Washington Non-Compete Laws (2026): Full Ban Starts June 30, 2027

Washington already voids many non-competes, and it will void all of them on June 30, 2027. Until then, chapter 49.62 RCW makes a noncompetition covenant void unless the worker earns more than a yearly threshold set by the Department of Labor and Industries ($126,858.83 for employees in 2026), the terms were disclosed in writing on time, and other conditions are met. Starting June 30, 2027, under Laws of 2026 ch. 149 (ESHB 1155), "all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant."

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 Washington law on noncompetition covenants for employees and independent contractors under chapter 49.62 RCW, both the version in effect until June 30, 2027 and the version that takes effect that day under Laws of 2026 ch. 149, with a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Washington trade secret laws) or severance pay (see Washington severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Washington?

The answer depends on the date.

The 2027 ban is not limited to new agreements. The statute's words are "regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant," so a covenant signed years ago becomes void on that date too.

The rules in effect until June 30, 2027

Under the current version of RCW 49.62.020, a noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless each of these conditions is met.

1. You earn more than the threshold

For an employee, the covenant is void "unless the employee's earnings from the party seeking enforcement, when annualized, exceed one hundred thousand dollars per year," adjusted every year under RCW 49.62.040. For an independent contractor, the base figure is $250,000, adjusted the same way.

The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) publishes the adjusted figures, which it calculates using the consumer price index for urban wage earners (CPI-W). Each adjusted figure takes effect the following January 1.

Source for every row: L&I non-compete agreements page, read 2026-10-08. L&I had not posted a 2027 figure when we checked.

"Earnings" means the compensation reported in box one of the employee's W-2 (or on a 1099-MISC for a contractor), annualized and measured as of the earlier of the date enforcement is sought or the date of separation.

2. The terms were disclosed in writing on time

The employer must disclose the covenant's terms in writing no later than the time the worker first accepts the offer of employment. If the covenant could become enforceable later because the worker's pay rises past the threshold, the employer must say so specifically. A covenant signed after the job has started must be supported by independent consideration.

The Washington Supreme Court reached the same result on consideration before the statute. In Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., 152 Wash. 2d 828 (2004), it held: "A noncompete agreement entered into after employment has commenced is validly formed only when there is independent consideration at the time the agreement is reached."

3. Pay during enforcement after a layoff

If an employer lays a worker off and still wants to enforce the covenant, it must pay. The covenant is void "If the employee is terminated as the result of a layoff, unless enforcement of the noncompetition covenant includes compensation equivalent to the employee's base salary" at termination for the period of enforcement, minus what the worker earns from later employment.

4. The 18-month presumption

A restriction that lasts more than 18 months after the job ends is presumed unreasonable and unenforceable. The employer can overcome that presumption only by clear and convincing evidence.

5. It must still be reasonable

Meeting the four statutory conditions does not by itself make a covenant enforceable. Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62.090(2) says the chapter "does not revoke, modify, or impede the development of the common law." Under that common law, as the Washington Supreme Court applied it in Perry v. Moran, 109 Wash. 2d 691 (1987), a court asks whether the restraint is necessary to protect the employer's business or goodwill, whether it restrains the worker more than reasonably necessary to do so, and whether the loss of the worker's services to the public is great enough to warrant refusing enforcement. The Attorney General's office says a covenant that is not unlawful under the statute "may still be deemed unlawful under the reasonableness test."

What changes on June 30, 2027

Laws of 2026 ch. 149 (ESHB 1155) rewrites chapter 49.62 RCW. Under the new version:

