David Otunga Argues Why WWE Non-Compete Clauses Are Not Legal, Discusses Samantha Irvin & Andrade El Idolo Situations

During a recent interview with Muscle Man Malcolm on Muscle Memory, former WWE Superstar and Harvard Law School graduate, David Otunga, commented on the Samantha Irvin situation. As previously noted, Irvin is currently in the midst of a two-year non-compete period after she was granted her release.

Additionally, Otunga compared what’s happening to Irvin with Andrade El Idolo, who was pulled from AEW after receiving a cease and desist order from WWE. Andrade is said to be facing a one-year non-compete from WWE after he was reportedly terminated by WWE with cause.

During the interview, Otunga examined why he thinks those non-compete periods may not be legal, arguing that non-competes stem from employee law, but WWE refuses to classify their on-air talents as employees. Since WWE talents are classified as independent contractors, Otunga argued that the non-competes should not be legal. Below are some highlights:

David Otunga on Samantha Irvin Being Subject to a Two-Year Non-Compete Clause From WWE

“The Samantha Irvin one is interesting. I heard about that earlier today. So, I wonder. I don’t know the details behind her not working with the company anymore. I don’t know if she was terminated. I don’t know if she requested her release. I don’t know what’s going on. But, I mean, if she has a two-year one, maybe she had two years left on her contract, requested some type of release, and they’re granting it to her, but not so much. Basically, meaning she’s still on the payroll for two years, but they’re telling her don’t come to work and you can’t work anywhere else. I could see that because otherwise, like I’ve looked at the WWE contracts. I went back through my own and the one-year non-compete has been in that contract back so far as to 2017. I know for sure. I was reading through that contract.”

On Why WWE’s Non-Compete Clauses Might Not Be Legal

“But the thing of it is, even that one-year non-compete, that might not be legal. And I’ll tell you why. Like you can’t prevent somebody from making a living in their given trade. That’s a contract doctrine called restraint of trade. You cannot prevent somebody from earning money in a legal business fashion to make money to support themselves in their given trade. That is what’s happening to Andrade. Non-compete clauses are not designed for that. So I don’t think that thing could even stand up. Now, the difference would be if they were paying Andrade; that would mean he was being compensated in some way, then it would be legal. And if I could break this down to you even more simply, this is the way it is. All right. WWE insists that its performers are independent contractors. Right? However, they treat them like employees because non-compete clauses stem from employment law, and employers use non-compete clauses on their employees.”

David Otunga also recently broke down WWE contract issues on his own YouTube channel, calling it a “lose-lose situation” for the promotion.

If using any of the above quotes, please credit Muscle Memory, with a h/t to 411mania.com for the transcription.