Non-Compete Laws by State (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?

No federal law bans non-compete agreements. The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rule that would have banned most of them never took effect: a federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024, and the FTC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. Whether a non-compete can be enforced is therefore a question of state law, and the states range from near-total bans to routine enforcement.

A handful of states void nearly every employee non-compete: California, Minnesota (agreements from July 1, 2023), North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming (contracts from July 1, 2025, with exceptions that include executive and management personnel). Washington joins them on June 30, 2027. Many more ban non-competes below a pay line, among them Illinois, Colorado, Oregon, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee and the District of Columbia, or ban them for doctors and other health care workers. The rest enforce a non-compete only if a court finds it reasonable, under a statute or under case law.

Information last verified October 8-9, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers the federal layer that applies everywhere (the FTC's non-compete rule and what happened to it, the FTC's case-by-case enforcement, the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel memos, and bills in Congress) and summarizes the non-compete law of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with a link to a detailed page for each. It does not cover trade-secret statutes (each state page links that state's trade secret guide), severance pay (see severance pay laws by state), or the professional-conduct rules that limit lawyers' non-competes.

Are non-competes enforceable? The short answer by type of state

Every state's answer falls into one of four broad groups. The lines between them are not perfectly clean, so read the state page before relying on a label.

1. States that void nearly all employee non-competes.

• California voids every employee non-compete that does not fit a statutory exception, "no matter how narrowly tailored," and since January 1, 2024 it is unlawful even to include one in an employment contract (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, 16600.1).
• Minnesota voids any covenant not to compete in an agreement entered into on or after July 1, 2023, with exceptions only for selling or dissolving a business (Minn. Stat. 181.988).
• North Dakota voids any contract restraining a lawful profession, trade or business "to that extent," with exceptions only for business owners (N.D.C.C. 9-08-06).
• Oklahoma lets a former employee work in the same or a similar business; the one restriction its statute leaves standing is a bar on directly soliciting the former employer's established customers (15 O.S. 219A).
• Wyoming voids any covenant restricting a person's right to be paid for skilled or unskilled labor in contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, except for the sale of a business, trade-secret protection, sliding-scale recovery of relocation and training costs, and executive and management personnel and their professional staff (W.S. 1-23-108).
• Washington will void all noncompetition covenants, regardless of when they were signed, starting June 30, 2027 (Laws of 2026 ch. 149).

2. States that ban non-competes below a pay line, or for set groups of workers. Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and, until June 30, 2027, Washington tie enforceability to pay. Massachusetts bars enforcement against employees who are nonexempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and Nevada bars non-competes for employees paid solely by the hour. The salary threshold table below gives each figure exactly as the state publishes it.

3. States that allow non-competes under a detailed statute. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin have statutes that set the test, and often a presumed or maximum length. Louisiana and South Dakota start from a rule that restraints are void and then list the employee non-competes the law allows.

4. States that apply a court-made reasonableness test. In Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia, courts decide enforceability case by case. Many of these states add statutes for particular professions, most often physicians and other health care workers.

Montana sits between groups. MCA 28-2-703 voids a contract restraining a lawful trade "to that extent," but the Montana Supreme Court enforces a partial restraint on an employee that passes a three-part reasonableness test and protects a legitimate business interest (Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 2011 MT 290).

Is there a federal non-compete ban?

No. The FTC adopted a nationwide ban in 2024, but a federal court set it aside before it took effect, the FTC dropped its appeals in 2025, and the rule was removed from federal regulations in 2026. The FTC now acts against particular employers instead. For the full story of the court fight, see our news report, FTC non-compete ban struck down.

The FTC rule: adopted in 2024, set aside, then removed

The FTC published its Non-Compete Rule (16 CFR part 910) on May 7, 2024. It would have barred employers from entering into non-competes with workers on or after September 4, 2024. Existing non-competes with senior executives could have stayed in force; other existing non-competes would not have been enforceable after that date.

The rule never reached that date. In Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas first found, in a July 3, 2024 order, that the FTC lacked substantive rulemaking authority under Section 6(g), but limited its preliminary relief to Ryan and the four business groups that joined the case.