• Every noncompetition covenant is void, for employees and independent contractors, no matter the pay or the signing date.
• Employers commit a violation if they enforce, attempt to enforce or threaten to enforce a covenant, tell a worker they are bound by one, or enter into or try to enter into one.
• Employers must notify workers. "By October 1, 2027, an employer must make reasonable efforts to provide written notice" to current and former employees and independent contractors whose covenant is still within its term that it is void and unenforceable.
• Forfeiture clauses are covered. The new definition reaches any provision requiring a worker to return, repay or forfeit compensation because the worker engages in a lawful profession, trade or business. It also reaches covenants between performers and performance spaces.
• Education repayment agreements can survive. A written agreement to repay out-of-pocket educational expenses is not a noncompetition covenant if it expires within 18 months of the start date, is prorated, and releases the worker when the separation is for "good cause" under RCW 50.20.050.
• The layoff-pay clause and the court-reformation penalty are gone from the new version, and the dollar thresholds no longer decide whether a non-compete is enforceable, because every covenant is void.
• Pending cases keep the old rules. Under the new RCW 49.62.100, legal proceedings commenced before June 30, 2027 are governed by the chapter as it read before that date; the new versions of RCW 49.62.010, 49.62.020, 49.62.080 and 49.62.090 apply to all proceedings commenced on or after June 30, 2027, regardless of when the cause of action arose.

Washington's Attorney General describes the change this way: "In 2026, the Washington Legislature broadened this statute to ban noncompetition covenants for all Washington-based workers and businesses."

What is not a noncompetition covenant

Both versions of RCW 49.62.010 exclude these from the definition, so neither the current limits nor the 2027 ban voids them:

• a nonsolicitation agreement (defined narrowly, below);
• a confidentiality agreement;
• a covenant prohibiting use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions;
• a covenant by a person buying or selling the goodwill of a business or an ownership interest, but only if the interest is one percent or more; and
• a franchisee's covenant, when the franchise sale complies with RCW 19.100.020(1).

Non-solicitation agreements

Until June 30, 2027. A permitted nonsolicitation agreement bars a departing worker from soliciting the employer's employees or current customers.

From June 30, 2027. The customer part narrows. It may cover current or prospective customers, patients or clients only where the worker established or substantially developed a direct relationship with them through the work, and it must expire no later than 18 months after the job ends. An agreement that bars accepting or transacting business with a customer, rather than soliciting, is not a nonsolicitation agreement, so it falls under the ban.

Franchise no-poach clauses. Under RCW 49.62.060, a franchisor may not restrict a franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees of another franchisee of the same franchisor, or of the franchisor.

Confidentiality and trade-secret covenants stay outside the chapter, and RCW 49.62.090 leaves chapter 19.108 RCW (Washington's trade-secret act) in place. Trade-secret law protects confidential information whether or not you signed anything; see Washington trade secret laws.

Moonlighting: second jobs for lower-paid workers

RCW 49.62.070 bars an employer from restricting an employee who earns less than twice the state minimum hourly wage from taking an additional job, subject to exceptions for safety and scheduling conflicts. The 2026 law did not amend this section. For the current minimum wage, see Washington minimum wage.

Performers

Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62.030(2) limits a covenant between a performer and a performance space, or a third party that schedules performers, to three calendar days. From June 30, 2027, those covenants fall within the general ban.

Broadcasting employees

Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.44.190 adds a separate rule for employees of broadcasting industry employers (television, radio and cable), other than sales or management employees. If such an employee is "terminated without just cause or laid off by action of the employer, the noncompetition agreement is void and unenforceable." The section does not affect agreements entered into before December 31, 2005. Laws of 2026 ch. 149 repeals RCW 49.44.190 effective June 30, 2027, when the general ban covers every worker.

Doctors and other health care workers

Chapter 49.62 RCW contains no rule specific to health care, so physicians and other health care workers are covered by the same chapter as everyone else. Our research did not search other titles of the RCW for a separate health care rule.

Out-of-state courts and choice of law

Employers based elsewhere cannot route a Washington worker's covenant through another state. Under RCW 49.62.050, for a Washington-based employee or independent contractor, a provision is void if it requires the worker to adjudicate the covenant outside Washington, deprives the worker of the chapter's protections, or applies another state's substantive law or choice-of-law rules. The 2026 law did not change this section.

What a court does with an overbroad covenant

Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62.080(3) makes reformation costly for the employer: "If a court or arbitrator reforms, rewrites, modifies, or only partially enforces any noncompetition covenant, the party seeking enforcement must pay the aggrieved person the greater of his or her actual damages or a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars," plus attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. Laws of 2026 ch. 149, sec. 5 deletes that subsection from the version effective June 30, 2027, when every covenant is simply void.

