Whether a non-compete can be enforced against you depends almost entirely on the state where you work. Non-compete laws vary by state so dramatically that the same signed agreement could be void in California, rewritten by a judge in Texas, and thrown out in full in Wisconsin. As of 2026, at least four states ban non-competes for nearly all workers, a growing group prohibits them below specific income thresholds, and the rest ask courts to decide case by case whether a given restriction is reasonable. A 2024 federal rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide was struck down in court and formally removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in early 2026, so state law is what governs.
States That Ban Non-Competes Outright
Five states have flat prohibitions, with only narrow exceptions for the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership.
California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 voids any contract that restrains someone from working in a lawful profession or business. Recent legislation requires employers to notify current and former employees that any existing non-compete clauses carry no legal weight. The ban applies even if the contract was signed in another state where non-competes are legal.1California Legislative Information. California Business and Professions Code 16600 – Contracts in Restraint of Trade California courts have also struck down many employee non-solicitation provisions as indirect restraints on trade; the ones that survive are typically tied to protecting trade secrets.
North Dakota. Century Code Section 9-08-06 voids any contract restraining someone from exercising a lawful profession. Courts strike down non-competes regardless of the employee’s seniority or access to sensitive information.2North Dakota Legislative Branch. North Dakota Code 9-08 – Unlawful and Voidable Contracts
Oklahoma. Title 15, Section 219A bars agreements that stop someone from working in the same industry, but permits non-solicitation clauses that prevent a former employee from directly soliciting established customers of their former employer.3Justia. Oklahoma Code 15-219A – Noncompetition Agreements
Minnesota. Section 181.988 voids any non-compete agreement entered into on or after July 1, 2023. The ban covers employees and independent contractors. Non-disclosure agreements protecting trade secrets and non-solicitation agreements remain enforceable.4Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Code 181.988 – Covenants Not To Compete Void in Employment Agreements
Washington (effective June 30, 2026). House Bill 1155 voids all non-competition covenants regardless of when they were signed and requires employers to send written notice to any current or former employees still bound by existing non-competes. The bill also expands the definition of non-compete to include pay-back provisions that require workers to forfeit bonuses, training reimbursements, or other benefits as a consequence of joining a competitor.5Washington State Legislature. House Bill Report HB 1155
States That Ban Non-Competes Below an Income Threshold
A growing number of states allow non-competes only against workers who earn above a specified amount. Thresholds are adjusted regularly; the figures below reflect 2026 where available.
Washington (until June 30, 2026). The current statute sets the threshold at $126,858.83 in annualized earnings for employees and $317,147.09 for independent contractors. A worker earning less can recover actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees.6Washington State Legislature. RCW 49.62.020 – When Void and Unenforceable
Colorado. Non-competes are void for anyone earning below the “highly compensated worker” threshold, which reaches $130,014 in 2026. Non-solicitation agreements have a lower bar of 60% of that figure, or $78,008.40. Using force, threats, or intimidation to stop someone from working in a lawful occupation is a class 2 misdemeanor.7Justia. Colorado Code 8-2-113 – Unlawful to Intimidate Worker – Agreement Not to Compete
Oregon. The threshold is $119,541 for 2026, indexed to a base of $100,533 adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers in the Western region. The employer must also show a protectable interest before enforcement, even for high earners.8Bureau of Labor and Industries. Noncompetition Agreements
Illinois. Under the Freedom to Work Act, non-competes are prohibited for anyone earning $75,000 or less, rising by $5,000 every five years, reaching $80,000 in 2027 and $90,000 in 2037. Non-solicitation agreements face a separate ban for workers earning $45,000 or less, with similar scheduled increases.9Illinois General Assembly. 820 ILCS 90 – Illinois Freedom to Work Act
Maryland. Non-competes are prohibited for employees earning $62,400 or less per year, or 150% of the state minimum wage, whichever is greater.10Maryland General Assembly. Maryland Code Labor and Employment 3-716 – Noncompete and Conflict of Interest Provisions
Maine. Employers cannot require a non-compete from anyone earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level. Maine also bars non-competes for veterinarians who don’t have an ownership stake in the practice.11Maine State Legislature. Maine Code 26-599-A – Noncompete Agreements
Virginia. Non-competes are unenforceable against “low-wage employees,” defined as workers whose average weekly earnings fall below the state’s average weekly wage.
