Free tool
Are Non-Competes Enforceable in Your State?
Non-compete enforceability depends entirely on your state. California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma void nearly all employee non-competes; Florida, Texas, and Georgia enforce reasonable ones; and a growing group enforces them only above a salary threshold. The federal FTC ban was struck down in 2024, so state law controls. Check your state below.
Non-compete enforceability, state by state
| State | Status | Summary | Key law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Enforceable if reasonable | Non-competes are void as a baseline but enforceable under statutory exceptions when the employer shows a protectable interest and the restraint is reasonable in time and territory (2 years or less presumed reasonable). Courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms. | Ala. Code § 8-1-190 et seq. |
| Alaska | Common law, if reasonable | No non-compete statute; Alaska courts enforce non-competes that are reasonable in duration, geography, and scope and supported by adequate consideration, though they are disfavored and overbroad covenants may be narrowed. | common law |
| Arizona | Common law, if reasonable | No general non-compete statute; enforceable if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate interest. Courts strictly scrutinize physician/healthcare covenants and tend to strike rather than rewrite overbroad terms. | common law |
| Arkansas | Enforceable if reasonable | A 2015 statute makes non-competes enforceable where the employer has a protectable business interest and the restraint is no greater than necessary; 2 years is presumptively reasonable. A 2025 law voids covenants restricting a physician's scope of practice. | Ark. Code § 4-75-101 |
| California | Total ban | Non-competes are void in the employment context with no reasonableness exception. The 2024 amendments (SB 699/AB 1076) make void agreements unenforceable regardless of where or when signed, reach out-of-state employers, and required employers to notify affected employees that their non-competes are void. | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (and §§ 16600.1, 16600.5) |
| Colorado | Highly-compensated only | Non-competes are void unless the worker meets an annually indexed 'highly compensated' earnings threshold; customer non-solicitation covenants use a lower 60% threshold. Strict notice requirements apply. | C.R.S. § 8-2-113 |
| Connecticut | Reasonable; physician limits | General non-competes are enforceable under common law if reasonable. Physician, PA, and APRN covenants are statutorily capped at 1 year and 15 miles. A 2025 income-threshold ban bill died in committee, so no general salary threshold applies. | common law; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-14p (physicians/PAs/APRNs) |
| Delaware | Reasonable; no blue-pencil | Enforceable under common law if narrowly tailored, but the Chancery and Supreme Courts have grown hostile to overbroad covenants and now refuse to blue-pencil them, striking unreasonable agreements entirely. Physician non-competes are void by statute. | common law; 6 Del. C. § 2707 (physician ban) |
| District of Columbia | Banned except high earners | The Ban on Non-Compete Amendment Act prohibits non-competes for most workers, but a high-earner exception permits them for employees above a CPI-indexed compensation threshold. Even for high earners, duration is capped (365 days generally; 730 days for qualifying medical specialists). | D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq. (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020, as amended) |
| Florida | Strongly enforceable | Non-competes are reasonable-and-enforceable under § 542.335 (terms up to ~2 years presumed reasonable). The 2025 CHOICE Act adds a strongly pro-employer regime for high earners, allowing non-compete/garden-leave agreements up to 4 years with courts required to issue preliminary injunctions. | Fla. Stat. § 542.335; CHOICE Act, §§ 542.41–542.45 (2025) |
| Georgia | Enforceable if reasonable | Under the Restrictive Covenants Act, non-competes are enforceable if reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope; courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms. Restrictions of 2 years or less are presumed reasonable in duration. | O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq. |
| Hawaii | Tech-worker ban | Non-competes are generally enforceable if ancillary to a legitimate purpose and reasonable, but they are void for employees of a 'technology business' (firms deriving the majority of income from software/IT development) since July 1, 2015. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(d) |
| Idaho | Enforceable if reasonable | A statutory framework enforces non-competes against key employees and contractors that protect a legitimate business interest and are reasonable; 18 months or less is presumptively reasonable as to duration. | Idaho Code § 44-2701 et seq. |
