THE UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged Prudential Security, Inc. and its owners, Greg Wier and Matthew Keywell, with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. The charge centers on an unfair method of competition: the use of post-employment non-compete agreements. These agreements are contract terms that restrict a worker’s freedom to find a new job after leaving a company.

In this case, the FTC complaint states these agreements were not just standard procedure; they were “coercive and exploitative.” Prudential required all of its security guards to sign them as a non-negotiable condition of employment. These workers, typically earning hourly wages at or slightly above the legal minimum, had no power to refuse or alter the terms. This created a severe power imbalance, which the company leveraged to suppress wages and crush job mobility for its most vulnerable employees.

THE NON-FINANCIAL LEDGER

Imagine working a tough job for minimum wage, barely making ends meet. Now imagine your employer demanding you sign a paper that says if you quit to take a better-paying security job down the street, you could owe them $100,000. This is not a hypothetical. This was the reality for security guards at Prudential Security.

This is economic hostage-taking. The constant threat of a life-ruining lawsuit creates a state of chronic stress and anxiety. It robs workers of their autonomy and dignity. The FTC complaint details how Prudential repeatedly used these agreements to block employees from accepting better jobs, including positions that offered “significant raises and more favorable working conditions.” This is the non-financial cost: the loss of hope, the crushing of ambition, and the forced acceptance of exploitation because the alternative is financial ruin.

LEGAL RECEIPTS: THE CONTRACT’S FINE PRINT

The language of these agreements was designed for maximum intimidation. According to the FTC complaint, the terms were sweeping and absolute, leaving workers with virtually no options for career advancement in their own communities.

For two years following employment, the employee may not “[a]ccept employment with or be employed by” a competing business “within a one hundred (100) mile radius” of their primary jobsite. The agreement also banned them from assisting any competing firm “in any manner whatsoever.”

FTC Complaint, Docket C-4787

The most chilling clause was the penalty for disobedience. It wasn’t a warning; it was a financial death sentence for anyone earning minimum wage.

Respondents’ Non-Compete Agreements contain a “liquidated damages” clause, which requires that the employee pay Respondents $100,000 as a penalty for any conduct that contravenes Respondents’ Non-Compete Agreement.

FTC Complaint, Docket C-4787

SOCIETAL IMPACT MAPPING

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

This practice is a direct driver of wage stagnation and economic inequality. By eliminating a worker’s ability to seek out competitive offers, Prudential artificially capped the earning potential of its entire workforce. When employees cannot leave for a higher-paying competitor, the original employer has no incentive to offer raises or improve working conditions. The FTC documents multiple instances of this, such as a 2018 case where Prudential sued several of its own guards to stop them from accepting jobs with a rival company that was offering “significant raises.”

CORPORATE IMPUNITY

The company’s actions demonstrate a belief that it operated above the law. In 2019, a Michigan state court explicitly ruled that Prudential’s non-compete agreements were “unreasonable and unenforceable under state law.” Despite this legal ruling, Prudential continued to force new employees to sign the exact same agreements. This wasn’t just a questionable business practice; it was a deliberate defiance of a court decision, banking on the fact that their low-wage workers couldn’t afford a legal fight.

WHAT NOW?: THE WATCHLIST

The FTC’s action has forced Prudential and its owners to cease and desist. The consent order requires them to nullify all existing non-compete agreements and notify approximately 1,500 former employees that they are free from these restrictions. This is a victory, but the individuals who built and profited from this exploitative system remain.

THE EXECUTIVES

• Greg Wier: President and co-owner of Prudential Security, Inc. and Prudential Command Inc.
• Matthew Keywell: Officer and co-owner of Prudential Security, Inc. and Prudential Command Inc.

THE CORPORATIONS

• Prudential Security, Inc. (also known as Trollpru, Inc.)
• Prudential Command Inc. (also known as Commandbabyyoda, Inc.)

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The agency responsible for bringing this case forward. Their continued enforcement against unfair non-compete clauses nationwide is critical.

THE RESISTANCE

This case reveals a blueprint for corporate wage suppression. The fight against these practices depends on local organizing and mutual aid. Support worker unions, advocate for state-level bans on non-compete agreements for low-wage workers, and share this story. Corporate power relies on our silence and isolation; our power comes from solidarity and shared knowledge.