
buildings; and PTS provides technology
related services. Respondents are
headquartered in New Jersey and
employ more than 3,000 building
services workers, primarily in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, but also in
the metro regions of Boston, the District
of Columbia, Atlanta, San Francisco,
and Florida. The complaint focuses on
Respondents’ conduct in New York and
New Jersey.
III. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that
Respondents sell building services to
building owners and property
management companies, primarily
consisting of the labor of janitors,
security guards, maintenance workers,
and concierge desk workers who are
directly employed by Respondents.
These employees perform their work at
residential and commercial buildings in
various States, but predominantly in
New York City and Northern New
Jersey.
The complaint also alleges that
Respondents and their building owner
and property manager customers are
direct competitors in labor markets for
building services workers. These
include the markets for workers to
perform concierge, security, janitorial,
maintenance, and related services.
As alleged in the complaint,
Respondents use standard-form
agreements with their customers that
include No-Hire Agreements. The NoHire Agreements restrict the ability of
Respondents’ customers to (1) directly
hire workers employed by Respondents,
and (2) indirectly hire workers
employed by Respondents through a
competing building services contractor
after the competitor wins the customers’
business away from Respondents. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
restrictions apply during the term of
Respondents’ contracts and for six
months thereafter. Earlier versions of
the No-Hire Agreements applied not just
to Respondents’ employees staffed to
provide services for a particular
customer, but to all of Respondents’
building services employees.
The complaint alleges that
Respondents’ No-Hire Agreements are
facially anticompetitive because they
are horizontal agreements among
competitors not to compete.
Respondents and their customer
building owners and property managers
are competitors for the labor of building
services workers like Respondents’
employees. The No-Hire Agreements are
horizontal agreements that prohibit
buildings and property management
companies from hiring building services
workers, thereby undermining
competition for labor, reducing worker
bargaining power, and suppressing
wages. For these reasons, the complaint
alleges that the No-Hire Agreements
constitute unreasonable restraints of
trade that are unlawful under section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are
thus unfair methods of competition in
violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 45.
Independent of the Sherman Act, the
complaint alleges that Respondents’
conduct constitutes an unfair method of
competition with a tendency or
likelihood to harm competition,
consumers, and employees in the
building services industry, in violation
of section 5 of the FTC Act. According
to the complaint, the No-Hire
Agreements limit the ability of building
owners and managers to hire
Respondents’ employees. This harms
Respondents’ employees because it
limits their ability to negotiate for
higher wages, better benefits, and
improved working conditions.
Employees may suffer further hardship
if the building they work at brings
services in-house because the No-Hire
Agreements force them to leave their
jobs in some circumstances. The
complaint further alleges that the NoHire Agreements harm building owners
and managers because they may be
foreclosed from bringing services inhouse due to the prospect of losing longserving workers with extensive,
building-specific experience.
IV. Proposed Order
The proposed Order seeks to remedy
Respondents’ unfair methods of
competition. Section II of the proposed
Order prohibits Respondents from
entering into, maintaining, or enforcing
a No-Hire Agreement, or communicating
to a customer or any other person that
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
651
any Planned employee is subject to a
No-Hire Agreement.
Paragraph III.A of the proposed Order
requires Respondents to provide written
notice to customers that are subject to
No-Hire Agreements that (i) the
restriction is null and void, and (ii) any
customer or a subsequent building
services contractor for a customer is no
longer subject to the restrictions or
penalties related to the No-Hire
Agreements in Respondents’ contracts.
Paragraph III.B of the proposed Order
requires Respondents to provide written
notice to employees who are subject to
a No-Hire Agreement. Paragraph III.C
requires that Respondents post clear and
conspicuous notice that employees are
not subject to No-Hire Agreements and
may seek or accept a job with the
building directly, or any company that
wins the building’s business.
Paragraphs IV.A and IV.B of the
proposed Order provide a timeline
according to which the obligations
enumerated in Section III must be met.
Paragraphs IV.C–E set forth
Respondents’ ongoing compliance
obligations.
Other paragraphs contain standard
provisions regarding compliance
reports, requirements for Respondents
to provide notice to the FTC of material
changes to their business, and access for
the FTC to documents and personnel.
The term of the proposed Order is ten
years.