On August 20, 2024, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and set the rule aside entirely. Its order reads: "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. 910.1-.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter." The FTC's own later notice describes the court as concluding that the FTC issued the rule in excess of its statutory authority and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

The FTC first appealed. On September 5, 2025, the Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals in Ryan (Fifth Circuit) and in Properties of the Villages v. FTC (Eleventh Circuit) and to accede to the vacatur of the rule. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the Ryan appeal as of September 8, 2025, on the FTC's motion.

Finally, a final rule published and effective February 12, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 6507) removed the Non-Compete Rule, 16 CFR part 910, from the Code of Federal Regulations to conform to the court decisions.

What the FTC still does

The FTC has moved from a nationwide rule to case-by-case action against specific employers. The actions it has announced include:

• Request for information (September 4, 2025). The FTC asked the public about the scope, prevalence and effects of employer noncompete agreements, with comments due November 3, 2025.
• Gateway Services (2025). On September 4, 2025, the Commission voted 3-1 to accept a proposed consent order barring the pet cremation company from entering into, maintaining or enforcing noncompetes, with limited exceptions. The FTC said the order would free nearly 1,800 employees, and it approved the final order in November 2025.
• Warning letters to health care employers (September 10, 2025). Chairman Ferguson sent letters to several large health care employers and staffing firms urging them to review their employment agreements, including noncompetes.
• Workshop (January 27, 2026). The FTC held a workshop titled "Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements."
• Rollins (2026). On April 15, 2026, the Commission voted 2-0 to issue a complaint against and accept a consent agreement with Rollins, the parent of Orkin, HomeTeam and Critter Control, which agreed to stop enforcing noncompetes against more than 18,000 employees nationwide. The Chairman also sent warning letters to 13 other pest-control companies. The Commission approved the final order 2-0 on June 22, 2026.
• Mortgage Connect (May 8, 2026). The Chairman sent a warning letter after the company sued to enforce a noncompete against a former worker and the competitor that hired her.

Earlier, on February 26, 2025, the FTC announced a Joint Labor Task Force to protect American workers. These actions target particular companies; they do not change any state's non-compete law.

The NLRB General Counsel memos

The National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel took a separate route under the National Labor Relations Act. GC 23-08 (May 30, 2023) took the position that non-competes in employment and severance agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act, because they chill employees' Section 7 rights, except in limited circumstances, and GC 25-01 (October 7, 2024) addressed remedies for non-compete and "stay-or-pay" provisions.

On February 14, 2025, Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen rescinded both memos in GC 25-05, so neither states the General Counsel's current position.

Federal bills in Congress

Two pending bills would create a federal ban. Neither is law.

• S.2031, Workforce Mobility Act of 2025 (Sen. Murphy, introduced June 11, 2025): would provide that no person shall enter into, enforce or attempt to enforce a noncompete agreement with any individual employed by, or performing work under contract with, that person. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions the day it was introduced, and that is its latest action.
• H.R.10215, Workforce Mobility Act of 2026 (Rep. Peters, introduced September 1, 2026): carries the same operative text and was referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and on Education and Workforce.

Non-compete laws by state: 50-state and DC comparison

The table summarizes what each state page found, in that page's terms. "None" in the pay column means the state page found no income threshold. A profession rule marked with a date applies only to agreements signed (or, where the state says so, renewed) on or after that date. Select a state for its statutes, cases, exceptions and sources.

Salary thresholds: where pay decides

In these states, a worker's pay or pay classification decides whether a non-compete can be used at all. Each figure below is the one the statute or the state agency publishes, for the year shown. Where a statute uses a formula and the state publishes no dollar figure, this page gives the formula only.

Some states use pay classification, alone or alongside a dollar line. Massachusetts bars enforcement against employees classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (M.G.L. c. 149, 24L(c)). Rhode Island protects nonexempt employees as well as low-wage employees (R.I. Gen. Laws 28-59-3), and Virginia's ban covers anyone entitled to federal overtime pay for agreements from July 1, 2025. Nevada bars non-competes for employees paid solely on an hourly wage basis (NRS 613.195(3)).

Two states run the other way. Florida's CHOICE Act makes a qualifying non-compete "fully enforceable according to its terms" for up to 4 years when the worker earns a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant county (Fla. Stat. 542.45). Idaho presumes, subject to rebuttal, that a worker among the highest-paid 5 percent of the employer's workforce is a key employee whose reasonable non-compete can be enforced (Idaho Code 44-2704(5)).