| Illinois | Banned below $75K | Non-competes are void for any employee earning $75,000/yr or less, with the threshold stepping up over time. Non-solicitation covenants are void below $45,000/yr. | Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90/10 |
| Indiana | Enforceable if reasonable | Indiana enforces non-competes under common-law reasonableness (legitimate protectable interest, reasonable time/scope/geography), but physician non-competes are heavily restricted by statute; a 2025 amendment voids physician-hospital non-competes entered on or after July 1, 2025. | common law; physician restrictions at Ind. Code § 25-22.5-5.5 |
| Iowa | Common law, if reasonable | No non-compete statute; courts apply a reasonableness test requiring protection of a legitimate interest, no undue burden on the employee, and no harm to the public. Courts may partially enforce (blue-pencil) overbroad covenants. | common law |
| Kansas | Common law, if reasonable | Non-competes are enforceable under common law if reasonable, protecting a legitimate interest without undue burden on the employee or harm to the public. A 2025 law strengthened non-solicitation covenants but expressly does not cover non-competes. | common law |
| Kentucky | Enforceable if reasonable | Kentucky has no non-compete statute; courts enforce agreements that are reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and purpose, and that protect a legitimate business interest. Courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms. | common law |
| Louisiana | Allowed only within statute | La. R.S. 23:921 voids non-competes generally but permits employee non-competes only if they strictly meet statutory requirements: the restricted area must be specified by named parishes/municipalities (not a radius) and the term cannot exceed two years. Strict compliance is required or the agreement is void. | La. R.S. 23:921 |
| Maine | Low-wage ban | Non-competes are barred for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty line, require advance notice, and are unenforceable until one year of employment. They are disfavored as contrary to public policy. | 26 M.R.S. § 599-A |
| Maryland | Low-wage ban | Non-competes are void against employees earning at or below 150% of the state minimum wage; separate bans cover most direct-care healthcare workers and veterinary professionals. | Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716 |
| Massachusetts | Enforceable with strict limits | Under the 2018 Noncompetition Agreement Act, non-competes are enforceable only if they meet strict conditions: generally capped at 12 months and requiring garden-leave pay (at least 50% of the employee's highest base salary over the prior 2 years) or other mutually agreed consideration. They are barred for several worker categories, including non-exempt employees. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 24L |
| Michigan | Enforceable if reasonable | MCL 445.774a allows employee non-competes that protect a legitimate competitive business interest and are reasonable as to duration, geography, and scope. No statutory ban has passed; courts typically uphold two-to-three-year terms. | MCL 445.774a |
| Minnesota | Banned since 2023 | Effective July 1, 2023, any covenant not to compete entered into on or after that date is void and unenforceable; only sale-of-business and business-dissolution non-competes are excepted. Agreements signed before July 1, 2023 remain subject to prior common-law reasonableness analysis. | Minn. Stat. § 181.988 |
| Mississippi | Enforceable if reasonable | No governing statute; courts enforce non-competes that are reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and activity restricted and that protect a legitimate business interest, deciding reasonableness case-by-case. The employer bears the burden of proving reasonableness. | common law |
| Missouri | Enforceable if reasonable | Missouri enforces non-competes that are reasonable in geographic scope and duration and protect legitimate interests such as trade secrets and customer relationships. Statute expressly validates reasonable non-solicitation covenants; courts may reform overbroad terms. | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202 |
| Montana | Reasonable covenants allowed | Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 voids contracts restraining a lawful trade, but the Montana Supreme Court recognizes a judicial exception upholding employee non-competes that are limited as to time and place, supported by consideration, and afford reasonable protection without undue burden. Courts construe such covenants strictly in the employee's favor. | Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (with judicial reasonableness exception) |
