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

Montana is one of the more restrictive states for non-competes, though it does not void every one. MCA 28-2-703 makes any contract that restrains someone from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business void "to that extent," with statutory exceptions only for selling a business's goodwill and dissolving a partnership. The Montana Supreme Court reads that statute to void full restraints on trade and to enforce a partial restraint on an employee only when it passes a three-part reasonableness test and protects a legitimate business interest.

Two further rules shape most disputes. In Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (2011), the court held that an employer normally lacks that interest when it is the one that ends the job. And MCA 28-2-724 bars post-employment practice restrictions for physicians, nurses and many other licensed health care providers. 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 Montana's restraint-of-trade statutes (MCA 28-2-703 to 28-2-705), the health care provider statute (MCA 28-2-724) as amended by 2025 HB 198 and HB 620, and the Montana Supreme Court's decision in Wrigg v. Junkermier (2011), with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Montana trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Montana severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Montana?

Sometimes, and on narrow terms. The starting point is MCA 28-2-703:

"Any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided for by 28-2-704 or 28-2-705, is to that extent void." MCA 28-2-703

The words "to that extent" matter. Montana courts do not read the statute as voiding every covenant with an employee. In Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 2011 MT 290, 362 Mont. 496, 265 P.3d 646, the Montana Supreme Court explained the line it draws: "We void covenants that act as a full restraint on trade and in absence of an express statutory exception." A partial restraint, one limited in some way, is reviewed for reasonableness instead.

The court also said Montana strongly disfavors covenants not to compete and construes them strictly. A signed covenant is not automatically enforceable as written in Montana, and it is not automatically void either.

The statute quotes on this page match the Montana Code Annotated 2025 text on the Legislature's website, checked in October 2026; see mca.legmt.gov.

The three-part test for a partial restraint

Under Wrigg (paragraph 12, drawing on earlier Montana decisions), a covenant that only partly restrains a worker can be enforced if it meets all three of these conditions:

1. it is limited as to time or place;
2. it is based on some good consideration; and
3. it gives the employer reasonable protection without imposing an unreasonable burden on the employer, the employee or the public.

On top of those three elements, the employer must show a legitimate business interest that the covenant protects. That requirement is where the termination rule below comes from.

A covenant signed at hiring is supported by the job itself. For a covenant signed later, the Montana Supreme Court held in Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez, 2008 MT 4, that an at-will employee's continued employment, with no added job security or other new benefit, did not supply consideration; a raise, a promotion, access to trade secrets or confidential information, or a guaranteed period of continued employment can. Neither MCA 28-2-703 nor Wrigg sets a numeric cap on how long or how far a restriction may reach.

Fired, laid off or not renewed: the Wrigg rule

In Montana, the reason the job ended can decide whether a non-compete is enforceable. In Wrigg, the Montana Supreme Court held:

"We agree that an employer normally lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when it chooses to end the employment relationship."

The court applied that reasoning to an employer's decision not to renew the employment as well as to a termination. Without a legitimate business interest, the covenant is generally unenforceable.

The rule has a stated exception. The court explained that an employee's own conduct can change the analysis: "This employee conduct, or misconduct, could provide the employer with a legitimate business reason to seek to enforce the covenant." So Wrigg does not make a covenant void whenever the employer ends the job; the question becomes whether something the employee did gives the employer a reason to enforce it.

When the employee chooses to leave, the ordinary three-part test and the legitimate-interest requirement apply. For Montana's separate rules on ending employment itself, see Montana at-will employment laws.

Exceptions: selling a business and dissolving a partnership

MCA 28-2-703 expressly yields to two statutes:

The permitted areas under MCA 28-2-704(2) are the city of the business's principal office, the county of its principal office, a city in an adjacent county, any adjacent county, or any combination of those. These exceptions concern sellers and partners, not ordinary employees.

Health care providers: MCA 28-2-724

Montana has a separate statute for health care workers. Under MCA 28-2-724, a contract may not restrict the right of a covered health care provider, after the end of the employment, partnership or other professional relationship, to:

• practice or provide the services for which the provider is licensed, in any geographic area and for any period; or
• treat, advise or solicit the provider's current patients.