Figures that adjust yearly must be checked for the current year. Do not compute a figure yourself; the state agency publishes it.

Doctors, nurses and other health care workers

Much of the recent state legislation is about health care. Many states that otherwise enforce reasonable non-competes have carved out physicians, and often nurses and other clinicians. The rules differ widely in who is covered and which agreements they reach, so check the state page.

Void or barred for physicians, and in many states for other clinicians:

• Arkansas (physicians, from August 5, 2025), Delaware (physicians), Massachusetts (physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers), Montana (many licensed providers, and physicians of all specialties for contracts made or renewed from January 1, 2026), New Hampshire (physicians, nurses, APRNs, podiatrists, physician associates), New Mexico (ten listed practitioner types), Rhode Island (physicians and APRNs), Utah (licensed healthcare workers, agreements from May 6, 2026), Vermont (health care providers, agreements from July 1, 2026), Virginia (licensees of the Boards of Medicine, Nursing, Counseling, Optometry, Psychology or Social Work, agreements from July 1, 2026) and Wyoming (agreements between physicians, contracts from July 1, 2025).
• Indiana bars non-competes with primary care physicians (agreements originally entered into from July 1, 2023) and voids non-competes between physicians and hospitals or hospital systems (from July 1, 2025). For other physician non-competes originally entered into on or after July 1, 2020, the agreement is unenforceable (since July 1, 2023) if the employer ends the job without cause, the physician quits for cause, or the contract expires with both sides' obligations fulfilled (Ind. Code 25-22.5-5.5-1, -2(b)).
• Maine bars them for health care practitioners with no ownership interest in the employer (agreements from July 29, 2026), and Oregon voids most non-competes between medical licensees and hospitals, management services organizations and similar employers (since June 9, 2025).
• Pennsylvania voids covered practitioners' non-competes entered into after January 1, 2025, unless the covenant lasts no more than one year and the practitioner was not dismissed.
• South Dakota makes post-employment practice restrictions voidable for 28 listed practitioner types (contracts from July 1, 2023).

Allowed, but capped:

• Connecticut caps physician covenants entered into, amended, extended or renewed from July 1, 2016, and physician assistant and APRN covenants from October 1, 2023, at one year and fifteen miles.
• Louisiana caps physician non-competes at three years (primary care) or five years (other physicians) from the initial contract.
• Maryland allows a non-compete for a direct-care health care worker earning more than $350,000, limited to one year and 10 miles, for agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.
• Texas caps physician covenants (and those of dentists, nurses and physician assistants) at one year and five miles with a buyout cap, for covenants from September 1, 2025; separately, a physician's medical non-compete is void if the physician is involuntarily discharged without good cause (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 15.50(d)).
• West Virginia caps physician covenants at one year and 30 road miles and voids them when the employer ends the physician's employment.
• Tennessee's T.C.A. 63-1-148 sets the terms on which physician and several other providers' covenants are deemed reasonable.
• The District of Columbia sets a higher pay line for medical specialists.

Narrower rules: Florida voids a physician's covenant in a county where one entity employs or contracts with every physician in that specialty. California's SB 351 voids certain non-compete clauses in contracts between physician or dental practices and private equity groups or hedge funds. Colorado's pay-based exceptions do not apply to covenants restricting the practice of medicine (including physician assistants), advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry that are entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025, so those covenants are void unless a pay-independent exception such as the sale of a business applies. Iowa protects licensed mental health professionals, bars staffing agencies from using non-competes, and directs a University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics policy. Illinois protects certain mental health professionals serving veterans and first responders, and voids nurse-agency non-competes with nurses and certified nurse aides placed on temporary assignments (agreements from July 1, 2022; 225 ILCS 510/14). Nebraska bars non-competes in health care staffing agency contracts from July 1, 2027.

No health care statute found: In states such as Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin, the state page found no enacted health care non-compete statute, and the general rule applies to doctors too. Courts have enforced reasonable physician covenants in some of these states, such as Michigan (St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel, 2006) and New Jersey (Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More, 2005, which also cut back an excessive 30-mile area).

Health care bills were pending in several more states as of each state page's last check, including New York, South Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio. None of them is law.