The purpose of this analysis is to
facilitate public comment on the
Consent Agreement and proposed Order
to aid the Commission in determining
whether it should make the proposed
Order final. This analysis is not an
official interpretation of the proposed
Order and does not modify its terms in
any way.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–31763 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
[Notice–Q–2024–07; Docket No. 2024–0002;
Sequence No. 58]
Federal Secure Cloud Advisory
Committee Request for Applications
Federal Acquisition Service
(Q), General Services Administration
(GSA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
GSA is seeking applications
to fill three (3) membership seats on the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 649-651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31763]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 241 0082]
Planned Companies; Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order
To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged
violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition.
The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the
consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle
these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Please write: ``Planned
Companies; File No. 241 0029'' on your comment and file your comment
online
[[Page 650]]
at https://www.regulations.gov by following the instructions on the
web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, please
mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144
(Annex N), Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Herron (202-326-3535), Bureau of
Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th Street SW, Washington,
DC 20024.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule Sec. 2.34, 16 CFR
2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement
containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with
and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been
placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the
complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement
package can be obtained from the FTC website at this web address:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.
The public is invited to submit comments on this document. For the
Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before
February 5, 2025. Write ``Planned Companies; File No. 241 0029'' on
your comment. Your comment--including your name and your State--will be
placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the
extent practicable, on the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail
addressed to the Commission will be delayed. We strongly encourage you
to submit your comments online through the https://www.regulations.gov
website. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write ``Planned
Companies; File No. 241 0029'' on your comment and on the envelope, and
mail your comment by overnight service to: Federal Trade Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144
(Annex N), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible
website at https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for
making sure your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential
information. In particular, your comment should not include sensitive
personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security
number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number;
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also
solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include
sensitive health information, such as medical records or other
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial
information which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided by
section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule Sec.
4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including competitively sensitive
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas,
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule Sec. 4.9(c). In
particular, the written request for confidential treatment that
accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for
the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to
be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule Sec. 4.9(c). Your
comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants
your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once
your comment has been posted on https://www.regulations.gov--as legally
required by FTC Rule Sec. 4.9(b)--we cannot redact or remove your
comment from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request
that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule Sec.
4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov to read this document
and the news release describing this matter. The FTC Act and other laws
the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission
will consider all timely and responsive public comments it receives on
or before February 5, 2025. For information on the Commission's privacy
policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
I. Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') has accepted for
public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing
Consent Order (``Consent Agreement'') with Planned Building Services,
Inc., Planned Lifestyle Services Inc., Planned Security Services, Inc.,
and Planned Technologies Services, Inc. (collectively and separately,
``Planned'' or ``Respondents''). The proposed Decision and Order
(``Order''), included in the Consent Agreement and subject to final
Commission approval, is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects
that have resulted from Respondents' use of restrictive covenants in
some of their contracts with building owners and managers that limit
the ability of those building owners and managers to solicit or hire
Respondents' employees (``No-Hire Agreements''). The term No-Hire
Agreement refers to a term in an agreement between two or more
companies that restricts, imposes conditions on, or otherwise limits a
company's ability to solicit, recruit, or hire another company's
employees, during employment or afterwards, directly or indirectly,
including by imposing a fee or damages in connection with such conduct,
or that otherwise inhibits competition between companies for each
other's employees' services.
The Consent Agreement settles charges that Respondents have engaged
in unfair methods of competition in violation of section 5 of the FTC
Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by entering into No-Hire Agreements with
customers. Respondents' No-Hire Agreements constitute unreasonable
restraints of trade that are unlawful under section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are thus unfair methods of competition in
violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. Independent of the Sherman Act,
Respondents' use of the No-Hire Agreements constitutes an unfair method
of competition with a tendency or likelihood to harm competition,
consumers, and employees in the building services industry, in
violation of section 5.
The proposed Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days
in order to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received
during this period will become part of the public record. After 30
days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the
comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the
Consent Agreement
[[Page 651]]
and take appropriate action or make the proposed Order final.
II. The Respondents
Respondents, Planned Building Services, Inc. (``PBS''), Planned
Lifestyle Services Inc. (``PLS''), Planned Security Services, Inc.