The current text of the section covers these licensed providers:

• physicians licensed under Title 37, chapter 3;
• psychologists;
• naturopathic physicians;
• social workers, professional counselors, addiction counselors, marriage and family therapists and behavioral health peer support specialists;
• registered nurses and advanced practice registered nurses; and
• physician assistants.

MCA 28-2-724(3) sets out what the section does not reach: an agreement for the sale and purchase of a practice, and a payback provision for money advanced to a physician, such as a bona fide loan, relocation costs, a signing bonus, education expenses or tuition repayment, where the amount owed decreases over time.

When the health care rules apply

Both 2025 amendments that expanded coverage apply going forward, not to every existing contract:

MCA 28-2-724 was first enacted in 2023 (Ch. 479, Laws of 2023), and before HB 620 its physician entry already covered psychiatrists and addiction medicine physicians licensed under Title 37, chapter 3. HB 620 extended it to physicians of every other specialty for contracts made or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, so a physician in another specialty whose contract predates that date and has not been renewed falls outside the section.

Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements

For covered health care providers, MCA 28-2-724 bars contract terms that stop the provider from soliciting current patients after the relationship ends. Our research did not establish Montana rules for customer non-solicitation, no-poach or confidentiality agreements in other jobs, so this page states none.

A non-compete is also not the only way an employer can protect information. Trade-secret law applies whether or not a worker signed a covenant; see Montana trade secret laws.

Recent changes and what to watch

HB 198 and HB 620 are the 2025 changes that expanded MCA 28-2-724; a third 2025 act, HB 109, only updated the section's license citations for behavioral health professionals. We did not check bills prefiled for Montana's 2027 legislative session; this page will be reviewed when that session's bills are available.

The FTC rule and Montana non-competes

The federal non-compete ban the FTC adopted in 2024 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 on February 12, 2026 the agency removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC still acts against individual employers; on June 22, 2026 it approved a final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing its non-competes. More background: FTC non-compete ban struck down.

What this page does not answer

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

• whether a Montana court will narrow an overbroad covenant or refuse to enforce it entirely;
• whether a Montana court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause;
• penalties or fee-shifting against an employer that tries to enforce a void covenant, or any state agency that handles these disputes.

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

Under Montana law the key questions are whether the restriction is a full or partial restraint, whether it is limited in time or place and backed by a legitimate business interest, who ended the job and why, and whether you are a health care provider covered by MCA 28-2-724 under a contract made or renewed after the 2025 amendments took effect. A lawyer licensed in Montana can review a specific agreement against those points.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Montana non-compete law under MCA 28-2-703 to 28-2-705 and 28-2-724, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Montana non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Montana.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Montana?

Only within limits. MCA 28-2-703 voids restraints on a lawful trade or business to that extent, and the Montana Supreme Court enforces a partial restraint on an employee only if it is limited in time or place, based on good consideration, reasonable to all sides and backed by a legitimate business interest (Wrigg v. Junkermier, 2011 MT 290).

Does Montana ban non-competes?

Not for every worker. Courts void full restraints under MCA 28-2-703 and review partial restraints on employees for reasonableness; the statutory bar on post-employment practice restrictions covers listed health care providers under MCA 28-2-724.

Can a Montana employer enforce a non-compete after firing me?

In Wrigg v. Junkermier (2011), the Montana Supreme Court held that an employer normally lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when it chooses to end the employment, including by non-renewal. Employee misconduct could supply that interest.

Are physician non-competes enforceable in Montana?

For contracts made or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, MCA 28-2-724, as amended by 2025 HB 620, bars restricting a licensed physician of any specialty from practicing after the relationship ends. Sales of a practice and certain decreasing repayment provisions for money advanced to a physician are excepted. Psychiatrists and addiction medicine physicians were already covered under the 2023 version of the section.

Do Montana nurses and physician assistants have non-compete protection?

Yes. 2025 HB 198 added registered nurses, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants and naturopathic physicians to MCA 28-2-724, for contracts made or renewed on or after the act's effective date.

Can a Montana non-compete stop a health care provider from seeing current patients?

For covered health care providers, MCA 28-2-724 bars contract terms restricting the provider from treating, advising or soliciting current patients after the relationship ends.

Is there a salary threshold for Montana non-competes?

None appears in MCA 28-2-703 through 28-2-705 or 28-2-724. Montana's limits turn on the type of restraint, who ended the job and the worker's profession, not pay.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Montana?

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.