Google DeepMind Has a Weapon in the AI Talent Wars: Aggressive Noncompete Rules (businessinsider.com)
- Reference: 0176987291
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/04/09/1717210/google-deepmind-has-a-weapon-in-the-ai-talent-wars-aggressive-noncompete-rules
- Source link: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-deepmind-ai-talent-war-aggressive-noncompetes-2025-4
> Some Google DeepMind staff in the UK are subject to noncompete agreements that [1]prevent them from working for a competitor for up to 12 months after they finish work at Google, according to four former employees with direct knowledge of the matter who asked to remain anonymous because they were not permitted to share these details with the press.
>
> Aggressive noncompetes are one tool tech companies wield to retain a competitive edge in the AI wars, which show no sign of slowing down as companies launch new bleeding-edge models and products at a rapid clip. When an employee signs one, they agree not to work for a competing company for a certain period of time. Google DeepMind has put some employees with a noncompete on extended garden leave. These employees are still paid by DeepMind but no longer work for it for the duration of the noncompete agreement.
>
> Several factors, including a DeepMind employee's seniority and how critical their work is to the company, determine the length of noncompete clauses, those people said. Two of the former staffers said six-month noncompetes are common among DeepMind employees, including for individual contributors working on Google's Gemini AI models. There have been cases where more senior researchers have received yearlong stipulations, they said.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-deepmind-ai-talent-war-aggressive-noncompetes-2025-4
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they were probably using Google cloud services before and then switched to something else.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is still $13.99 per month if you don't want to get access shut off for blocking ads.
Illegal in WA, CA, others. (Score:3)
States like Washington and California have actively made non competes of this kind illegal and so one of the fun things about this is that it's becoming public knowledge that something called garden leave exists.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave
Re: (Score:2)
They dont have to win in court, just make you broke with legal fees. Thats how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
> They dont have to win in court, just make you broke with legal fees. Thats how it works.
In California it's illegal for companies to offer you a non-compete, or to try to enforce one that was previously signed. So you'd just have your attorney move for an injunction barring the enforcement and to order the company to pay your legal fees and any other damages, and the judge would grant the injunction, dismiss the enforcement suit and order the company to pay your lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
California also has a working SLAPP statute (and class action laws), and a lot of activist lawyers who hate the very existence of megacorporations.
Re: (Score:2)
> States like Washington and California have actively made non competes of this kind illegal
Washington does enforce non-competes for laid-off employees if the employee is fully compensated in a lump sum at separation, and also enforces non-competes (without compensation) on employees who leave voluntarily, as long as they make at least $120k and the non-compete is no more than 18 months and was signed at the time of hire. California doesn't enforce them regardless, and has taken the step of making it illegal even to offer a non-compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have the option to refuse the compensation?
Re: (Score:2)
The be fair this is at least the way a noncompete should work--they get full pay (and I assume full benefits) for the period of the noncompete, plus these are only 6-12 months.
the right to make people lie is pretty stupid (Score:1)
In a future civilized society after this barbaric one imminently collapses, hopefully they remember to NOT do shit like this. the right to make people lie is a fucking stupid thing to behold in a democracy.
Re: the right to make people lie is pretty stupid (Score:2)
People can't even remember the 1990's, let alone the 1890's or 1930's.
Humans are pretty dumb and lazy. We're going to neglect any democracy we create once most of us are fed and relatively safe. Capitalism run amuck has been like boiling a frog. It has been so gradual that most of us have no idea we're in a pot.
Saw a similar article -- must have been AI (Score:2)
I saw a similar article, except that it claimed that Google was enforcing non-completes in California (where non-competes are almost entirely void).
It wasn't just a typo, because it explicitly referred to Menlo Park, which would be another hallucination (Google's HQ is down the street from Menlo Park in Mountain View).
Clearly, the other article I read was written by an AI and not checked for accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's more than one Menlo Park, but I suspect that since they are paying the folks, they're still officially employees.
What a headline (Score:2)
Is this still journalism, businessinsider?
In your face, Google! (Score:2)
Here's what Google's own search engine AI returns when asked about non-compete in the UK:
"In the UK, non-compete clauses are enforceable only if they protect legitimate business interests and are no wider than reasonably necessary, with courts assessing reasonableness based on the employee's role, industry, and the employer's needs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Legitimate Business Interests:
- To be enforceable, a non-compete clause must be designed to protect legitimate business interests, such as conf
Catch me if you can (Score:2)
I find this amusing in a world where no big tech company is conforming to the law, why would you ?
Look at the latest articles how Waymo, for instance, is capturing you on video, because you didn't know, or cars, or printers don't respect any semblance of privacy.
Anyone smart enough to be under non compete terms would likely be smart enough to circumvent a non compete.
How I sign non-competes (Score:2)
With a giant penis that has hairy balls.
Good for California (Score:1, Troll)
You can't enforce those rules here, so workers will just have to look at jobs in CA. So much for the idea of brain drain because we're woke that certain clowns are spewing
Re:Good for California (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they probably can enforce them here, because they continue to pay for the entire period of the non-compete. What makes it illegal is when they demand non-competes without paying for them.
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't have the same responsibilities to those employees that they would if they were genuinely employed, it won't be enforceable here.
If they do, then it's a job, not really a non-compete.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL and I haven't read the contract, but generally a contract (employment or otherwise) specifies the jurisdiction that governs the terms of the contract. Violate the contract, and you'll be sued in that jurisdiction. So, yeah it wouldn't be enforced "in California" but if someone worked in the UK quit in the UK and moved to Cali to get a job, they could still be sued in the UK for breach of contract (which might also further specify what those damages might be). Again, I didn't read the contract or look
Re: (Score:2)
[1]SB 699 [ca.gov], enacted last year, says that "This bill would establish that any contract that is void under the law described above is unenforceable regardless of where and when the contract was signed. "
So no, if someone in the UK (or somewhere that a non-compete is enforceable) moves to California, that non-compete cannot be enforced in California courts.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB699
Re:Good for California (Score:5, Informative)
No. If it is labeled as a non-compete, then it isn't enforceable in California. See the California Business and Professions Code section 16600.
More likely for California, it would be labeled as "Garden Leave" where the you essentially receive a salary for a year while resting on your laurels.
Even more likely: Google will avoid hiring anyone in any state with strong laws against non-competes. Those states are California, Colorado, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
Distant possibility: Trump et. al will allow non-competes and override any state laws against them [federal preemption]
If you have this kind of talent, ask Google to remove the restriction, and if they don't then work for someone else who doesn't impose such restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
> Even more likely: Google will avoid hiring anyone in any state with strong laws against non-competes. Those states are California, Colorado, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
I seriously doubt that Google will have no employees in their corporate headquarters in Mountain View, California.
Re: (Score:2)
That wont help them. If the person moves to CA, they can work anywhere. Even if they were hired in Minnesota, they go to CA and join Microsoft there, they can’t be held to a non-compete.
Re: (Score:2)
wtf has this got to do with California? Article is talking about deep mind in London.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a California company. Their corporate headquarters are in Mountain View, and 100% subject to California law.
Re: (Score:2)
and by the way non-competes (whch is not what is being described) are not legal in the UK.
Not legal in the UK either (Score:2)
So good luck to google trying to enforce them. Worst they can do is refuse to give references.