These DOJ warnings are not inactive threats. The DOJ has filed civil suits against several tech giants. Id. at 3-4. The DOJ has also engaged in cases without cartels and abuse of dominance. At Seaman v. Duke University, Duke paid $54.5 million to settle a class action against a deal between Duke and the University of North Carolina for “non-poaching.” The DOJ submitted a declaration of interest in the litigation and the transaction contained provisions for the DOJ to monitor compliance and enforce its conditions. A major problem for the DOJ`s objectives is the likelihood of “following” group actions. For example, the DOJ`s April 2018 complaint against Knorr-Bremse AG (a German manufacturer of traction equipment) resulted in comparisons of $48.95 million until February 2020. In Re: Railway Industry Employee No-Poach Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2850 (W.D. Pa.). Finally, the United States submitted expressions of interest in three private non-poach cases filed by former collaborators against Aunt Anne`s, Arby`s and Carl`s Jr.
Corrected Statement of Interest of the United States, Harris v. CJ Star, LLC, 2:18-cv-00247 (E.D. Wash. March 8, 2019); Corrected Statement of Interest of the United States, Richmond v. Bergey Pullman Inc., 2:18-cv-00246 (E.D. Wash. March 8, 2019); Corrected Statement of Interest of the United States, Stigar v. Dough Dough, Inc., 2:18-cv-00244 (E.D. Wash. March 8, 2019).
In April 2018, the DOJ filed a cartel and abuse of dominance action against two of the world`s largest railway equipment manufacturers, Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, at the same time as it filed a civil agreement. The complaint alleged that these companies and a third company, Faiveley, had spent nearly a decade in violation of Section 1 of Sherman`s “No Poach Nude” Act. The Cartel Department called the transaction “a strong first-rate comparison, which contains several provisions to terminate each defendant`s non-defence agreements and prevent future breaches.” To that end, the transaction agreement included: (i) a comprehensive order prohibiting defendants from entering into or maintaining cessation agreements for seven years between themselves and other employers; (ii) an affirmative obligation to participate in the investigation of other potential non-theft agreements between the defendants and other employers; (iii) a requirement that each defendant meets in the affirmative to his United States.