Rhode Island. Workers earning no more than 250% of the federal poverty level (roughly $39,900 in 2026) are exempt.12Rhode Island General Assembly. Chapter 59 Rhode Island Noncompetition Agreement Act
Healthcare Worker Protections
Several states now bar or restrict non-competes for healthcare workers, on top of any general rules.
Utah’s HB 270, effective May 6, 2026, prohibits non-competes with healthcare workers, defined broadly to include physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, social workers, mental health counselors, physical therapists, and other licensed clinical professionals. The law also voids non-solicitation agreements that would prevent a departing healthcare worker from telling patients where they’re going.13Utah Legislature. HB 270 Healthcare Worker Post-Employment Amendments
Montana expanded its restrictions on January 1, 2026, to cover all physicians licensed in the state; previously only psychologists, social workers, and certain mental health counselors were protected. A doctor selling a practice can still agree not to compete, and repayment obligations for sign-on bonuses, relocation costs, or educational expenses are allowed if they decrease over time.
Illinois restricts non-competes for licensed mental health professionals when enforcement would raise the cost or difficulty for veterans or first responders seeking care, and limits non-competes for nurses and certified nurse aides assigned through a staffing agency to work at a facility for less than two years.
Even in states without healthcare-specific bans, courts scrutinize physician non-competes more heavily. When a specialist is one of only a handful in a region, courts regularly find the public interest in patient access outweighs the employer’s interest in restricting competition.
Reasonableness in the Remaining States
In states that haven’t passed a specific ban or income threshold, non-competes are enforceable only if a court finds the restriction reasonable. Three factors drive the analysis.
A Legitimate Business Interest
The employer must have something worth protecting. Florida’s statute lists what typically qualifies: trade secrets, valuable confidential business information, substantial customer relationships, and specialized training the employer provided. A restriction on a warehouse worker with no confidential information and no customer contact fails at this first step.14Florida Senate. Florida Code 542.335 – Valid Restraints of Trade or Commerce
Geographic and Time Limits
Nationwide restrictions rarely survive unless the employee was genuinely senior at a national company. Most enforceable agreements are limited to where the employee actually worked or had customer relationships, and for local service businesses a 25 to 50 mile radius is a common benchmark. On duration, one year is broadly accepted, and two years is often the ceiling. Florida sets explicit presumptions: six months or less is presumed reasonable, and more than two years is presumed unreasonable.14Florida Senate. Florida Code 542.335 – Valid Restraints of Trade or Commerce
Scope of Restricted Work
The prohibited activities have to match what the employee actually did. An agreement stopping a salesperson from taking any job at a competitor, including roles with no competitive overlap, is the kind of overreach courts reject.
Procedural Rules That Can Void an Otherwise Valid Agreement
Even where non-competes are legal, an agreement can fail because the employer didn’t follow specific procedural rules when presenting it.
Advance Notice
Massachusetts requires employers to provide the non-compete at least ten business days before the worker’s start date, or ten business days before it takes effect for a current employee. The agreement must be in writing, signed by both parties, and must explicitly state that the employee has the right to consult an attorney before signing. Miss any step and the agreement is void.15General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Code Chapter 149 Section 24L – Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act
Oregon requires a written copy at least two weeks before the employee’s first day, and any mid-employment non-compete must be tied to a genuine promotion or advancement.8Bureau of Labor and Industries. Noncompetition Agreements Colorado requires notice before the worker accepts the job offer, or at least fourteen days before it takes effect for an existing employee.7Justia. Colorado Code 8-2-113 – Unlawful to Intimidate Worker – Agreement Not to Compete Maine requires disclosure before a job offer is extended and at least three business days before signing.11Maine State Legislature. Maine Code 26-599-A – Noncompete Agreements
Consideration for a Mid-Job Non-Compete
When a non-compete is part of an initial job offer, the job itself provides consideration. When an employer asks a current employee to sign one months or years into the job, many states hold that continued employment alone is not enough. The employer needs to offer something new: a raise, a promotion, a bonus, or a shift from at-will to guaranteed-term employment. Without that, courts frequently throw the agreement out.