Penalties and how to enforce your rights

A violation of chapter 49.62 RCW exposes the employer to the greater of actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (RCW 49.62.080). Enforcement comes from two directions:

• The Attorney General may pursue relief on behalf of affected people. Its labor and antitrust unit accepts concerns by email through the Attorney General's labor and antitrust page.
• The worker may sue. The pre-2027 version bars suits over covenants signed before January 1, 2020 that are not being enforced or explicitly leveraged. From June 30, 2027, a person aggrieved by any violation of the chapter may sue.

L&I publishes the dollar thresholds, but the statute gives enforcement to the Attorney General and private lawsuits, not to L&I.

Fired versus quit

Until June 30, 2027, the main difference is the layoff rule: a laid-off worker's covenant is void unless the employer pays base salary during enforcement, minus later earnings. The statute writes that pay rule for layoffs only; for a worker who quits or is let go for another reason, the threshold, disclosure and 18-month conditions still apply. Broadcasting employees other than sales or management staff have a stronger rule until then: the covenant is void if they are fired without just cause or laid off (RCW 49.44.190). From June 30, 2027 the reason for leaving no longer matters, because every covenant is void. For when an employer can end a job, see Washington at-will employment laws.

Recent and pending changes

• ESHB 1155 (2025-26), Laws of 2026 ch. 149, enacted. Final passage March 9, 2026; signed by the Governor March 23, 2026; effective June 30, 2027. Bans all noncompetition covenants, broadens the definition, and requires employer notice by October 1, 2027.
• SB 5437 (2025-26), not enacted. The Senate companion's last status entry, on February 26, 2026, was the Senate Rules "X" file.

We did not check bills prefiled for the 2027 session.

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

Before June 30, 2027, the first questions are what you earn from the employer compared with the year's threshold, whether you saw the terms in writing by the time you accepted the offer, whether you were laid off, and how long the restriction runs. From June 30, 2027, the covenant is void by statute, and a non-solicitation or confidentiality clause is judged separately. A lawyer licensed in Washington can review a specific agreement.

Related

• Non-compete laws by state
• Washington trade secret laws
• Washington severance pay laws
• Washington minimum wage
• FTC non-compete ban struck down

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Washington non-compete law under chapter 49.62 RCW, including the changes made by Laws of 2026 ch. 149, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. The Washington Attorney General enforces the chapter; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Washington.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Washington?

Only in limited cases until June 30, 2027, and not at all after that. Until then RCW 49.62.020 voids a covenant unless pay exceeds the L&I threshold and disclosure and other conditions are met; from June 30, 2027 all noncompetition covenants are void regardless of when signed (Laws of 2026 ch. 149).

What is the Washington non-compete salary threshold for 2026?

L&I lists $126,858.83 for employees and $317,147.09 for independent contractors for 2026. The figures adjust each year and take effect January 1.

When does Washington's non-compete ban take effect?

June 30, 2027. ESHB 1155 was signed March 23, 2026 as Laws of 2026 ch. 149, with an effective date of June 30, 2027.

Does the Washington ban apply to non-competes I already signed?

Yes. From June 30, 2027 the statute voids all noncompetition covenants "regardless of when the parties entered into" them, and employers must make reasonable efforts to notify affected workers in writing by October 1, 2027.

Is a non-solicitation agreement still allowed in Washington?

Yes, if it fits the narrow statutory definition. From June 30, 2027 a customer non-solicit may cover only customers the worker developed a direct relationship with and must end within 18 months; a clause barring accepting business is treated as a non-compete.

Is my Washington non-compete void if I was laid off?

Under the rules in effect until June 30, 2027, yes unless the employer pays your base salary during the enforcement period, minus what you earn from later employment (RCW 49.62.020).

Can a Washington employer require me to sue in another state?

No. RCW 49.62.050 voids a provision requiring a Washington-based employee or contractor to litigate the covenant outside Washington or under another state's law.

What are the penalties for an illegal non-compete in Washington?

The greater of actual damages or a $5,000 statutory penalty, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (RCW 49.62.080). The Attorney General may also act for affected workers.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Washington?

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. Washington's own statute governs.