| Nebraska | Narrow only; no blue-pencil | Nebraska does not blue-pencil and rejects traditional geographic non-competes for employees; courts enforce only narrowly drawn restrictions no greater than necessary to protect legitimate interests. Customer non-solicits are valid only as to clients the employee actually did business with and had personal contact. | common law |
| Nevada | No hourly-worker bans | Non-competes cannot be applied to employees paid solely on an hourly wage basis and cannot bar serving former customers the employee did not solicit. Covenants must be supported by valuable consideration and impose no undue hardship. | NRS 613.195 |
| New Hampshire | Low-wage ban | Non-competes are void and unenforceable against 'low-wage employees,' defined as those earning at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage. | RSA 275:70-a |
| New Jersey | Enforceable if reasonable | No statewide ban has been enacted; non-competes remain enforceable under common law if reasonable in duration, geography, and scope and protective of legitimate interests. Sweeping ban bills died at the end of the 2024-2025 session without passing. | common law |
| New Mexico | Enforceable; healthcare banned | Ordinary employee non-competes are enforceable under common law if reasonable in time and geographic scope and supported by consideration. A statutory ban makes non-competes unenforceable against health care practitioners. | common law; healthcare ban at N.M. Stat. § 24A-4-2 (formerly § 24-1I-2) |
| New York | Common-law reasonableness | New York has no statewide non-compete ban; Gov. Hochul vetoed the 2023 ban bill in December 2023 and no replacement has become law. Non-competes remain governed by common-law reasonableness (legitimate interest, reasonable scope, duration, and geography). | common law |
| North Carolina | Enforceable but strict | Enforceable under common law if reasonable as to time, territory, and scope, but North Carolina applies strict requirements: the covenant must be in writing, signed as part of the employment contract, and supported by valuable consideration. Courts may only strike distinctly separable overbroad terms, not rewrite them. | common law |
| North Dakota | Long-standing ban | A long-standing statute voids any contract restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, so employee non-competes are unenforceable. Narrow exceptions exist only for sale of business goodwill and partnership dissolution. | N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06 |
| Ohio | Common law, reasonableness | No statute governs non-competes; Ohio courts enforce them if reasonable (legitimate business interest, no undue hardship on the employee, not injurious to the public) and will blue-pencil overbroad terms. A 2025 ban bill was introduced but not enacted. | common law (Raimonde v. Van Vlerah) |
| Oklahoma | Void; non-solicit allowed | Pure non-compete agreements are void and unenforceable; a former employee may engage in the same or a similar business as the former employer. The statute carves out a narrow exception permitting agreements that bar direct solicitation of the former employer's established customers. | Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A |
| Oregon | Conditions plus salary | Non-competes are void unless strict conditions are met (written 2-week advance notice, an exempt administrative/professional/executive role, a protectable interest, and a 12-month maximum) AND the worker's gross salary plus commissions exceeds the annually indexed threshold at termination. | ORS 653.295 |
| Pennsylvania | Enforceable; healthcare limited | Common-law reasonableness governs and non-competes remain broadly enforceable. The Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (Act 74), effective Jan. 1, 2025, voids most non-competes for covered health care practitioners entered after that date, allowing at most a one-year restriction where the practitioner resigned. | common law; Act 74 of 2024 (healthcare workers) |
| Rhode Island | Low-wage/non-exempt ban | Non-competes are unenforceable against low-wage earners (at or below 250% of the federal poverty level), FLSA non-exempt employees, students, and workers under 18. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-3 |
| South Carolina | Enforceable; no blue-pencil | No statute; common-law reasonableness governs. Courts strictly construe non-competes against employers and will not blue-pencil or rewrite an overbroad covenant, so an unreasonable restriction is void in full. | common law |
| South Dakota | Statutory, 2-year max | By statute, an employee non-compete is enforceable if reasonable for any period not exceeding two years from termination, limited to a specified county, municipality, or area where the employer continues a like business. | S.D. Codified Laws § 53-9-11 |
| Tennessee | Common law; physician statute | General non-competes are enforceable under common-law reasonableness. Physician and healthcare-provider non-competes are void unless they meet the statute, which presumes reasonable a term of two years or less and a geographic limit of a 10-mile radius or the county of the primary practice site. | common law; Tenn. Code § 63-1-148 (healthcare providers) |
