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

New Hampshire enforces a non-compete only if it is reasonable, and two statutes take whole groups of workers out of that test. A non-compete with a low-wage employee, defined as one who earns an hourly rate of no more than 200 percent of the federal minimum wage, is void (RSA 275:70-a). A new hire who was not given a copy of the non-compete before accepting the job offer cannot have it enforced against them (RSA 275:70). Separate statutes void post-employment practice restrictions for physicians, nurses, advanced practice registered nurses, podiatrists and physician associates.

For everyone else, the New Hampshire Supreme Court applies a three-part reasonableness test and construes restraints narrowly (Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005)). 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 New Hampshire law on employee non-compete agreements: RSA 275:70 and 275:70-a, the health-profession statutes, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's reasonableness test, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see New Hampshire trade secret laws), severance pay (see New Hampshire severance pay laws), or covenants made in the sale of a business.

Are non-competes enforceable in New Hampshire?

It depends on who signed it and how. New Hampshire has no statute that bans non-competes for all workers. It has two employee statutes and five health-profession statutes, and the courts' reasonableness test covers everything those laws do not.

The low-wage worker ban (RSA 275:70-a)

RSA 275:70-a, in effect since September 8, 2019, provides that "a noncompete agreement entered into between an employer and a low-wage employee shall be void and unenforceable." The same section also provides that "no employer shall require a low-wage employee to enter into a noncompete agreement." The statute lists no exceptions to that rule.

The definition controls who is covered: "'Low-wage employee' means an employee who earns an hourly rate less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage." The statute states no dollar figure; it defines the line by reference to the federal minimum wage. It also speaks only of an hourly rate. We did not find a primary source explaining how the definition applies to a salaried employee, so a salaried worker near the line should have a lawyer look at the question.

New hires must get a copy before accepting the offer (RSA 275:70)

RSA 275:70 has applied since July 14, 2012 (amended in 2014). It requires "any employer who requires an employee who has not previously been employed by the employer to execute a noncompete agreement as a condition of employment" to "provide a copy of such agreement to the potential employee prior to the employee's acceptance of an offer of employment."

The consequence is limited. A non-compete that was not disclosed as required "shall not be enforceable against the employee," but every other provision of the employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret or intellectual property agreement "shall remain in full force and effect." The statute imposes no fine and no fee award; its only consequence is that the non-compete cannot be enforced.

The text covers employees who have not previously worked for the employer. It does not say what applies when a current employee is asked to sign a non-compete in the middle of the job, so for that situation the court decisions below control.

Health care professionals

Five statutes void the part of a contract that restricts a licensed professional's right to practice "in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship" (the physician statute's wording). Each voids only that restriction; the rest of the contract survives. Each applies only to new contracts or renewals entered into on or after its effective date.

The physician associate statute says it plainly: "The requirements of this section shall apply only to new contracts or renewals of contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this section." A physician associate whose contract was signed before July 7, 2026 and has not been renewed falls under the reasonableness test instead.

Before the physician statute, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held in Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440 (1997), that physician non-competes were not void per se. It held the covenant enforceable as to the practice's existing patients but not as to new patients, because the practice had no legitimate interest in patients the doctor had never had contact with. RSA 329:31-a now voids the geographic restriction for physician contracts made or renewed on or after August 5, 2016.

We scanned the RSA by section title for other professions (dentists, veterinarians, psychologists and others) and found no similar section, but a title scan can miss a provision, so this page does not state that those professions have no protection.

The reasonableness test for everyone else

The New Hampshire Supreme Court states the test in three questions:

"first, whether the restriction is greater than necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer; second, whether the restriction imposes an undue hardship upon the employee; and third, whether the restriction is injurious to the public interest. If any of these questions is answered in the affirmative, the restriction in question is unreasonable and unenforceable." Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005)

The court starts from skepticism. "The law does not look with favor upon contracts in restraint of trade or competition," it wrote in Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007), and such covenants are narrowly construed.

The cases show where covenants go too far:

• Customers the employee never served. In Merrimack Valley, a covenant reaching all of the company's roughly 1,200 customers was overbroad when the salesman had dealt with about 60. In Syncom, a customer non-solicit covering every customer in any territory the company served was broader than necessary.
• Geography beyond the employee's contacts. In Technical Aid Corp. v. Allen, 134 N.H. 1 (1991), the court said the geographic reach should generally match the area of the employee's client contact, and held a 100-mile no-compete and a ban on serving any of the employer's customers broader than necessary.
• Duration. No New Hampshire statute caps how long a non-compete may last; courts judge duration case by case.

What a court does with an overbroad non-compete

A New Hampshire court can rewrite an unreasonable covenant only in limited circumstances. In Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a court may reform or partially enforce an unreasonable covenant only if the employer proves it acted in good faith in the execution of the contract. Merrimack Valley and Syncom repeat that rule.

Timing matters to that showing. In Smith, Batchelder, covenants first presented after the employees were hired, without full understanding, failed it. In Merrimack Valley, the court affirmed a refusal to reform a covenant presented about six months into the job, and said good faith and advance notice are "not one and the same."