(``PSS''), and Planned Technologies Services, Inc. (``PTS''), are
divisions of Planned Companies Holdings, Inc. Planned Companies
Holdings, Inc., is a non-wholly owned, loosely controlled subsidiary of
FirstService Corporation, a publicly traded Canadian company and one of
the largest property management companies in North America. PBS
provides cleaning and maintenance services at residential and
commercial buildings; PLS provides doorperson and concierge services at
residential buildings; PSS provides security guard services at
residential and commercial buildings; and PTS provides technology
related services. Respondents are headquartered in New Jersey and
employ more than 3,000 building services workers, primarily in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, but also in the metro regions of Boston,
the District of Columbia, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Florida. The
complaint focuses on Respondents' conduct in New York and New Jersey.
III. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that Respondents sell building services to
building owners and property management companies, primarily consisting
of the labor of janitors, security guards, maintenance workers, and
concierge desk workers who are directly employed by Respondents. These
employees perform their work at residential and commercial buildings in
various States, but predominantly in New York City and Northern New
Jersey.
The complaint also alleges that Respondents and their building
owner and property manager customers are direct competitors in labor
markets for building services workers. These include the markets for
workers to perform concierge, security, janitorial, maintenance, and
related services.
As alleged in the complaint, Respondents use standard-form
agreements with their customers that include No-Hire Agreements. The
No-Hire Agreements restrict the ability of Respondents' customers to
(1) directly hire workers employed by Respondents, and (2) indirectly
hire workers employed by Respondents through a competing building
services contractor after the competitor wins the customers' business
away from Respondents. These restrictions apply during the term of
Respondents' contracts and for six months thereafter. Earlier versions
of the No-Hire Agreements applied not just to Respondents' employees
staffed to provide services for a particular customer, but to all of
Respondents' building services employees.
The complaint alleges that Respondents' No-Hire Agreements are
facially anticompetitive because they are horizontal agreements among
competitors not to compete. Respondents and their customer building
owners and property managers are competitors for the labor of building
services workers like Respondents' employees. The No-Hire Agreements
are horizontal agreements that prohibit buildings and property
management companies from hiring building services workers, thereby
undermining competition for labor, reducing worker bargaining power,
and suppressing wages. For these reasons, the complaint alleges that
the No-Hire Agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade that
are unlawful under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are
thus unfair methods of competition in violation of section 5 of the FTC
Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45.
Independent of the Sherman Act, the complaint alleges that
Respondents' conduct constitutes an unfair method of competition with a
tendency or likelihood to harm competition, consumers, and employees in
the building services industry, in violation of section 5 of the FTC
Act. According to the complaint, the No-Hire Agreements limit the
ability of building owners and managers to hire Respondents' employees.
This harms Respondents' employees because it limits their ability to
negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working
conditions. Employees may suffer further hardship if the building they
work at brings services in-house because the No-Hire Agreements force
them to leave their jobs in some circumstances. The complaint further
alleges that the No-Hire Agreements harm building owners and managers
because they may be foreclosed from bringing services in-house due to
the prospect of losing long-serving workers with extensive, building-
specific experience.
IV. Proposed Order
The proposed Order seeks to remedy Respondents' unfair methods of
competition. Section II of the proposed Order prohibits Respondents
from entering into, maintaining, or enforcing a No-Hire Agreement, or
communicating to a customer or any other person that any Planned
employee is subject to a No-Hire Agreement.
Paragraph III.A of the proposed Order requires Respondents to
provide written notice to customers that are subject to No-Hire
Agreements that (i) the restriction is null and void, and (ii) any
customer or a subsequent building services contractor for a customer is
no longer subject to the restrictions or penalties related to the No-
Hire Agreements in Respondents' contracts.
Paragraph III.B of the proposed Order requires Respondents to
provide written notice to employees who are subject to a No-Hire
Agreement. Paragraph III.C requires that Respondents post clear and
conspicuous notice that employees are not subject to No-Hire Agreements
and may seek or accept a job with the building directly, or any company
that wins the building's business.
Paragraphs IV.A and IV.B of the proposed Order provide a timeline
according to which the obligations enumerated in Section III must be
met. Paragraphs IV.C-E set forth Respondents' ongoing compliance
obligations.
Other paragraphs contain standard provisions regarding compliance
reports, requirements for Respondents to provide notice to the FTC of
material changes to their business, and access for the FTC to documents
and personnel. The term of the proposed Order is ten years.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
Consent Agreement and proposed Order to aid the Commission in
determining whether it should make the proposed Order final. This
analysis is not an official interpretation of the proposed Order and
does not modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31763 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
