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

Wisconsin enforces a non-compete only if its restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the employer, under Wis. Stat. 103.465. The statute is unusually strict about the consequence: a covenant that imposes an unreasonable restraint is void in its entirety, including any part that would have been reasonable on its own.

Wisconsin has no salary threshold and no ban for any profession. A 2025 bill to limit non-competes for medical practitioners failed in March 2026. 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 Wisconsin law on employee non-compete and related restrictive covenants: Wis. Stat. 103.465 and the court decisions applying it, plus a short note on the federal FTC rule. It does not cover trade-secret claims (see Wisconsin trade secret laws) or severance pay (see Wisconsin severance pay laws).

Are non-competes enforceable in Wisconsin?

Yes, but only if they pass the statutory reasonableness test, and only in full. Section 103.465 provides:

"A covenant by an assistant, servant or agent not to compete with his or her employer or principal during the term of the employment or agency, or after the termination of that employment or agency, within a specified territory and during a specified time is lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal. Any covenant, described in this section, imposing an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint." Wis. Stat. 103.465

The first sentence sets the test. The second sets the penalty for failing it, which is what separates Wisconsin from most states. The statute's history ends with 2015 Wisconsin Act 197; the legislature's current statute page shows no later amendment.

The five requirements Wisconsin courts apply

In Chuck Wagon Catering, Inc. v. Raduege, 88 Wis. 2d 740, 277 N.W.2d 787 (1979), the Wisconsin Supreme Court listed five requirements a covenant must meet. It must:

• be necessary for the protection of the employer;
• provide a reasonable time limit;
• provide a reasonable territorial limit;
• not be unreasonable as to the employee; and
• not be unreasonable as to the public.

A covenant that fails any one of these is an unreasonable restraint under the statute. The statute's own wording assumes "a specified territory" and "a specified time." In Equity Enterprises, Inc. v. Milosch, 2001 WI App 186, the court of appeals held void a clause with no territorial limit ("Without any specified territory, section 5.1 is void"). A limit tied to a list of customers can stand in for a geographic territory: in Farm Credit Services of North Central Wisconsin v. Wysocki, 2001 WI 51, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a covenant narrowly tailored to a customer list was not per se invalid.

No blue pencil: one bad term can sink the whole covenant

Many states let a judge trim an overbroad non-compete down to something reasonable. Section 103.465 does the opposite: an unreasonable covenant is void "even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint."

Wisconsin courts have applied the rule this way:

• In Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brass, 2001 WI App 92, the court of appeals held that no part of an indivisible covenant is given effect if another part is unreasonable, even a part that would be reasonable alone.
• In Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the customer and confidentiality clauses in one agreement were "divisible from the business clause and enforceable on their own terms," even though the business clause was overbroad. A reasonable clause can survive next to an unreasonable one only if the two are truly separate covenants.
• In that case, a clause barring contact with "past customers" (those who bought within one year before termination) was reasonable and enforceable, while a clause barring any business "substantially similar to or in competition with" the employer was unreasonable and unenforceable.
• In H&R Block Eastern Enterprises v. Swenson, 2008 WI App 3, a clause that extended the restriction "by any period(s) of violations" made the covenant void.

Consideration: signing a non-compete after you start

Wisconsin does not require a raise or bonus for a non-compete signed mid-job, but the covenant still needs consideration. In Runzheimer International, Ltd. v. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an employer's forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at-will employee is lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant. The court added that if an employer fired the employee shortly after the signing, contract principles such as fraudulent inducement or good faith and fair dealing would keep the covenant from being enforced.

Earlier, in NBZ, Inc. v. Pilarski, 185 Wis. 2d 827 (Ct. App. 1994), a covenant signed mid-job lacked consideration because the employer neither conditioned continued employment on signing nor promised anything in exchange; Runzheimer describes that holding as limited to those facts. For when an employer can end the job in the first place, see Wisconsin at-will employment laws.

Fired versus quit

Section 103.465 applies the same test whether the employer fired you or you quit; it draws no distinction between them for general employees. The failed 2025 medical practitioner bills, described below, would have voided a practitioner's covenant when the employer ends the employment for any reason. They did not become law.

No income threshold and no profession carve-outs

Wisconsin has no income or job-classification threshold for non-competes. Section 103.465 contains none, and it has no notice, right-to-counsel, garden-leave or duration-cap requirement.

There is also no enacted rule for physicians, nurses or other health care workers. Their non-competes are judged under the same five requirements as anyone else's.

