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

Idaho enforces a non-compete signed by a key employee or key independent contractor if it is in writing, reasonable in length, territory and the type of work it restricts, and no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. That rule comes from Idaho Code § 44-2701, the first section of a four-section chapter the Legislature added in 2008 (Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 to 44-2704).

The statute presumes that a restriction of 18 months or less is reasonable, and a restriction longer than 18 months is allowed only when the worker receives something beyond the job itself. When a covenant goes too far, an Idaho court must narrow it and enforce the narrowed version. 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 Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 to 44-2704, Idaho's statute on post-employment non-competes for key employees and key independent contractors, the Idaho Supreme Court's earlier reasonableness test in Freiburger v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. (2005), and recent Idaho bills, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Idaho trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Idaho severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Idaho?

Yes, for the workers the statute covers, if the agreement is reasonable. Idaho Code § 44-2701 reads:

"A key employee or key independent contractor may enter into a written agreement or covenant that protects the employer's legitimate business interests and prohibits the key employee or key independent contractor from engaging in employment or a line of business that is in direct competition with the employer's business after termination of employment, and the same shall be enforceable, if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, type of employment or line of business, and does not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests." Idaho Code § 44-2701

The statute requires a written agreement. Chapter 27 contains no rule requiring advance notice before signing, advice to consult a lawyer, or garden-leave pay during the restricted period.

Idaho does not void non-competes as a group. The statute instead authorizes enforceable covenants for key employees and key independent contractors and sets presumptions that make it easier to judge whether a given restriction is reasonable.

Who counts as a key employee in Idaho

The statute defines the term by what the worker gained on the job, not by title. Under Idaho Code § 44-2702:

"'Key employees' and 'key independent contractors' shall include those employees or independent contractors who, by reason of the employer's investment of time, money, trust, exposure to the public, or exposure to technologies, intellectual property, business plans, business processes and methods of operation, customers, vendors or other business relationships during the course of employment, have gained a high level of inside knowledge, influence, credibility, notoriety, fame, reputation or public persona as a representative or spokesperson of the employer and, as a result, have the ability to harm or threaten an employer's legitimate business interests."

The same section lists "legitimate business interests" to include, among others, goodwill, technologies, intellectual property, business plans and methods of operation, customers and customer lists, referral sources, vendors, financial and marketing information, and trade secrets as defined in chapter 8 of title 48.

The top 5 percent presumption

Idaho sets no salary threshold. Instead, Idaho Code § 44-2704(5) creates a rebuttable presumption that a worker among the highest paid 5 percent of the employer's employees or independent contractors is a key employee or key independent contractor. To rebut it, the worker must show that it "has no ability to adversely affect the employer's legitimate business interests."

That presumption is a starting point, not an automatic label. A worker outside the top 5 percent may still meet the § 44-2702 definition, and a worker inside it may rebut the presumption.

How long an Idaho non-compete can last, and other presumptions

Idaho Code § 44-2704 sets four rebuttable presumptions and one firm limit on duration:

The 18-month figure is not a flat cap. The statute's wording is:

"Under no circumstances shall a provision of such agreement or covenant, as set forth herein, establish a postemployment restriction of direct competition that exceeds a period of eighteen (18) months from the time of the key employee's or key independent contractor's termination unless consideration, in addition to employment or continued employment, is given to a key employee or key independent contractor." Idaho Code § 44-2704(1)

In other words, getting or keeping the job is not enough to support a restriction longer than 18 months; the worker must receive additional consideration.

What an Idaho court does with an overbroad non-compete

Idaho courts reform rather than discard. Idaho Code § 44-2703 provides:

"To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court shall limit or modify the agreement or covenant as it shall determine necessary to reflect the intent of the parties and render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement or covenant as limited or modified."

The word "shall" makes modification mandatory for covenants within the chapter. A court that finds a territory or time period too broad narrows it and then enforces the narrower restriction.

The pre-2008 test: Freiburger v. J-U-B Engineers

Before the statute, the Idaho Supreme Court applied a common-law reasonableness test. In Freiburger v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc., 141 Idaho 415, 111 P.3d 100 (2005), the court affirmed that an employee's covenant covering the firm's clients was unreasonable and greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. It stated the test this way:

"a covenant not to compete is reasonable only if the covenant: (1) is not greater than is necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate business interest; (2) is not unduly harsh and oppressive to the employee; and (3) is not injurious to the public."

In that case, the trial court had declined to strike the offending language because doing so would have required rewriting the covenant. Freiburger predates chapter 27, and § 44-2703 now directs courts to modify an unreasonable covenant within the chapter rather than refuse to enforce it.

