Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
O-I Glass, Inc. · FTC Enforcement Action
O-I Glass Required 1,000+ Workers to Sign Unfair Non-Compete Agreements
For over a decade, O-I Glass Inc. forced more than 1,000 employees across furnace operations, engineering, and quality assurance roles to sign overly broad non-compete agreements that restricted their ability to work for competitors, suppressed wages, and harmed industry competition.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
O-I Glass, a major glass container manufacturer, required over 1,000 employees to sign non-compete agreements that prevented them from working for competing businesses for one year after leaving the company. The FTC found these agreements unfairly restricted worker mobility, suppressed wages and benefits, and blocked competitors from hiring skilled workers in an already highly concentrated industry. In February 2023, the FTC ordered O-I Glass to rescind all existing non-competes and stop using them going forward.
Non-compete clauses can trap workers and stifle entire industries. This case shows what happens when corporations prioritize control over competition.
1,000+
Employees subject to non-compete agreements
1 year
Duration workers were barred from competing
10+ years
How long O-I Glass imposed these restrictions
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What O-I Glass did to its workers · 6 points
| 01 | O-I Glass required employees across a variety of positions to sign non-compete agreements for over a decade. These agreements typically barred workers from being employed by, owning, managing, operating, joining, controlling, participating in, or being connected with any business selling products or services in the United States that were the same or substantially similar to O-I’s offerings. | high |
| 02 | The restrictions lasted for one year following the end of employment and applied without O-I’s prior written consent. At the start of the FTC investigation, over 1,000 O-I employees were subject to these agreements. | high |
| 03 | O-I imposed non-competes on salaried employees who worked with glass plant furnaces and forming equipment, as well as workers in glass production, engineering, and quality assurance roles. These were not limited to senior executives with access to high-level trade secrets. | high |
| 04 | The FTC determined that O-I’s use of non-compete agreements impeded the entry and expansion of rivals in the glass container industry by making it harder for competitors to hire skilled, experienced personnel. | high |
| 05 | O-I’s non-compete agreements reduced employee mobility and caused lower wages and salaries, reduced benefits, less favorable working conditions, and personal hardship to employees according to the FTC’s findings. | high |
| 06 | The FTC concluded that any legitimate objectives O-I claimed could have been achieved through significantly less restrictive means, such as confidentiality agreements prohibiting disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
How a concentrated industry enabled abuse · 4 points
| 01 | The glass container industry in the United States is highly concentrated with substantial barriers to entry and expansion. One major barrier is the ability to identify and employ personnel with skills and experience in glass container manufacturing. | high |
| 02 | O-I Glass imposed these non-compete agreements for over a decade before the FTC took enforcement action, raising questions about oversight gaps that allowed the practice to continue unchecked for years. | medium |
| 03 | The Federal Trade Commission had to intervene at the federal level because O-I’s non-compete agreements constituted an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. | medium |
| 04 | High concentration in the glass container industry means that when one major player like O-I Glass restricts labor mobility, the effects ripple across the entire marketplace and limit opportunities for workers industry-wide. | high |
Profit Over People
How non-competes served corporate interests at worker expense · 5 points
| 01 | O-I Glass used non-compete agreements to prevent skilled employees from negotiating with competing employers for better compensation, effectively giving the company an upper hand in wage determination. | high |
| 02 | The FTC found that O-I’s non-compete arrangements likely suppressed wages and reduced employee bargaining power by limiting workers’ ability to seek employment with rivals in the glass container industry. | high |
| 03 | By restricting where former employees could work, O-I Glass maintained competitive advantages that ran counter to principles of a well-functioning free market, where healthy competition should foster better wages and improved working conditions. | high |
| 04 | O-I’s conduct had the tendency or likely effect of harming competition, consumers, and workers, yet the company continued these practices for over a decade in pursuit of corporate objectives. | high |