How courts judge a non-compete: the reasonableness test

Outside the ban states, the core question is whether the restraint is reasonable. The wording varies, but most states ask three things, often stated as in New York's BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg (1999) and Ohio's Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975):

• Is the restraint no greater than needed to protect a legitimate interest of the employer?
• Does it impose an undue hardship on the employee?
• Does it injure the public?

Courts generally accept trade secrets, confidential information and customer relationships or goodwill as legitimate interests, and many reject a bare wish to avoid ordinary competition. Kansas, for example, says a desire to avoid ordinary competition is not a protectable interest, and Nebraska protects an employer against unfair competition by a former employee, not ordinary competition. Alabama's statute adds that job skills alone are not a protectable interest.

Several states write presumptions into statute. Alabama and Georgia presume two years or less reasonable, Arkansas presumes two years reasonable, Idaho presumes 18 months or less reasonable and bars a longer restriction unless the worker receives consideration beyond employment or continued employment, and Florida presumes a post-employment restraint of 6 months or less reasonable and one longer than 2 years unreasonable unless it rests on trade secrets. Tennessee presumes a time restraint over 2 years unreasonable for an employee. Some states cap length outright: Massachusetts at 12 months (2 years in limited cases), Oregon at 12 months, Utah at one year, and Louisiana and South Dakota at two years.

Who carries the burden matters. In Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri, the party seeking enforcement carries the burden of proving the covenant valid or reasonable, Georgia requires the employer to plead and prove a legitimate business interest, and Wyoming's courts treat a pre-2025 non-compete as prima facie invalid until the employer proves each term reasonable.

What happens to an overbroad non-compete: blue pencil, reformation or void

When a court finds a non-compete too broad, states take one of three approaches. This is often the most important difference between neighboring states.

Reformation (the court rewrites it). The court narrows the covenant to something reasonable and enforces that. Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Nevada and Texas require it by statute. Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan and Tennessee permit it by statute, and courts in Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Vermont can enforce a reasonable part. Alaska's courts narrow a covenant unless the employer did not draft it in good faith, and New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island condition narrowing on the employer's good faith.

Blue pencil (the court can only strike). The court may cross out a severable unreasonable term but will not add or rewrite words. Arizona and Indiana follow this approach, and North Carolina enforces only a separable part that is reasonable on its own.

All or nothing (the covenant fails). Nebraska, South Carolina and Wisconsin will not trim an overbroad covenant; it fails entirely. Wisconsin's statute says so expressly: a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is void even as to any part that would be a reasonable restraint (Wis. Stat. 103.465). Wyoming's Hassler v. Circle C Resources (2022) holds that courts will not rewrite an unreasonable pre-2025 covenant. West Virginia voids a covenant that is unreasonable on its face but can narrow a facially reasonable one.

Delaware does not fit neatly into one group. Its courts have discretion to blue-pencil and have used it where the covenant was specifically negotiated, valuable consideration was exchanged for it, or it came with the sale of a business. In Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson (2024), the state Supreme Court affirmed a refusal to blue-pencil facially unreasonable covenants that lacked those hallmarks and declined to set a bright-line rule.

A clause in the contract inviting the court to rewrite it does not always work. Nebraska courts have refused to narrow a covenant even when the contract asked them to (CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman, 1994), and the North Carolina Supreme Court did the same for a covenant signed in a sale of businesses (Beverage Systems of the Carolinas v. Associated Beverage Repair, 2016).

Consideration: signing a non-compete after you start

A non-compete is a contract, so the employee must get something in return. Signing at hiring usually settles that question. Signing after the job has started is where states split.

Continued employment is enough in Arkansas, Iowa, Ohio (Lake Land Employment Group v. Columber, 2004) and Vermont. South Dakota required no additional consideration for a mid-job covenant because its statute allows the agreement at any time during employment, and Wisconsin treats an employer's forbearance from firing an at-will employee as lawful consideration (Runzheimer International v. Friedlen, 2015). In Kansas, continued employment is not disregarded as a matter of law, and whether it is enough is ordinarily a question of fact.

Something new is required in Kentucky (Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 2014), North Carolina (a raise, bonus, promotion or added training, under Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Associates, 2009), South Carolina (Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, 2001) and Washington (independent consideration, by statute and under Labriola v. Pollard Group, 2004). Massachusetts requires consideration beyond continued employment for a current employee.

