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

South Carolina has no statute that governs employee non-compete agreements, as far as our research found. The rule comes from court decisions. A non-compete is enforceable only if it is reasonable, under the test the South Carolina Supreme Court restated in Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., 345 S.C. 378, 548 S.E.2d 207 (2001), and courts read these covenants strictly against the employer.

The feature that sets South Carolina apart is what happens to a covenant that goes too far. A court will not trim it to something reasonable. It fails entirely. 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 South Carolina's court-made rules for employee non-compete agreements and pending South Carolina bills, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see South Carolina trade secret laws) or severance pay (see South Carolina severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in South Carolina?

Sometimes. In Poole, the South Carolina Supreme Court restated the test from earlier authority:

"A covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is not detrimental to the public interest, ... is reasonably limited as to time and territory, and is supported by valuable consideration." Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., 345 S.C. 378 (2001)

The ellipsis appears in the opinion itself, which quotes the test from a 1960 South Carolina Supreme Court decision. Poole also says these covenants are critically examined and construed against the employer. The South Carolina Court of Appeals put it the same way in an employment case, Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 419 S.C. 622, 799 S.E.2d 318 (Ct. App. 2017): non-competes are generally disfavored and strictly construed against the employer.

Fay also states the test in five parts: the covenant must be necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest, reasonably limited in time and place, not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the employee's efforts to earn a living, reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy, and supported by valuable consideration (citing Rental Uniform Service of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674 (1983)).

How we checked for a statute

We searched our South Carolina statute library and the legislature's 2025-2026 bills for non-compete and covenant terms and found no general statute; the cases we read describe the matter as common law and cite none. We did not read the South Carolina Code title by title, so treat this as what we found rather than a guarantee that no statute exists.

Time, territory and consideration

South Carolina sets no fixed maximum length or distance. The covenant must be "reasonably limited as to time and territory," which courts judge case by case. Fay notes that South Carolina courts have approved multi-year restrictions as reasonable.

A missing term is fatal. In Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc., 366 S.C. 156, 621 S.E.2d 352 (2005), the covenant had no geographic limit at all. The South Carolina Supreme Court held it void as against public policy and refused to add a territory the parties never agreed to. Fay reached the same result for a clause with no reasonable time limit.

A covenant tied to employment must be supported by valuable consideration (Poole). A covenant signed at the start of employment can rest on the at-will job itself. For a covenant signed later, Poole adopted the rule that "separate consideration, in addition to continued at-will employment, is necessary in order for the covenant to be enforceable." Poole signed hers about three and a half years into the job, her duties, position and salary were left unchanged, and the covenant was unenforceable for lack of consideration.

We found no South Carolina income threshold, no exempt-status rule, and no statutory requirement of advance notice, a chance to consult a lawyer, or garden-leave pay.

South Carolina courts will not rewrite an overbroad non-compete

Many states let a judge narrow an unreasonable covenant and enforce the rest. South Carolina does not. In Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 694 S.E.2d 15 (2010), a trial judge had replaced an unreasonable territory with one of his own. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding:

"the restrictions in a non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties' agreement, but must stand or fall on their own terms" Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583 (2010)

Poynter arose from the sale of a business, but the court stated the rule for non-compete clauses generally, and Fay applied it in an employment case. Stonhard adds that a court may not extend a covenant's expiration date as equitable relief.

One question remains open in the decisions we read: whether a court can sever a separate, divisible clause from an otherwise valid agreement. Poynter did not decide it.

Choosing another state's law does not help the employer

A contract may say another state's law governs. Under Stonhard, South Carolina courts may use another state's law to construe the terms, but they will not enforce an agreement that is invalid or contrary to public policy in South Carolina.

That held even where the chosen state allows blue-penciling. In Stonhard the contract chose New Jersey law; in Fay it chose Ohio law. In both, the covenant failed under South Carolina public policy.

Confidentiality clauses and trade secrets

An NDA can be treated as a non-compete. In Fay, nondisclosure provisions that applied "at all times" with no time limit operated as a non-compete. Because they had no reasonable time restriction, they violated South Carolina public policy, and a one-year limit in a different paragraph could not be borrowed to save them.

A promise limited to protecting trade secrets is different: under S.C. Code 39-8-30(D), such a duty is not void or against public policy just because it has no time or geographic limit. Fay drew that line; the clauses there failed because, read together, they barred similar work for any competitor indefinitely. Trade-secret law protects specific confidential information whether or not you signed a non-compete; see South Carolina trade secret laws.

