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

Nevada enforces non-competes that meet the tests in its statute, NRS 613.195, and voids the rest. A covenant is void and unenforceable unless it is supported by valuable consideration, restrains the worker no more than the employer's protection requires, imposes no undue hardship, and is appropriate in relation to what the worker received for it. On top of those tests, the statute bars non-competes for employees paid solely by the hour, protects workers whose former customers follow them voluntarily, and limits enforcement after a layoff.

Unlike many states, Nevada also tells its courts what to do with a covenant that goes too far: revise it and enforce the revised version. 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 Nevada's non-compete statute (NRS 613.195), the related statute on preventing a former employee from finding work (NRS 613.200), and the Nevada Supreme Court decisions that shape the reasonableness analysis, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Nevada trade secret laws) or severance agreements (see Nevada severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Nevada?

Yes, when they satisfy NRS 613.195(1):

"A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." NRS 613.195(1)

The statute defines a noncompetition covenant, in NRS 613.195(8)(b), as an agreement that, upon termination of the employment, "prohibits the employee from pursuing a similar vocation in competition with or becoming employed by a competitor of the employer."

The statute quotes on this page match the official Nevada Revised Statutes (revised September 9, 2026), whose history line shows the section was added in 2017 and last amended in 2021; the 2025 Legislature did not change it.

How Nevada courts judge reasonableness

The statute's tests build on decades of Nevada Supreme Court decisions. In Hansen v. Edwards, 83 Nev. 189, 426 P.2d 792 (1967), the court held:

"An agreement on the part of an employee not to compete with his employer after termination of the employment is in restraint of trade and will not be enforced in accordance with its terms unless the same are reasonable."

Hansen said a restraint must be no greater than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's business and goodwill and must not impose undue hardship on the employee, and that time and territory are important factors. Later cases show how the court applies those factors:

Hourly employees cannot be bound

NRS 613.195(3) draws Nevada's clearest line:

"A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities."

The test is how the worker is paid, not how much. Nevada has no dollar salary threshold for non-competes. An employee who is salaried, or whose pay is not solely hourly, falls outside this subsection and is judged under the general tests in NRS 613.195(1).

Former customers who follow you

NRS 613.195(2) protects a worker whose customers choose to follow them. A covenant may not restrict, and an employer may not sue to restrict, a former employee from serving a former customer or client if all three of these are true:

1. the employee did not solicit the customer or client;
2. the customer or client voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and
3. the former employee otherwise complies with the covenant's limits on time, geographic area and scope, other than any limit on serving a former customer who seeks the employee out without contact the employee started.

A provision that violates this subsection is void and unenforceable. Whether a pure customer non-solicitation agreement counts as a "noncompetition covenant" under the statute's definition is a question our research did not resolve.

Laid off or restructured out

Nevada's statute addresses one kind of departure directly. Under NRS 613.195(5), if employment ends as the result of a reduction in force, reorganization or similar restructuring, the covenant "is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee's salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including, without limitation, severance pay."

When the payments stop, so does the employer's ability to enforce the covenant. The statute does not set a separate rule for an individual firing, with or without cause, or for an employee who quits; those covenants are judged under the general tests. For Nevada's rules on ending employment, see Nevada at-will employment laws.

What a Nevada court does with an overbroad non-compete

It rewrites the covenant, as long as there was valuable consideration. NRS 613.195(6) provides that when a court finds a covenant supported by valuable consideration but with unreasonable limits on time, geographic area or scope, or a restraint greater than needed, or undue hardship, "the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised." A covenant with no valuable consideration is void under subsection (1) and is not revised.

That is the opposite of Nevada's earlier case law. In Golden Road (2016), the Nevada Supreme Court held the casino host's covenant "wholly unenforceable, as we do not modify or 'blue pencil' contracts." The statute, added the following year, now requires revision; its revision rule took effect on June 3, 2017. In Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 7 (2020), a case involving an agreement signed before that date, the Nevada Supreme Court held that Golden Road does not stop a court from revising an overbroad covenant if the agreement itself allows the court to do so; it left open whether the 2017 statute applies to earlier covenants. Earlier still, in Hansen (1967), the court itself narrowed the restraint it reviewed to Reno and one year, a practice Golden Road later rejected.