Notice, review periods and garden leave

A growing number of states require the employer to tell a worker about a non-compete early, or to pay during the restriction.

• Before the offer is accepted: Colorado (a separate, signed notice), Maine (disclosure before the offer that a non-compete will be required), New Hampshire (a copy before the offer is accepted) and Washington (written terms by the time the offer is accepted).
• Fixed review periods: Illinois requires at least 14 calendar days to review plus written advice to consult a lawyer; Florida's CHOICE Act requires a covered agreement to be given at least 7 days before the offer expires, with written advice of the right to counsel (Fla. Stat. 542.45); the District of Columbia requires the agreement at least 14 days before the job starts or before a current employee must sign; Colorado requires 14 days for a current worker; Massachusetts requires the agreement by the earlier of a formal offer or 10 business days before the start date (10 business days before it takes effect for a current employee), with a statement that the employee may consult a lawyer; Maine requires a copy at least 3 business days before signing; Oregon requires the non-compete in a written job offer at least two weeks before the first day.
• Pay during the restriction: Massachusetts requires garden leave of at least 50% of the employee's highest annualized base salary in the prior 2 years, or other agreed consideration specified in the agreement. Oregon lets an employer enforce a covenant against a worker below its threshold for up to 12 months only if it agrees in writing to pay 50% of pay or 50% of the adjusted threshold, whichever is greater. Washington, until June 30, 2027, requires base-salary pay during enforcement after a layoff.

The other state pages note where their research found no notice or garden-leave rule.

Fired, laid off or quit: does it matter?

In several states, a non-compete applies whether the worker quits or is fired. Alabama, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wisconsin draw no statutory line, and in Michigan the Court of Appeals let an employer enforce a covenant after firing an employee without cause (Coates v. Bastian Brothers, 2007), relying on the clause's own wording.

Other states protect workers who lose their jobs:

• Massachusetts: a non-compete cannot be enforced against an employee terminated without cause or laid off.
• Virginia: for agreements entered into, amended or renewed on or after July 1, 2026, a non-compete is unenforceable against an employee fired without cause unless the employer provides severance or other monetary payment disclosed at signing.
• Montana: under Wrigg (2011), an employer normally lacks a legitimate business interest when it chooses to end the employment, unless the employee's misconduct supplies one.
• Nevada: after a reduction in force, reorganization or similar restructuring, a non-compete is enforceable only while the employer keeps paying salary, benefits or equivalent compensation.
• Washington: until June 30, 2027, a laid-off worker's covenant is void unless the employer pays base salary during enforcement, minus later earnings.
• Mississippi: a non-compete will not be enforced when the employer fired the employee in bad faith (Empiregas, 1992).
• Health care: physician rules in Connecticut, Indiana (a physician non-compete originally entered into from July 1, 2020 is unenforceable if the employer ends the job without cause), Texas (a physician's medical non-compete is void if the physician is involuntarily discharged without good cause) and West Virginia, and Pennsylvania's rule for covered practitioners, turn on whether the employer ended the job.

A severance agreement can carry its own non-compete terms. For how severance works, see severance pay laws by state. Whether the firing itself was lawful is a separate question; see at-will employment laws by state.

Non-solicitation agreements, NDAs and trade secrets

A non-solicitation clause bars contacting the employer's customers or recruiting its employees; it does not bar working for a competitor. Many states treat it more leniently than a non-compete, but not all:

• Treated more leniently: Minnesota's ban does not reach customer non-solicits or confidentiality agreements, and Oklahoma's statute leaves standing a bar on directly soliciting established customers. Alabama presumes a customer non-solicit reasonable for 18 months, Missouri conclusively presumes a covered covenant not to solicit or hire the employer's employees reasonable at one year or less (RSMo 431.202), and Kansas presumes an employee's customer non-solicit enforceable when limited to material-contact customers and two years (K.S.A. 50-163).
• Pay floors of their own: Illinois requires earnings over $45,000 for a non-solicit, and Colorado requires at least 60% of its highly compensated threshold.
• Treated like non-competes: North Dakota voids customer non-solicitation clauses (Warner & Co. v. Solberg, 2001), Wisconsin applies its non-compete statute to employee non-solicitation provisions (Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018), and Hawaii voids employee non-solicits for technology-business employees.