| 05 | The company required workers to obtain O-I’s prior written consent before taking any job with a competitor, giving O-I extraordinary control over employees’ post-employment career choices. | medium |
Worker Exploitation
The human cost of restricting job mobility · 5 points
| 01 | O-I Glass subjected more than 1,000 employees to non-compete agreements that restricted their fundamental freedom to accept employment with competing businesses or otherwise compete with their former employer. | high |
| 02 | Workers faced personal hardship because the agreements prevented them from using their specialized skills and experience in glass container manufacturing at other companies for a full year after leaving O-I. | high |
| 03 | The non-compete restrictions applied broadly to salaried employees in production, engineering, and quality assurance roles, not just to executives who might have access to the most sensitive trade secrets. | medium |
| 04 | Employees who wanted to leave O-I Glass faced the choice of either staying in an unsatisfactory position or leaving their specialized field entirely for a year, effectively trapping them in their current employment. | high |
| 05 | The FTC determined that these agreements caused reduced benefits and less favorable working conditions for O-I employees, showing how non-competes affect multiple dimensions of employment beyond just wages. | medium |
Economic Fallout
Industry-wide damage from restricted competition · 5 points
| 01 | O-I’s non-compete agreements impeded the entry and expansion of rival companies in the glass container industry by restricting their access to experienced workers with technical expertise. | high |
| 02 | The restrictions reduced employee mobility across the entire glass container sector, limiting the natural flow of talent that drives innovation and efficiency in competitive markets. | high |
| 03 | By controlling where skilled workers could find future employment, O-I Glass had the potential to influence wage trends across the entire industrial sector, not just within its own company. | high |
| 04 | The glass container industry already faces substantial barriers to entry and expansion. O-I’s non-compete practices created an additional barrier by limiting the available pool of qualified workers for new or expanding competitors. | high |
| 05 | When labor cannot easily flow between competing entities, the FTC recognized that wages may stagnate, job satisfaction may decline, and innovation may slow, creating cascading impacts on local economies. | medium |
Community Impact
How corporate control extends beyond the workplace · 4 points
| 01 | O-I Glass manufactures and sells glass containers used for food and beverage packaging, serving companies that sell food, beer, non-alcoholic beverages, and wine and spirits. Restrictions on worker mobility in this industry affect the entire supply chain. | medium |
| 02 | When wages stagnate due to restricted labor mobility, communities experience reduced consumer spending at local businesses, potentially creating a cycle of diminished demand and decreased tax revenue. | medium |
| 03 | Workers who feel trapped by non-compete agreements may be less likely to advocate for improved safety standards or environmental protections, potentially putting communities near manufacturing facilities at greater risk. | medium |
| 04 | The ability of skilled workers to leave and establish independent ventures creates new jobs and economic opportunities in local communities. Non-compete agreements suppress this entrepreneurial activity. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Years of unchecked control over workers · 5 points
| 01 | O-I Glass imposed overly broad non-compete agreements on employees for over a decade before facing enforcement action, demonstrating how long corporate misconduct can persist without regulatory intervention. | high |
| 02 | The FTC determined that O-I’s conduct constituted an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, finding that such conduct would continue or recur in the absence of appropriate relief. | high |
| 03 | O-I Glass is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Perrysburg, Ohio, operating across interstate commerce while subjecting workers nationwide to restrictive agreements. | medium |
| 04 | The company required workers to obtain its prior written consent before taking jobs with competitors, demonstrating an extraordinary level of corporate control that the FTC ultimately found unlawful. | high |
| 05 | Despite the availability of less restrictive alternatives like confidentiality agreements, O-I Glass chose to impose broad non-compete restrictions that went far beyond protecting legitimate trade secrets. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals about corporate power · 5 points
| 01 | The FTC’s action against O-I Glass represents a significant federal enforcement effort against overly broad non-compete agreements that harm workers, competition, and consumers in concentrated industries. | high |
