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

Hawaii enforces employee non-competes that are reasonable, with one statutory exception: employees of a technology business. Under HRS 480-4(d), a noncompete or nonsolicit clause in an employment contract with a technology-business employee is "void and of no force and effect." For other workers, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113 (1976), applies a rule of reason.

Hawaii also has an unusual worker protection: under HRS 607-14.9, in a lawsuit over the interpretation or enforcement of an agreement restricting an employee from competing or working for a competitor, an employee or former employee who prevails "shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs." For how other states compare, 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 Hawaii law on employee covenants not to compete: HRS 480-4 (restraints of trade, including the technology-business ban), HRS 607-14.9 (attorneys' fees), and Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger (1976), with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Hawaii trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Hawaii severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Hawaii?

For most workers, they can be, if reasonable. Hawaii's starting point is its restraint-of-trade statute. HRS 480-4(a) provides that "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the State ... is illegal." Subsection (c) then lists covenants that are lawful, including, in (c)(4), an employee's covenant not to use the employer's trade secrets "within such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal, without imposing undue hardship on the employee or agent."

In Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113, 551 P.2d 163 (1976), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that "the restrictive covenants and agreements enumerated under § 480-4(c) were not meant to be exclusive in their respective fields." Other post-employment covenants are therefore not automatically illegal; a court decides, as a matter of law, whether each one is reasonable.

Under that rule of reason, a covenant is invalid if it is greater than needed to protect the employer, imposes undue hardship on the employee, or is outweighed by injury to the public. The court looks at the covenant's geographic scope, its length and its breadth. In Technicolor, the court held the three-year covenant before it allowable. The case predates the 2015 technology-business ban.

Technology-business employees: non-competes are void

Since July 1, 2015, when Act 158 took effect, HRS 480-4(d) has carved out technology businesses. It provides:

"Except as provided in subsection (c)(4), it shall be prohibited to include a noncompete clause or a nonsolicit clause in any employment contract relating to an employee of a technology business. The clause shall be void and of no force and effect."

The statute defines its terms narrowly, so whether the ban reaches a worker depends on the definitions in HRS 480-4(d):

Two points follow from the text. First, the test is about the employer's business, not the employee's job title. Second, the (c)(4) trade-secret covenant survives the ban, so a technology-business employee can still be bound not to use the employer's trade secrets for a reasonable time.

Act 158 (HB1090 CD1) was approved on June 26, 2015 and took effect July 1, 2015. The Act says it "does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date"; it does not say expressly whether the ban reaches agreements signed before that date.

Attorneys' fees for employees who win

HRS 607-14.9, enacted in 1992, applies to any civil action over an agreement that restricts an employee from competing with an employer or working for a competitor, not only to technology businesses. It provides that "any employee or former employee who prevails shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs."

The statute runs one way: it gives a fee award to a prevailing employee or former employee, and it is mandatory ("shall be awarded"). Separately, HRS 480-13(a) lets any person injured in their business or property by anything chapter 480 forbids sue for the greater of $1,000 or three times their damages, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs, or sue to stop the practice. Section 480-4(d) is in chapter 480, but this page does not state whether a Hawaii court has applied 480-13 to an employee bound by a prohibited technology-business clause, and the Hawaii Supreme Court in Technicolor expressly left open when a party to a restraint can recover damages for it.

Customer non-solicits and confidentiality agreements

The technology-business ban covers "nonsolicit clauses," but the statute defines that term as a clause barring solicitation of the employer's employees. On the statute's text, a customer non-solicitation clause is outside the ban and is judged, like other covenants, under the rule of reason. HRS 480-4 does not address confidentiality agreements other than the (c)(4) trade-secret covenant.

Other covenants HRS 480-4(c) allows

Besides the trade-secret covenant, HRS 480-4(c)(1) to (3) lists other lawful covenants, including a seller's covenant not to compete when selling a business, a withdrawing partner's covenant, and covenants between a lessor and lessee about use of property. These covenants must be ancillary to a legitimate purpose; the sale-of-business and partner covenants must also be limited to a reasonable area and a reasonable period of time; and all of them remain lawful only "unless the effect thereof may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly."

Physicians and other professions

Our research found no Hawaii statute that voids physician or other health-care non-competes. That finding rests on the statutes read and a scan of 2025 and 2026 bill listings, not a search of every HRS chapter, so it is a weak negative.

Pending bill: SB1161 (restaurants and retail)

SB1161, "Relating to Non-Compete Clauses," would prohibit non-compete and non-solicit clauses in employment contracts for employees of restaurants and retail stores. It was introduced on January 17, 2025, and on December 8, 2025 it was carried over to the 2026 Regular Session. As of October 8, 2026, the legislature's bill page showed no 2026 action. It is not law.

Our scan of the legislature's 2025 and 2026 bill listings found no other non-compete bill. Bills prefiled for 2027 were not checked.

What our research could not confirm

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

• whether a Hawaii court will narrow (blue-pencil or reform) an overbroad covenant rather than refuse to enforce it;
• whether being fired or laid off affects enforcement (for the state's at-will rule, see Hawaii at-will employment laws);
• whether a Hawaii court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause;
• any salary threshold, notice period or consideration rule for non-competes (none appears in HRS 480-4 or 607-14.9).

We did not identify a state agency that handles non-compete complaints; disputes go to the courts.

The FTC rule and Hawaii 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. Hawaii law therefore supplies the rule. More detail: FTC non-compete ban struck down and our non-compete laws by state guide.

Non-competes and trade secrets

Hawaii ties the two together: the trade-secret covenant in HRS 480-4(c)(4) is the one restriction the technology-business ban leaves in place. Trade-secret law itself is a separate body of law; see Hawaii trade secret laws.

If you have been asked to sign

Whether a Hawaii non-compete holds up depends first on whether the employer is a technology business under HRS 480-4(d), and otherwise on the covenant's territory, length and breadth under the Technicolor rule of reason. A lawyer licensed in Hawaii can review a specific agreement against those points.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Hawaii non-compete law under HRS 480-4, HRS 607-14.9 and Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger (1976), not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Hawaii non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Hawaii.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Hawaii?

For most workers, they can be if reasonable under the rule of reason in Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger (1976). For employees of a technology business, HRS 480-4(d) makes them void.

Does Hawaii ban non-competes for tech workers?

Yes, if the employer is a technology business, meaning it earns the majority of its gross income from its software or information technology development. HRS 480-4(d) voids noncompete and nonsolicit clauses in those employment contracts, except a trade-secret covenant.

Can a Hawaii tech company still stop me from using its trade secrets?

The ban in HRS 480-4(d) expressly excepts the 480-4(c)(4) covenant not to use the employer's trade secrets for a reasonably necessary time without undue hardship.

Who pays attorneys' fees in a Hawaii non-compete lawsuit?

Under HRS 607-14.9, an employee or former employee who prevails shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The statute does not give the employer a matching right.

Does Hawaii ban customer non-solicitation clauses?

Not by statute. The technology-business ban covers clauses barring solicitation of the employer's employees; customer non-solicits are judged under the rule of reason.

Are physician non-competes banned in Hawaii?

Our research found no Hawaii statute voiding physician non-competes; the 2015 law (Act 158) covers technology businesses only.

Did Hawaii ban non-competes for restaurant and retail workers?

No. SB1161 would do that, but it was carried over to the 2026 session with no 2026 action shown, so it is not law.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Hawaii?

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.