Penalties and the employee's attorney fees

Nevada gives the employee a fee award in two situations. Under NRS 613.195(7), if an employer sues to enforce a covenant, or an employee sues to challenge one, and the court finds the covenant was applied to an hourly-only employee or that the employer restricted or tried to restrict a former employee in the way NRS 613.195(2) forbids, the court shall award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs. That subsection does not limit fee awards available under NRS 18.010.

A separate statute, NRS 613.200, targets employers who willfully try to keep a former worker from finding a job:

"Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 613.195, any person ... who willfully does anything intended to prevent any person who for any cause left or was discharged from his, her or its employ from obtaining employment elsewhere in this State is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000." NRS 613.200(1)

NRS 613.200 also allows the Labor Commissioner to impose an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 per violation and to recover costs. There is a limit: NRS 613.195(4) says an employer that negotiates, signs or tries to enforce a covenant that is void under NRS 613.195 does not, by that conduct, violate NRS 613.200.

Confidentiality agreements and trade secrets

NRS 613.200(4) leaves room for confidentiality agreements. It does not prohibit an agreement barring disclosure of trade secrets, business methods, customer lists, secret formulas or processes, or confidential information, as long as the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and reasonable in scope and duration.

Trade-secret law also applies independently of any non-compete; see Nevada trade secret laws. Our research did not establish Nevada rules for employee no-poach clauses.

Physicians and other professions

Nevada courts apply the same reasonableness analysis to doctors. Hansen v. Edwards held that the medical profession is not exempt, and Ellis v. McDaniel (1979) limited a physician covenant to the work the clinic actually did. Our research, a keyword search of Nevada statute text, found no Nevada statute specific to physician or other health care non-competes, though that search was not exhaustive. Rules for other professions were not researched.

The FTC rule and Nevada non-competes

The 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 it removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC still pursues individual employers; on June 22, 2026 it approved a final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing its non-competes. Background: FTC non-compete ban struck down.

What this page does not answer

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

• whether any bill affecting NRS 613.195 is pending for the 2027 session;
• whether continued at-will employment counts as "valuable consideration";
• whether a Nevada court will honor an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause.

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

Under Nevada law the key questions are how you are paid (solely hourly or not), what you received for signing, whether the time, area and type of work restricted go beyond what the employer needs, how your job ended, and whether a customer came to you on their own. A lawyer licensed in Nevada can review a specific agreement against those points.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Nevada non-compete law under NRS 613.195 and NRS 613.200, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Nevada non-compete disputes are decided by the courts, and the Labor Commissioner handles penalties under NRS 613.200; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Nevada.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Nevada?

Yes, if they meet NRS 613.195(1): valuable consideration, no greater restraint than the employer needs, no undue hardship on the employee, and restrictions appropriate in relation to the consideration. A covenant that fails those tests is void and unenforceable.

Can an hourly employee be bound by a non-compete in Nevada?

No. NRS 613.195(3) says a non-compete may not apply to an employee paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of tips or gratuities, and NRS 613.195(7) requires the court to award that employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs if a covenant is applied to them in court.

What happens to a Nevada non-compete if I am laid off?

If employment ends through a reduction in force, reorganization or similar restructuring, NRS 613.195(5) makes the covenant enforceable only while the employer is paying your salary, benefits or equivalent compensation, including severance pay.

Can I keep a client who follows me to a new job in Nevada?

Under NRS 613.195(2), a covenant cannot restrict you from serving a former customer or client if you did not solicit them, they chose voluntarily to leave and seek you out, and you otherwise comply with the covenant's time, area and scope limits.

Will a Nevada court throw out an overbroad non-compete?

Not if it is supported by valuable consideration. NRS 613.195(6) says the court shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce it as revised; a covenant without valuable consideration is void under NRS 613.195(1).

Are physician non-competes enforceable in Nevada?

Nevada courts apply the same reasonableness analysis to physicians; the Nevada Supreme Court said in Hansen v. Edwards (1967) that the medical profession is not exempt. Our research found no Nevada statute specific to physician non-competes.

Is there a salary threshold for Nevada non-competes?

No dollar figure appears in NRS 613.195. The statute's line is pay method: a non-compete may not apply to an employee paid solely by the hour, not counting tips (NRS 613.195(3)).

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Nevada?

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.