I don't know where you live, but since this is about US law, this has no basis. This goes against the very 1st amendment of the US constitution.
Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
The only way you can take this position is IF one of the parties is subject to antitrust action. Which in this case, it is. So we have to trust antitrust!
That being said, I think that is certainly valid to argue for antitrust action to be automatic - so enforcement is not wholly dependent on subjective criteria.
Your comment seems to contradict itself. Freedom of association is constitutionally protected... but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do live in the US, and unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common. What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?
Also I feel like you kinda have it backwards: an exclusivity clause restricts someone's freedom of association. While that's not automatically illegal (since 1A only applies to the government), exclusivity agreements like the ones we're talking about go against the spirit of the idea of freedom of association.
So yes, I'm totally fine with banning exclusivity clauses in contracts (maybe not in all cases; I'm sure there are times when they might be appropriate), and I don't think there's really any conflict with 1A. IANAL, of course.
>>> but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?
The 1st amendment is not absolute if there's competing laws against it. Which i believe is your point, or at least helps your argument as you will see below.
>>> unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common.
Agreed, for the same reason that it is illegal to sell your body parts. This is because the illegal provisions (freely entered between consenting adults) would be in direct conflict with another established law, and the constitutionality of said law would have been brought up in front of (higher) courts to debate whether X type of association does not run afoul of other rights.
>>> What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?
There's nothing fundamentally different except the former is now law, under the 13th amendment [1]. The latter has yet to do so. So you could be correct. The 13th amendment is a better pillar vs going strictly against the 1st amendment for (reasons).
> Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Freedom of association like... an exclusivity clause?
Right off the bat, exclusivity clauses shouldn't be legal, it's the definition of anti-competitive.