| Texas | Enforceable if reasonable | A covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement and contains reasonable limits on time, geographic area, and scope of activity. Physician non-competes have additional statutory requirements. | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50 |
| Utah | Enforceable; 1-year cap | The Post-Employment Restrictions Act caps non-competes at one year from separation; any longer term is void. Enforceable within that limit subject to reasonableness. A 2026 amendment additionally bans post-employment non-competes for healthcare workers. | Utah Code § 34-51 (Post-Employment Restrictions Act) |
| Vermont | Common law; ban did not pass | Vermont uses common-law reasonableness; non-competes are enforceable if reasonable in time, geography, and scope. A proposed near-total ban (H.205) did not become law and remains pending in committee. | common law |
| Virginia | Low-wage/non-exempt ban | Non-competes are prohibited for 'low-wage employees,' defined as those earning below the state average weekly wage. A 2025 amendment expanded this to also cover all FLSA overtime-eligible (non-exempt) employees regardless of pay. | Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8 |
| Washington | Income-threshold ban | Non-competes are unenforceable unless the worker earns above an annually inflation-indexed earnings threshold, with a much higher bar for independent contractors. | RCW 49.62 (RCW 49.62.020/.030/.040) |
| West Virginia | Common law; physician statute | Common-law reasonableness governs (no greater than needed to protect the employer, no undue hardship, not injurious to the public). The Physicians' Freedom of Practice Act caps physician non-competes at one year and a 30-mile radius and voids them if the employer terminates the doctor. | common law; W. Va. Code § 47-11E (Physicians' Freedom of Practice Act) |
| Wisconsin | Enforceable; no blue-pencil | By statute, restrictive covenants are lawful only if reasonably necessary to protect the employer. Wisconsin does not blue-pencil: any covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is void and unenforceable in its entirety, even as to parts that would be reasonable. | Wis. Stat. § 103.465 |
| Wyoming | Most void; key exceptions | Effective July 1, 2025, a new statute makes most employee non-compete covenants void as a default. They remain enforceable only for executive/management personnel (and their professional staff), in the sale or transfer of a business, and to protect trade secrets; physician non-competes restricting the practice of medicine are specifically void. Applies prospectively to contracts signed on or after July 1, 2025. | W.S. § 1-23-108 |
General information, not legal advice. Non-compete law changes frequently and enforceability is fact-specific — confirm against your state's current statutes and consult an attorney.
Frequently asked questions
Are non-compete agreements enforceable?▾
It depends entirely on the state. California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma void nearly all employee non-competes, while Florida, Texas, and Georgia enforce reasonable ones. A growing group of states (Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Virginia) enforce them only above a salary threshold.
Did the FTC ban non-compete agreements?▾
No. The FTC's 2024 rule banning most non-competes was struck down in Ryan LLC v. FTC and formally removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in February 2026. The federal ban never took effect, so non-compete enforceability is governed entirely by state law.
Which states ban non-compete agreements?▾
California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma void nearly all employee non-competes. Several others — including Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Maine, and Washington, D.C. — ban them for workers earning below a set salary threshold.
How long can a non-compete last?▾
In states that enforce them, courts generally consider one to two years reasonable for a former employee, and longer where trade secrets are protected. Anything beyond that is increasingly likely to be found unreasonable and either narrowed or struck, depending on the state.
Can I get out of a non-compete?▾
Often, yes. A non-compete may be unenforceable if you are in a state that voids them, if you earn below a state salary threshold, or if the covenant is overbroad in time, geography, or scope. Enforceability is fact-specific, so review your agreement against your state law and consult an attorney.
Need a compliant non-compete or alternative?
Pactlio drafts a state-aware non-compete — or a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement where non-competes are void — in minutes.
Draft your agreement free