Fired or quit: does it matter in Idaho?

Chapter 27 draws no distinction between a worker who resigns and one who is let go. The 18-month period in § 44-2704(1) runs "from the time of the key employee's or key independent contractor's termination," whatever the reason for the departure. Our research did not find an Idaho court decision addressing whether being fired affects enforcement. For Idaho's general rule on ending employment, see Idaho at-will employment laws.

Non-solicits, confidentiality agreements and trade secrets

Chapter 27 addresses covenants against direct competition after employment. It does not mention customer non-solicitation, no-poach or confidentiality agreements by name, and this page states no Idaho rule for them.

The statute also leaves other protections in place. Section 44-2704(1) says: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit a party's ability to otherwise protect trade secrets or other information deemed proprietary or confidential." Trade-secret protection is a separate body of law that does not depend on a non-compete; see Idaho trade secret laws.

Penalties, remedies and who enforces Idaho non-competes

No state agency enforces chapter 27. Disputes are private and are decided by the courts.

Chapter 27 itself contains no attorney fee-shifting, damages provision or notice duty. Idaho's general fee statute can still apply: Idaho Code § 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party in a commercial transaction a reasonable attorney fee. In Freiburger, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a fee award under that section to the employee who successfully challenged his covenant and awarded him his fees on appeal.

The side that loses a non-compete lawsuit may therefore be ordered to pay the other side's attorney fees.

Recent and proposed changes in Idaho

The statute pages show chapter 27 was added in 2008 (ch. 295), with § 44-2704 amended in 2016 (ch. 281) and §§ 44-2702 and 44-2704 amended in 2018 (ch. 349). No later amendment appears on those pages.

A scan of the Idaho Legislature's 2024 and 2026 session legislation indexes turned up no bill on employee non-competes. A subject-line scan can miss a bill with an unrevealing title, and 2027 bills were not yet available to check.

The FTC rule and Idaho non-competes

The FTC's nationwide non-compete ban never took effect. A federal court in Texas set the rule 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 drop its appeals, and on February 12, 2026 it removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency still pursues individual employers; on June 22, 2026 it approved a final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. Background: FTC non-compete ban struck down.

What this page does not answer

Our research did not establish Idaho rules on the following, so this page states none:

• how Idaho courts treat a non-compete with a worker who is not a key employee or key independent contractor (chapter 27 speaks only to key workers);
• Idaho court decisions since 2008 applying the key-employee definition, the 5 percent presumption, or the extra-consideration rule;
• any profession-specific rule, such as for physicians or other health care workers, in other titles of the Idaho Code;
• whether an Idaho court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause.

If you have been asked to sign

Under Idaho's statute, the key questions are whether you fit the key-employee definition, whether the time, territory and line-of-business limits track the presumptions in § 44-2704, and whether a restriction longer than 18 months comes with consideration beyond the job. A lawyer licensed in Idaho can review a specific agreement against those points.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Idaho trade secret laws
• Idaho severance pay laws
• Idaho at-will employment laws

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Idaho non-compete law under Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 to 44-2704, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Idaho non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Idaho.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Idaho?

For key employees and key independent contractors, yes, if written and reasonable. Idaho Code § 44-2701 requires reasonable duration, geographic area and type of work, and no greater restraint than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests.

How long can a non-compete last in Idaho?

Idaho Code § 44-2704(2) presumes 18 months or less is reasonable. A restriction longer than 18 months is allowed only if the worker receives consideration beyond employment or continued employment (§ 44-2704(1)).

Who is a key employee under Idaho law?

Idaho Code § 44-2702 covers workers who, through the employer's investment, gained a high level of inside knowledge, influence or public profile that lets them harm the employer's legitimate business interests. The highest paid 5 percent are presumed to qualify, subject to rebuttal (§ 44-2704(5)).

Will an Idaho court throw out an overbroad non-compete?

Not under the statute. Idaho Code § 44-2703 says a court shall limit or modify an unreasonable covenant to make it reasonable and enforce it as modified.

Is there a salary threshold for Idaho non-competes?

No dollar threshold appears in chapter 27. The statute instead presumes the highest paid 5 percent of an employer's workers are key employees (§ 44-2704(5)).

Does it matter if I was fired or quit in Idaho?

Chapter 27 does not distinguish between the two; the 18-month period runs from the worker's termination (§ 44-2704(1)). Our research found no Idaho court decision on the question.

Is Idaho banning non-competes?

No bill has passed. H0486 (2025) would have made most covenants not to compete void, but it was never referred to committee, and no 2024 or 2026 bill on the topic was found.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Idaho?

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.