| 02 | This case demonstrates how corporate practices that appear to be internal employment policies can actually constitute unfair methods of competition with industry-wide anticompetitive effects. | high |
| 03 | O-I Glass’s decade-long use of non-compete agreements on over 1,000 workers shows how corporations can exploit labor market power in highly concentrated industries where workers have few alternative employers. | high |
| 04 | The FTC’s finding that less restrictive alternatives were available but ignored by O-I Glass underscores how companies sometimes choose the most restrictive options to maximize control rather than to protect legitimate business interests. | high |
| 05 | On February 21, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against O-I Glass, with Commissioner Christine S. Wilson dissenting, highlighting ongoing debates about the appropriate scope of non-compete regulations. | medium |
Timeline of Events
Early 2010s
O-I Glass begins requiring employees across various positions to sign non-compete agreements
2010s (ongoing)
Over 1,000 O-I employees work under non-compete restrictions affecting furnace operations, engineering, production, and quality assurance roles
Date Unknown
FTC opens investigation into O-I Glass’s non-compete practices
February 21, 2023
FTC issues complaint against O-I Glass for unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act
February 2023
FTC approves final Decision and Order requiring O-I Glass to rescind non-compete agreements and refrain from using them going forward
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Breadth of restrictions imposed on workers
allegations
“These agreements typically required that, for one year following the conclusion of the worker’s employment with Respondent, the worker may not, directly or indirectly, ‘be employed by’ or own, manage, operate, join, control, participate in, or in any manner be connected with, any business that sells products and/or services in the United States that are the same or substantially similar to those in which Respondent deals, without Respondent’s prior, written consent.”
💡 This shows how O-I’s non-competes went far beyond preventing direct competition to control nearly any connection workers might have with rival businesses.
QUOTE 2
Scale of workers affected
allegations
“At the outset of the Commission’s investigation, over 1,000 employees of Respondent were subject to such Non-Compete Agreements, including salaried employees who work with the glass plants’ furnaces and forming equipment and in other glass production, engineering, and quality assurance roles.”
💡 Over 1,000 workers were trapped by these agreements, and they were not limited to executives but included production and technical staff.
QUOTE 3
Harms to competition and workers
profit
“Respondent’s use of Non-Compete Agreements as described herein is unfair and has the tendency or likely effect of harming competition, consumers, and workers, including by: (i) impeding the entry and expansion of rivals in the glass container industry, (ii) reducing employee mobility, and (iii) causing lower wages and salaries, reduced benefits, less favorable working conditions, and personal hardship to employees.”
💡 The FTC explicitly connected O-I’s non-competes to concrete harms including wage suppression, reduced benefits, and barriers to industry competition.
QUOTE 4
Industry concentration creates vulnerability
regulatory
“The glass container industry in the United States is highly concentrated. There are substantial barriers to entry and expansion, including the ability to identify and employ personnel with skills and experience in glass container manufacturing.”
💡 In a highly concentrated industry, restricting worker mobility has outsized anticompetitive effects because there are few alternative employers.
QUOTE 5
Less restrictive alternatives were available
accountability
“Any legitimate objectives of Respondent’s conduct as alleged herein could have been achieved through significantly less restrictive means, including, for example, by entering confidentiality agreements that prohibit employees and former employees from disclosing company trade secrets and other confidential information.”
💡 O-I Glass had reasonable alternatives to protect its interests but chose the most restrictive option, revealing that control rather than protection was the goal.
QUOTE 6
Violation of federal law
conclusion
“Respondent’s conduct constitutes an unfair method of competition with a tendency or likelihood to harm competition, consumers, and employees in the glass container industry, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45.”
💡 The FTC determined O-I’s non-compete practices violated federal antitrust law, not just employment standards.
QUOTE 7
Ongoing threat without intervention
accountability
“Such conduct, or the effects thereof, will continue or recur in the absence of appropriate relief.”
