I didn&#x27;t say the quoted section was false, I just said it was inaccurate because it gives an inaccurate impression of what was happening in the original article.  Without reading the article, you might think that she was fired due to the &#x27;chilling effects&#x27; of non-competes.  However, in this case, the threat was more tangible.  Her new company didn&#x27;t just find out about the non-compete &#x27;through the grape vine&#x27;, they found out because the previous company forcefully notified them.  This gives a much greater indication of intent to sue then if the prior company had kept quiet about it, as they apparently did for most other employees.  Remember, it was apparently a well-known fact that employees from her firm occasionally moved to &#x27;competing&#x27; firms.  This was why she wasn&#x27;t initially worried about the non-compete in the first place, because she didn&#x27;t think they would enforce it.  Reuters probably got rattled once they saw that Law360 was serious about the non-compete.<p>Technically, Reuters could have gone to court on her behalf but why bother unless she was some highly sought-after journalist?  Intimidating letters are meant to make you weigh your choices carefully.  Also, while Law360 didn&#x27;t literally sue her, it gave every indication that it intended to if she continued at Reuters.