Non-solicits, no-hire deals and NDAs

Wisconsin's statute and courts reach beyond the classic non-compete:

• Employee non-solicits. In Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that 103.465 governed a provision barring a former employee from soliciting co-workers to leave and that the provision was unenforceable. A concurring opinion cautioned that not every employee non-solicitation provision necessarily falls under the statute.
• Customer non-solicits. Star Direct (2009) upheld a ban on contacting past customers with a one-year lookback, as described above.
• Agreements between employers. In Heyde Cos. v. Dove Healthcare, LLC, 2002 WI 131, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a no-hire provision agreed to by two employers, which restricted the employment opportunities of employees without their knowledge and consent, was an unreasonable restraint of trade under 103.465.
• Confidentiality agreements. In Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99 (1998), the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied 103.465 to a non-disclosure provision, saying it "would be an exercise in semantics" to ignore the statute because the clause was not labeled a covenant not to compete.

Trade-secret protection is separate from any covenant: it protects qualifying confidential information whether or not you signed a non-compete. See Wisconsin trade secret laws.

Franchise agreements

In H&R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. v. Vorpahl, 255 F. Supp. 2d 930 (2003), a federal trial court found that, "under these facts," a tax-preparation franchisee was not an "assistant, servant or agent" under 103.465, so the franchise agreement's covenants were judged under the common law instead. It is not a Wisconsin appellate decision.

Penalties, remedies and enforcement

The remedy in 103.465 is that an unreasonable covenant is void. In Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 210 Wis. 2d 51, 565 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1997), the court of appeals held that the section "sets out its own remedy," which is not an automatic wrongful discharge claim. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a contract claim for wrongful discharge cannot be maintained where an at-will employee is fired for failing to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement (Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 579 N.W.2d 217 (1998)). Refusing to sign can cost an at-will job even if the covenant would later be held void.

Section 103.465 does not name a state agency to enforce it, and our research did not identify one. Non-compete disputes in Wisconsin are decided by the courts.

We did not research how Wisconsin courts treat a clause choosing another state's law or requiring suit in another state's courts. If your agreement has one, a lawyer can tell you how it is likely to be treated.

Recent and pending changes

• 2025 Assembly Bill 675, failed. AB 675 would have voided a covenant by a medical practitioner (advanced practice registered nurses, advanced practice nurse prescribers, physicians, physician assistants and psychologists) if it barred practice for more than 24 consecutive months after the first day of employment, or if the employer terminated the employment for any reason. It was introduced November 19, 2025, had a hearing January 7, 2026, and on March 23, 2026 "Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1."
• 2025 Assembly Bill 567, failed. AB 567 would have made most non-competes illegal, void and unenforceable after employment ends, with exceptions for certain nondisclosure agreements and covenants protecting customer lists or intellectual property. It was introduced October 24, 2025 and on March 23, 2026 "Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1."
• 2025 Senate Bill 657, failed. The companion bill received a 4-1 recommendation for passage from the Senate health committee on February 10, 2026, then failed to pass under Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026.

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

Under 103.465, the question is whether every restraint in the covenant is reasonably necessary to protect the employer, measured by the five requirements above. Because one unreasonable restraint can void an indivisible covenant, the exact wording of time, territory and activity limits matters more in Wisconsin than in most states. A lawyer licensed in Wisconsin can review a specific agreement.

Related

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

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Wisconsin non-compete law under Wis. Stat. 103.465, not legal advice. The information was last verified on 2026-10-08. Non-compete disputes in Wisconsin are decided by the courts; for advice about a specific agreement, contact a legal aid office or a lawyer licensed in Wisconsin.

Last updated: 2026-10-08.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in Wisconsin?

Only if every restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the employer. Under Wis. Stat. 103.465, a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is void, even as to any part that would be reasonable on its own.

Will a Wisconsin court rewrite an overbroad non-compete?

No. Section 103.465 makes an unreasonable covenant void and unenforceable as a whole; only truly separate covenants protecting different interests can be enforced independently (Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76).

Is there a salary threshold for non-competes in Wisconsin?

No. Wis. Stat. 103.465 sets no income or job-classification threshold.

Did Wisconsin ban non-competes for doctors or nurses?

No. 2025 AB 675 and SB 657 would have limited medical practitioner non-competes, but both failed to pass on March 23, 2026.

Can my employer make me sign a non-compete after I start in Wisconsin?

Usually yes. In Runzheimer International v. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an employer's forbearance from firing an at-will employee is lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant. A covenant signed mid-job can lack consideration if the employer neither conditions continued employment on signing nor promises anything in exchange (NBZ, Inc. v. Pilarski, 185 Wis. 2d 827 (Ct. App. 1994)), and an at-will employee fired for refusing to sign has no wrongful discharge claim (Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 1998).

Does it matter if I was fired instead of quitting?

Section 103.465 applies the same reasonableness test either way; Wisconsin has no statute that voids a non-compete because the employer ended the job.

Does 103.465 apply to non-solicitation agreements?

It can. In Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that 103.465 governed a provision barring a former employee from soliciting co-workers to leave, and that the provision was unenforceable; a concurring opinion cautioned that not every employee non-solicitation provision necessarily falls under the statute.

Does the FTC non-compete ban apply in Wisconsin?

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. Wisconsin law governs.