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

Alaska enforces employee non-competes that are reasonable, and it does so through court decisions rather than a statute. The leading case is Data Management, Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988), in which the Alaska Supreme Court held that a court should narrow an overbroad covenant to make it enforceable, unless the employer did not draft it in good faith.

Our research found no Alaska statute that bans or limits employee non-competes, and no salary threshold or fixed maximum length. For how other states treat these agreements, see our non-compete laws by state guide.

Information last verified on 2026-10-08. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Alaska court decisions on covenants not to compete, chiefly Data Management, Inc. v. Greene (1988), and what our search of Alaska statutes and 2025-2026 bills found, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Alaska trade secret laws), severance agreements (see Alaska severance pay laws), or the professional-conduct rules for lawyers.

Are non-competes enforceable in Alaska?

They can be, if they are reasonable. Alaska has no statute addressing employee non-competes that our research could find, so the rules come from the Alaska Supreme Court. In Data Management, the court reviewed a covenant that barred a former employee from competing for five years anywhere in Alaska. It adopted a reasonableness approach, quoting the factors an Ohio court had set out in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), and sent the case back to the trial court to decide whether the employer had acted in good faith and, if so, whether the covenant could be reasonably altered.

No Alaska statute or case our research read sets a fixed maximum length or distance for a non-compete. Some websites say Alaska voids covenants longer than two years; those sources do not support that claim.

What happens to an overbroad non-compete

This is where Alaska's rule is most distinctive. In Data Management, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected two approaches other courts use: the all-or-nothing rule, under which an overbroad covenant is simply void, and the blue-pencil rule, under which a court may only strike words. Instead it adopted this rule:

"if an overbroad covenant not to compete can be reasonably altered to render it enforceable, then the court shall do so unless it determines the covenant was not drafted in good faith. The burden of proving that the covenant was drafted in good faith is on the employer." Data Management, Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988)

Two points follow from that language. First, an overbroad covenant is not automatically thrown out; the court is directed to alter it if it reasonably can. Second, the employer has to prove it drafted the covenant in good faith, and a covenant the court finds was not drafted in good faith does not get rewritten.

How Alaska courts read the words of a covenant

A later case shows how literally the court reads a covenant's terms. Dominic Wenzell, D.M.D. P.C. v. Ingrim, 228 P.3d 103 (Alaska 2010), involved a covenant signed in the sale of a dental practice, not an employment non-compete. The Alaska Supreme Court held that the covenant barred only practice in competition with the buyer's clinic, and that "practice of dentistry" took its common industry meaning, so working at the Alaska Native Medical Center counted as practicing dentistry. It vacated summary judgment and sent the case back.

Because Wenzell concerned the sale of a business, it says nothing about when an employee covenant is enforceable. It is useful only for how Alaska courts construe the language of a covenant.

Customer restrictions and unwritten agreements

In Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356 (Alaska 1996), the Alaska Supreme Court considered an employee whose job was selling real estate and who had allegedly agreed not to deal with the firm's customer list after leaving. It held that a restraint limited to the employer's customers, rather than a blanket ban on competing, is judged by a less stringent reasonableness test and is not unenforceable merely because it has no geographic or time limit.

The court also held that an oral promise not to deal with those customers for an unlimited time is not barred by the statute of frauds, so that agreement could be enforced although it was not in writing. It sent the case back because the parties disputed whether the agreement existed and what its terms were.

Alaska statutes and pending bills

Our research found no Alaska statute declaring any category of employee non-compete void. That finding rests on keyword searches of the Alaska Statutes in our corpus, retrieved July 31, 2026, which are title-oriented, so it is a search result rather than a section-by-section confirmation.

Alaska does have a general restraint-of-trade statute. AS 45.50.562, as retrieved July 31, 2026, provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is unlawful." Our research did not find an Alaska case applying that antitrust provision to an employee non-compete, so this page does not treat it as the rule for employee covenants.

We found no non-compete bill in the 34th Legislature (2025-2026). The legislature's subject indexes for employment, labor, business, contracts, physicians, health care providers, competition and restraint of trade showed none by short title, which is a weak negative. One web listing named an Alaska "HB 949" as a 2026 non-compete bill; the legislature's site reports no bill HB 949 in the 34th Legislature. Bills prefiled for 2027 were not checked.

Physicians and other professionals

We found no Alaska statute aimed at physician or other health-care non-competes; the 34th Legislature's subject lists for physicians and health care providers showed no such bill. Our research did not identify any Alaska case setting a separate rule for physicians, and it did not review the professional-conduct rule that applies to lawyers. This page states no profession-specific rule.

The FTC rule and Alaska non-competes

The FTC's nationwide non-compete rule never took effect. A federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024 (Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, N.D. Tex.), the FTC voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals, and the FTC removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The FTC still acts case by case; on June 22, 2026 it approved a final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. More detail: FTC non-compete ban struck down and our non-compete laws by state guide.

Non-competes and trade secrets

A non-compete is a contract term; trade-secret protection is a separate body of law that does not depend on one. See Alaska trade secret laws.

Questions this page does not answer yet

Our research did not verify Alaska rules on the following, so this page states no rule on any of them:

• whether continued employment is enough consideration for a non-compete signed after the job began;
• whether being fired or laid off affects enforcement (for the state's at-will rule, see Alaska at-will employment laws);
• whether an Alaska court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause;
• separate rules for confidentiality agreements.

We did not identify a state agency that handles non-compete complaints; disputes are decided by the courts.

If you have been asked to sign

Because Alaska courts test reasonableness and will narrow an overbroad covenant if the employer drafted it in good faith, whether a particular agreement holds up depends on its length, territory, the work it restricts and how it was drafted. A lawyer licensed in Alaska can review a specific agreement against those points.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Alaska trade secret laws
• Alaska severance pay laws
• Alaska at-will employment laws
• FTC non-compete ban struck down

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Alaska non-compete law under Data Management, Inc. v. Greene (1988) and related Alaska Supreme Court decisions, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Alaska non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Alaska.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Alaska?

They can be, if reasonable. Alaska's rule comes from court decisions, chiefly Data Management, Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988); our research found no Alaska statute banning employee non-competes.

Will an Alaska court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Under Data Management (1988), a court shall reasonably alter an overbroad covenant to make it enforceable, unless it finds the covenant was not drafted in good faith.

Who has to prove good faith in an Alaska non-compete case?

The employer. Data Management, Inc. v. Greene (1988) places the burden of proving the covenant was drafted in good faith on the employer.

Is there a maximum length for non-competes in Alaska?

No fixed maximum appears in any Alaska statute or case our research read. Claims that Alaska voids non-competes longer than two years are not supported by those sources.

Is there a salary threshold for Alaska non-competes?

Our research found none. No Alaska statute or case it read sets an income threshold for employee non-competes.

Did Alaska pass a non-compete ban in 2025 or 2026?

We found no non-compete bill in the 34th Legislature (2025-2026), and the legislature's site reports no bill HB 949 in that legislature.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Alaska?

No. A federal court set the FTC rule aside on August 20, 2024, and the FTC removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.