The state pages generally treat confidentiality agreements and NDAs as allowed when they protect confidential information; Nevada's statute expressly allows them if supported by valuable consideration and reasonable in scope and duration (NRS 613.200). South Carolina treats a confidentiality clause so broad that it works like a non-compete as one (Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, 2017).

A non-compete is a contract term; trade-secret protection is a separate body of law that does not depend on one (see trade secret laws by state). Each state page links that state's trade secret guide.

Choice-of-law and forum clauses

Employers sometimes try to escape a strict state's law by choosing another state's law or courts in the contract. Many states block that:

• California: an employer may not require an employee who primarily lives and works in California to litigate a California claim elsewhere or give up California law, for contracts from January 1, 2017 (Cal. Lab. Code 925), and a void non-compete is unenforceable regardless of where it was signed.
• Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Washington have statutes keeping their own law or courts for workers based there.
• Louisiana voids a choice-of-law or choice-of-forum clause in an employee's contract unless the employee ratifies it after the dispute arises.
• North Dakota and South Carolina courts have refused to let a chosen state's law save a covenant their law would void, and New Jersey courts apply New Jersey public policy even under another state's law.
• North Carolina voids a clause requiring a lawsuit or arbitration in another state unless all parties agree to it when the dispute arises (N.C. Gen. Stat. 22B-3).

What an employer risks: penalties and fee-shifting

In most states, the worst outcome for an employer is losing the lawsuit. A growing group of states adds penalties or makes the employer pay the worker's legal fees:

• California: a worker can sue an employer that tries to enforce a void non-compete for an injunction, actual damages or both, recovering attorney's fees and costs on winning (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600.5).
• Colorado: an employer that enters into, presents or tries to enforce a void covenant is liable for actual damages and a $5,000 penalty per worker harmed, which a court may reduce or waive for good faith, and a worker who sues can also recover reasonable costs and attorney fees.
• Washington: violations carry the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 penalty, plus attorneys' fees, and the Attorney General and workers can both enforce.
• District of Columbia: $500 to $1,000 per violation for requiring or requesting a banned non-compete, not less than $1,500 for an attempt to enforce a void one, and attorneys' fees for an employee who prevails in a civil action (D.C. Code 32-581.04, 32-1308).
• Illinois: the Attorney General can sue over a pattern and practice of violations for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, or $10,000 per repeat violation within 5 years, with each affected worker counted separately (820 ILCS 90/30).
• Virginia: a covered worker can sue within two years for damages and attorney fees, and the Commissioner of Labor and Industry can impose a $10,000 civil penalty per violation.
• Maine: a fine of not less than $5,000 may be adjudged.
• Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada and Utah: the employee can recover attorney's fees in the situations each statute describes. Utah also makes an employer that tries and fails to enforce a covenant liable for the employee's actual damages.

Recent and upcoming changes

This list collects every dated change the state pages record. Many of these laws apply only to agreements signed, renewed or amended on or after the effective date, so an older agreement may still be governed by the earlier rule.

In effect since 2025

• Illinois: the Freedom to Work Act's rules for construction employees (Public Act 103-921) and for mental health services to veterans and first responders (Public Act 103-915) took effect January 1, 2025.
• Pennsylvania: the Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (Act 74 of 2024) took effect January 1, 2025.
• Louisiana: physician caps (Acts 2024, No. 273) took effect January 1, 2025.
• Oregon: SB 951 voided most medical licensee non-competes effective June 9, 2025; HB 3410, effective July 24, 2025, extended that rule to agreements entered into before, on or after June 9, 2025.
• Florida: the CHOICE Act took effect July 1, 2025.
• Indiana: the physician-hospital ban (SEA 475) took effect July 1, 2025.
• Kansas: SB 241 amended the non-solicitation statute, K.S.A. 50-163; the statute's history line shows July 1, 2025.
• Maryland: the health care rules (2024 ch. 378) apply to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.
• Virginia: overtime-eligible workers joined the low-wage ban for agreements from July 1, 2025 (Acts 2025 ch. 585).
• Wyoming: the near-total ban (SF 107) applies to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025.
• Arkansas: the physician ban (Act 232 of 2025) took effect August 5, 2025.
• Colorado: the health care carve-out (SB 25-083) applies to covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025.
• New Hampshire: the APRN protection (SB 172) took effect August 23, 2025.
• Texas: physician, dentist, nurse and physician assistant limits (SB 1318) apply to covenants entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025.