A court can also cut out a separate, unenforceable paragraph and enforce the rest. In Technical Aid, the court severed one paragraph and enforced the others, because the employer's conduct did not amount to serious misconduct (applying Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 184).

Signing after you start work

Continued employment after signing counts as consideration for a covenant, according to Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster (1979). That does not settle enforceability. A covenant introduced after hiring still has to pass the reasonableness test, and if it is too broad, the late timing can stop the employer from getting the court to narrow it.

If you are fired or laid off

We did not find a New Hampshire statute or Supreme Court decision that treats a fired or laid-off employee differently from one who quits. The covenants in Technical Aid and Syncom applied however employment ended, and neither opinion turned on a firing. Whether a firing affects the hardship analysis in a particular case is a question for a lawyer licensed in New Hampshire. For how New Hampshire employment ends in general, see New Hampshire at-will employment laws.

Non-solicits, confidentiality agreements and trade secrets

New Hampshire courts apply the same three-part test to customer non-solicitation clauses; Syncom held one overbroad. RSA 275:70 speaks only of a "noncompete agreement," and we found no primary source deciding whether a customer non-solicit counts for the pre-offer copy rule.

Confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade-secret and IP assignment provisions are a different matter. RSA 275:70 expressly keeps them in force even when the non-compete cannot be enforced. Trade-secret protection does not depend on a non-compete at all; see New Hampshire trade secret laws.

Remedies and where disputes go

RSA 275:70 and 275:70-a make covered agreements unenforceable; neither text provides a penalty or an award of attorney's fees. An employer that obtains an injunction it was not entitled to can owe damages: in Merrimack Valley, the court affirmed wrongful-injunction damages against the employer after a restraining order had been issued without a bond.

This page does not identify a state agency complaint process for non-compete disputes, because we could not confirm one; the disputes discussed here were decided in court. We also did not verify any New Hampshire rule on out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clauses in non-competes.

Recent and pending New Hampshire bills

Bill status below comes from the General Court's official bill dockets.

• SB 402 (2026), enacted: signed May 8, 2026 as Chapter 55, effective July 7, 2026. It created RSA 328-D:20, voiding post-employment geographic practice restrictions for physician associates in new contracts or renewals on or after that date.
• SB 172 (2025), enacted: signed June 24, 2025 as Chapter 119, effective August 23, 2025. It created RSA 326-B:45-b for advanced practice registered nurses.
• HB 1188 (2026), died: would have amended the low-wage statute, RSA 275:70-a. A House committee majority found it inexpedient to legislate, 11-9, on February 10, 2026, and the bill died when the session ended.
• HB 386 (2025), died: would have barred nursing agencies from non-competes with health care entities. It died on the table when the session ended.

We could not check bills prefiled for the 2027 session.

The FTC rule and New Hampshire

The FTC's nationwide non-compete ban 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 drop its appeals, and it removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. The agency still acts against particular employers, as in a June 22, 2026 final order requiring a pest-control company to stop enforcing non-competes. Details: FTC non-compete ban struck down.

If you have been asked to sign

Check the two statutory questions first: whether your hourly rate is at or below 200 percent of the federal minimum wage, and, if you are a new hire, whether you received a copy before you accepted the offer. If neither statute applies, the covenant's reach (which customers, what area, how long) is measured against the Merrimack Valley test. A lawyer licensed in New Hampshire can review a specific agreement.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about New Hampshire non-compete law, including RSA 275:70, RSA 275:70-a, the health-profession statutes and the reasonableness test in Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. For advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in New Hampshire.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in New Hampshire?

Sometimes. They are void for low-wage employees (RSA 275:70-a), unenforceable against a new hire who did not get a copy before accepting the offer (RSA 275:70), and otherwise enforced only if reasonable under Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near (2005).

What is a low-wage employee under New Hampshire's non-compete law?

An employee who earns an hourly rate less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage (RSA 275:70-a). The statute gives no dollar figure; it ties the line to the federal minimum wage.

Does my employer have to show me the non-compete before I accept the job?

If you had not worked for the employer before and the non-compete is a condition of employment, yes: RSA 275:70 requires a copy before you accept the offer, or the non-compete cannot be enforced against you.

Are non-competes for doctors and nurses banned in New Hampshire?

Post-employment geographic practice restrictions are void for physicians (RSA 329:31-a), nurses (RSA 326-B:45-a), APRNs (RSA 326-B:45-b), podiatrists (RSA 315:18) and physician associates (RSA 328-D:20), for contracts made or renewed on or after each law's effective date.

Can a New Hampshire court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

Only if the employer shows it acted in good faith when the covenant was signed (Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 1979). Courts have refused to reform covenants presented after the employee started work.

Is a non-compete signed after I started the job valid in New Hampshire?

Continued employment counts as consideration (Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 1979), but the covenant must still be reasonable, and a covenant presented months into the job was not narrowed when it proved too broad (Merrimack Valley, 2005).

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in New Hampshire?

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, so New Hampshire law governs.