💡 The FTC found that O-I Glass would continue these harmful practices without a formal order to stop them.
QUOTE 8
Definition of prohibited practices
allegations
“The term post-employment covenants not to compete (or ‘Non-Compete Agreements’), as used in this complaint, refers to contract terms that, following the conclusion of a worker’s employment with one employer, restrict the worker’s freedom to accept employment with competing businesses or otherwise to compete with the employer.”
💡 This establishes that the case focuses on post-employment restrictions that limit workers’ fundamental freedom to choose their next employer.
QUOTE 9
Respondent identity and jurisdiction
accountability
“Respondent O-I Glass, Inc. is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at One Michael Owens Way, Plaza 1, Perrysburg, OH 43351.”
💡 O-I Glass operates as a Delaware corporation with nationwide reach, subjecting workers across the country to these restrictions.
QUOTE 10
Industry and customer base
community
“Respondent manufactures and sells glass containers used for food and beverage packaging. The primary customers of such glass containers are companies that sell food, beer, non-alcoholic beverages, and wine and spirits.”
💡 O-I’s control over specialized workers affects a critical link in the food and beverage supply chain that serves millions of consumers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did O-I Glass do wrong?
O-I Glass required over 1,000 employees to sign overly broad non-compete agreements that prevented them from working for any competing business for one year after leaving the company. The FTC found these restrictions unfairly limited worker mobility, suppressed wages, and harmed competition in the glass container industry.
How many workers were affected by these non-compete agreements?
At the start of the FTC investigation, over 1,000 O-I Glass employees were subject to non-compete agreements. These included salaried workers in furnace operations, forming equipment, glass production, engineering, and quality assurance roles.
How long did these non-compete restrictions last?
The non-compete agreements prohibited workers from joining or being connected with competing businesses for one year after their employment with O-I Glass ended. The company imposed these restrictions for over a decade before the FTC took action.
What harm did these non-compete agreements cause?
According to the FTC, the agreements reduced employee mobility, caused lower wages and salaries, reduced benefits, created less favorable working conditions, caused personal hardship to employees, and impeded the entry and expansion of rival companies in the glass container industry.
Why is this especially problematic in the glass container industry?
The glass container industry in the United States is highly concentrated with substantial barriers to entry and expansion. One major barrier is finding personnel with specialized skills and experience in glass manufacturing. When a major player like O-I restricts worker mobility, it affects the entire industry.
Could O-I Glass have protected its interests in a less harmful way?
Yes. The FTC found that any legitimate objectives could have been achieved through significantly less restrictive means, such as confidentiality agreements that prohibit employees from disclosing trade secrets and other confidential information, rather than blocking them from working for competitors entirely.
What did the FTC order O-I Glass to do?
The FTC issued a Decision and Order requiring O-I Glass to rescind all existing non-compete agreements with affected employees and to refrain from using such agreements going forward. The company must notify employees that the agreements are no longer enforceable.
Is this practice common in other industries?
Non-compete agreements have been used across many industries, from technology to fast food. However, regulators and lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing overly broad non-competes that restrict workers beyond what is necessary to protect legitimate business interests like trade secrets.
What can workers do if their employer requires them to sign a non-compete?
Workers should carefully review any non-compete agreement before signing and consider consulting with an employment attorney. Many states have laws limiting the enforceability of non-competes, and some ban them entirely for certain workers. If you believe a non-compete is unreasonably restrictive, you can report concerns to your state labor agency or the FTC.
Was this a frivolous lawsuit or a serious case?
This was a serious enforcement action. The FTC investigated O-I Glass’s practices, issued a formal complaint, and obtained a Decision and Order requiring the company to rescind its non-compete agreements and stop using them. The remedy indicates the FTC identified significant, documented harms to workers and competition.
The FTC did a press release on this corporate misconduct: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/ftc-approves-final-orders-requiring-two-glass-container-manufacturers-drop-noncompete-restrictions
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