In effect in 2026

• Montana: HB 620 extended MCA 28-2-724 to physicians of all specialties for contracts made or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.
• Utah: the healthcare worker ban (H.B. 270) and veterinarian rules (S.B. 111) took effect May 6, 2026.
• Iowa: HF 2254, signed June 2, 2026, directs the Board of Regents to adopt a policy barring non-compete clauses in University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics contracts with physicians, nurses, pharmacists and physician assistants.
• Tennessee: the $70,000 rule (Public Chapter 934) took effect July 1, 2026, for agreements entered into, renewed or amended on or after that date. See our news report on Tennessee's $70,000 non-compete law.
• Virginia: SB 170's firing-without-cause rule and the health care ban (HB 627 and SB 128) apply to covered agreements from July 1, 2026. See Virginia's SB 170 non-compete law and Virginia's health care non-compete ban.
• Vermont: 21 V.S.A. 495q (Act 177 of 2026) voids health care provider practice restrictions in agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2026.
• South Dakota: SB 153 makes restrictions on community services providers voidable in contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2026.
• New Hampshire: the physician associate protection (SB 402) took effect July 7, 2026, for new contracts and renewals.
• Maine: Public Law 2025, chapter 718 (LD 2200), took effect July 29, 2026, for agreements entered into or renewed on or after that date. See our report on Maine's health care non-compete law.
• Louisiana: Act 150 of 2026 barred non-competes for apprentices and certain student interns effective August 1, 2026; the act does not say it reaches agreements signed earlier.
• California: AB 1697, an urgency law effective September 30, 2026, delayed AB 692's stay-or-pay limits.
• Maryland: the architect provision (2026 ch. 301) took effect October 1, 2026, for agreements executed on or after that date.

Coming up

• December 19, 2026, New York: the Trapped at Work Act takes effect, barring employers from requiring an "employment promissory note" that makes an employee pay if the job ends before a stated time, subject to its exceptions. It is not a non-compete law.
• January 1, 2027, California: AB 692's limits on stay-or-pay and training-repayment terms apply to contracts entered into on or after this date (AB 1697), with damages of at least $5,000 per worker under Lab. Code 926.
• January 1, 2027, Illinois: the pay floors rise to $80,000 (non-compete) and $47,500 (non-solicit).
• January 1, 2027, District of Columbia: the indexed thresholds reset when DOES publishes new figures.
• January 1, 2027, Maine: Public Law 2025, chapter 738 amends the rule delaying when a non-compete takes effect (one year of employment or six months from signing) with physician-only wording that the Revisor marks as conflicting with chapter 718.
• 2027 figures: Colorado, Oregon, Virginia and Washington publish new yearly figures; Washington's 2027 numbers govern only until June 29, 2027.
• June 30, 2027, Washington: all noncompetition covenants become void and unenforceable, regardless of when they were signed (Laws of 2026 ch. 149).
• July 1, 2027, Nebraska: LB 921's ban on non-competes in health care staffing agency contracts becomes operative.
• October 1, 2027, Washington: employers must have made reasonable efforts to notify, in writing, current and former employees and independent contractors whose covenants are still within their term that those covenants are void.

Bills that passed one chamber (not law)

• New York: S9759 / A10023, a broad ban with a $500,000 pay exception and no pay exception for health related professionals, passed the Senate 40-21 on June 3, 2026, and was in the Assembly Labor Committee as of October 6, 2026. Governor Hochul vetoed the only comprehensive ban to pass both houses, S3100-A, on December 22, 2023.
• Rhode Island: S 2160, which would void non-competes unless annualized earnings exceed $125,000, passed the Senate March 31, 2026, with no House action as of October 8, 2026.
• South Carolina: H.4767, a physician non-compete ban, passed the House March 26, 2026, and was residing in the Senate as of October 8, 2026.
• Pennsylvania: HB 2558, barring broadcast non-competes, passed the House July 1, 2026, and was in the Senate Labor and Industry Committee as of October 8, 2026.

Many more bills sit in committee, including in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina and Ohio. Each state page lists them with the last action found.