Garden Leave
Massachusetts requires either a garden leave clause or some other mutually agreed-upon consideration written into the agreement itself. A garden leave clause means the employer pays the departing worker at least 50% of their highest annualized base salary during the entire restricted period.15General Court of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Code Chapter 149 Section 24L – Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act
What Happens When an Agreement Is Overbroad
If a court decides a non-compete goes too far, the next step depends on the state’s judicial approach.
Blue Pencil States
A judge can only cross out offending language, not rewrite it. If a contract restricts work in “New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut” and Connecticut is unreasonable, the judge strikes Connecticut and enforces the rest. When the unreasonable part can’t be neatly excised, the entire provision fails.
Reformation States
Texas and Florida let courts actively rewrite unreasonable terms. Texas law requires courts to reform an overbroad covenant “to the extent necessary” to make it reasonable, then enforce the revised version. A five-year ban might be shortened to eighteen months and enforced at that length.16Justia. Texas Business and Commerce Code 15-51 – Procedures and Remedies in Actions to Enforce Covenants Not to Compete In Texas, if the court finds the employer knew the covenant was unreasonable when it was signed and tried to enforce it anyway, the employee can recover attorney fees and costs.
All-or-Nothing States
Wisconsin and Virginia take the harshest approach for employers. If any part of the non-compete is unreasonable, the entire agreement is void. Wisconsin’s statute states that a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint “is illegal, void and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint.”17Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Code 103.465 – Restrictive Covenants in Employment Contracts
Choice-of-Law Clauses in Multi-State Situations
Employers operating in multiple states sometimes include a choice-of-law clause naming a favorable state, such as “this agreement shall be governed by the laws of Texas” for someone working in Massachusetts. Courts generally honor these clauses unless the parties have no real connection to the chosen state, or applying that state’s law would violate a fundamental public policy of the state where the employee actually works.
California, Colorado, and Massachusetts go further and make it illegal to use a choice-of-law clause to get around their non-compete restrictions. If you work in California and your contract says Florida law governs, California courts will ignore that clause and apply California law.
When a contract has no choice-of-law clause, courts apply the law of the state with the strongest connection to the employment relationship, typically where the employee performed most of their work. Outcomes for remote workers living in one state and working for a company headquartered in another are increasingly unpredictable.
If Your Former Employer Sues
The most common response to a suspected breach is a lawsuit seeking an injunction, a court order forcing you to stop working for the competitor. Courts can issue temporary restraining orders within days of filing, and a hearing follows shortly after. Even a temporary injunction can end a new job.
Employers can also pursue monetary damages by proving actual financial harm: lost profits, diverted clients, reduced revenue. Some agreements include liquidated damages clauses setting a pre-agreed amount, which courts enforce only if the figure is a reasonable estimate of anticipated harm rather than a punitive number.
Attorney fees cut both ways. Many agreements require the losing party to pay the winner’s costs. Washington’s statute automatically awards attorney fees to workers who successfully challenge invalid non-competes. If the agreement is unenforceable in your state, challenging it in court may leave your legal fees covered.
Where Federal Law Stands
In April 2024 the FTC voted 3-2 to adopt a rule banning nearly all non-compete agreements nationwide, published as 16 CFR Part 910. It would have barred new non-competes for all workers including executives, rendered most existing agreements unenforceable, and carved out a narrow exception for existing agreements with senior executives earning more than $151,164 annually.18Federal Trade Commission. FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes
The rule never took effect. A federal district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission days before the scheduled start date, finding that the FTC had exceeded its authority. The FTC voluntarily dismissed its appeal in September 2025, and in early 2026 formally removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC retains the ability to challenge individual non-competes on a case-by-case basis under Section 5 of the FTC Act, particularly agreements involving low-wage workers or unusually broad restrictions, but there is no federal rule replacing the state-by-state framework. The law of the state where the work is actually performed is what governs.