Actually, the companies involved have already admitted wrongdoing and settled with the DOJ.
> The allegations prompted an investigation in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. A year later, the agency announced a settlement in which the companies acknowledged having had agreements to not "cold-call" employees at certain firms. They agreed to refrain from such no-poaching-pacts for five years, but the deal provided no compensation for their employees.
This new case is a civil class action on the same issue.
Hang on, how can they agree not to break the law for a period "5 years" instead of... never again?
If they did the usual "we are not admitting we broke the law but will settle anyway to make this go away" then the DoJ had a duty to make it clear that they did break the law.
Otherwise after 5 years some other shmuck is going to have to go after them again when they start doing it again.
It is like the DoJ just washed their hands of the whole thing. (Let the proles deal with it.)
I think you misunderstood me, the "agreeing" I was referring to was them agreeing with the DoJ to not break the law instead of the DoJ doing their job.
> The allegations prompted an investigation in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. A year later, the agency announced a settlement in which the companies acknowledged having had agreements to not "cold-call" employees at certain firms. They agreed to refrain from such no-poaching-pacts for five years, but the deal provided no compensation for their employees.
This new case is a civil class action on the same issue.