If you have been asked to sign, or are being held to one

Whether a particular non-compete can be enforced depends on its exact words, the state whose law applies, when it was signed, your pay and job, and how the job ended. This page cannot answer that for a specific agreement. These are the questions the state pages help you work through:

1. Which state's law applies? Check where you live and work and whether the state limits out-of-state choice-of-law clauses.
2. When was it signed, renewed or amended? Many 2025 and 2026 laws reach only newer agreements.
3. Does your pay or job classification put you under a threshold or a profession rule?
4. Did you get any required notice, review time or separate consideration?
5. What would a court in your state do with an overbroad term: rewrite it, strike it, or throw out the whole covenant?
6. Is the clause really a non-compete, or a non-solicit, NDA or repayment clause with its own rules?

For a specific agreement, a lawyer licensed in the state whose law applies can review it against those points.

Related

• Severance pay laws by state
• Trade secret laws by state
• At-will employment laws by state
• California non-compete laws
• Texas non-compete laws
• Florida non-compete laws
• Washington non-compete laws

Disclaimer: This guide is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers the federal FTC rule and its removal, FTC case-by-case enforcement, NLRB General Counsel memos and pending federal bills, and summarizes the non-compete laws of the 50 states and the District of Columbia as verified October 8-9, 2026. Non-compete law is changing quickly, and many rules depend on when an agreement was signed. For advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in the state whose law applies.

Last updated: October 9, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable?

It depends on the state. A few states void nearly all employee non-competes (such as California under Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 and Minnesota under Minn. Stat. 181.988), many ban them below a pay line or for health care workers, and the rest enforce them only if a court finds them reasonable.

Is there a federal ban on non-competes?

No. The FTC's rule was set aside on August 20, 2024 in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, the FTC voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals, and the rule was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.

Which states ban non-competes?

California, Minnesota (agreements from July 1, 2023), North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming (contracts from July 1, 2025, with exceptions) void nearly all employee non-competes. Washington will void all of them starting June 30, 2027 under Laws of 2026 ch. 149.

Which states have a salary threshold for non-competes?

Among them: Colorado ($130,014 in 2026), the District of Columbia (ban below $162,164 in 2026), Illinois (earnings must exceed $75,000, rising to $80,000 on January 1, 2027), Oregon ($119,541 in 2026), Tennessee (void under $70,000), Virginia (under $1,507.01 a week in 2026, or entitled to federal overtime pay for agreements from July 1, 2025) and Washington ($126,858.83 in 2026). Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire and Rhode Island use formulas tied to the poverty level or minimum wage.

Can a non-compete be enforced if I was fired?

In several states it can, but some states limit it. Massachusetts bars enforcement against employees terminated without cause or laid off (M.G.L. c. 149, 24L), and for agreements from July 1, 2026 Virginia bars it after a firing without cause unless the employer pays severance or other money disclosed at signing (Va. Code 40.1-28.7:8).

Are non-competes for doctors legal?

It depends on the state. Some states void physician non-competes (such as Arkansas and Delaware, and Wyoming for agreements between physicians), some cap them (Texas at one year and five miles for covenants from September 1, 2025; West Virginia at one year and 30 road miles), and others apply the general reasonableness test.

How long can a non-compete last?

There is no national limit. Some states cap length by statute, such as Massachusetts and Oregon at 12 months and Utah at one year, and others presume a period reasonable, such as two years or less in Alabama and Georgia or 18 months or less in Idaho.

Is a non-solicitation agreement the same as a non-compete?

No. A non-solicit bars contacting customers or recruiting co-workers rather than working for a competitor, and many states treat it more leniently; Minnesota's ban does not reach customer non-solicits. But some states restrict them too, such as North Dakota, which treats customer non-solicits as void restraints of trade.

What happens if a non-compete is too broad?

That depends on the state. Texas, Florida and Arkansas require courts to narrow it, Arizona and Indiana only strike severable terms, and Nebraska, South Carolina and Wisconsin will not trim it, so the covenant fails.

Does the FTC still do anything about non-competes?

Yes, case by case. It approved a final order against Gateway Services in November 2025, approved a final order in the Rollins matter on June 22, 2026, and has sent warning letters to employers. These actions target particular companies and do not change any state's law.