We did not research customer or employee non-solicitation clauses separately for South Carolina, so this page states no rule for them.

Fired or quit, and what a court can award

We found no South Carolina authority that treats a non-compete differently depending on whether the employee was fired or quit. In Stonhard, the covenant applied regardless of the reason for termination and the employees had been fired, but the decision turned on the missing territory, not on how the jobs ended.

There is no statutory penalty against an employer that asks a worker to sign an unenforceable covenant, and no statute shifting attorney fees. Stonhard held that damages cannot be awarded for breach of a covenant that is void.

When an employer seeks a preliminary injunction, Poynter lists the elements: irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits and no adequate remedy at law. The court held there is no separate balancing-of-the-equities step.

Physicians and pending bills

No South Carolina statute currently limits physician non-competes; the same common-law rules apply to doctors. Three bills in the 2025-2026 session would change that or other parts of the law. None is law.

• H.4767, Physician Noncompete Contract Prohibition Act (pending). Would add Chapter 9 to Title 41, making physician non-competes against public policy and void. It would let employers recoup itemized relocation, signing and training costs from physicians who work under three years, allow retention-bonus repayment periods of up to two years, and preserve protection of trade secrets and confidential information. It would apply to contracts or renewals entered into on or after its effective date. The House passed it on third reading March 26, 2026 (58-53), and the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee reported it favorably May 5, 2026. The May 24, 2026 Senate calendar listed it as contested. As of October 8, 2026, the bill page showed no later action and the bill "Currently residing in the Senate."
• S.46, health care contracts (pending). Would void physician contract provisions restricting practice. Introduced January 14, 2025 and referred to the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, with no action since as of October 8, 2026.
• H.3273 (pending). Would void covenants not to compete for nonprofit corporations with annual gross revenue over $1 billion. Referred to the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee January 14, 2025, with no action since.

We found these bills through a search limited to the legislature's website; another non-compete bill could exist.

The federal FTC rule

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 rule was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations effective 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. See FTC non-compete ban struck down and the non-compete laws by state guide.

What this means if you signed one

In South Carolina, the wording of the covenant carries unusual weight: a court reads it strictly against the employer and will not repair a missing or unreasonable term. The factors are the employer's legitimate interest, a reasonable time and territory, whether the restriction is unduly harsh on your ability to earn a living, public policy, and valuable consideration. Whether your employer can end the job at all is a separate question; see South Carolina at-will employment laws. A lawyer licensed in South Carolina can review a specific agreement.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about South Carolina non-compete law, including Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc. and Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. South Carolina non-compete disputes are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in South Carolina.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in South Carolina?

Only if reasonable. Under Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc. (S.C. 2001), a covenant must not harm the public interest, must be reasonably limited in time and territory, and must be supported by valuable consideration. Courts also require that it protect a legitimate employer interest and not be unduly harsh on the worker's ability to earn a living (Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, 2017).

Does South Carolina have a non-compete statute?

We found no general South Carolina statute on employee non-competes; courts apply common law. Bills such as H.4767 (physicians) were pending, not law, as of October 8, 2026.

Will a South Carolina court fix an overbroad non-compete?

No. Under Poynter Investments v. Century Builders (2010), non-compete restrictions cannot be rewritten by a court and must stand or fall on their own terms.

What happens if my non-compete has no geographic limit?

In Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists (2005), the South Carolina Supreme Court held a covenant with no geographic limit void as against public policy and refused to add one.

How long can a non-compete last in South Carolina?

No statute sets a maximum. The covenant must be reasonably limited in time, judged case by case, and South Carolina courts have approved multi-year restrictions as reasonable (Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, 2017).

Does a choice-of-law clause change the result?

Not if the covenant is invalid or against public policy in South Carolina. In Stonhard (New Jersey law) and Fay (Ohio law), covenants failed under South Carolina public policy.

Are physician non-competes banned in South Carolina?

Not yet. H.4767 would void them, but as of October 8, 2026 it had passed the House and was still in the Senate. Common-law rules apply to physicians.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in South Carolina?

No. A federal court set the FTC rule aside on August 20, 2024, and it was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations effective February 12, 2026. South Carolina law governs.