Non-Compete & Non-Solicit Enforceability, State by State
A non-compete that survives review in Texas can be dead on arrival in California. This cheat sheet covers non-compete and non-solicit enforceability in all 50 states plus DC — the controlling statute, income thresholds, duration caps, and whether courts blue-pencil or void overreaching language. Legal Chain’s AI applies this same state-aware logic automatically, flagging unenforceable restrictive covenants before you send a contract.
Not legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify current statute text or consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction. Data current as of August 2026.
Why non-compete enforceability depends entirely on jurisdiction
There is no federal non-compete standard. The FTC’s 2024 rule banning non-competes nationwide was struck down in court and remains blocked on appeal, so enforceability is governed state by state — and the gap between states is wide. A clause that’s presumptively reasonable in Florida can trigger a $5,000 statutory penalty in Colorado and be void the moment an employee starts working in California.
Full-ban states
California, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming treat virtually all employee non-competes as void. California and Minnesota go further, voiding out-of-state choice-of-law clauses designed to route around the ban.
Threshold-ban states
Colorado, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington only allow non-competes above a set income line — usually with mandatory advance notice.
Non-compete law by state: the full lookup
Filter by enforceability category or search a state name. Each row lists the controlling statute, the income threshold or duration cap if one applies, and a plain-language summary.
| State | Status | Key statute | Threshold / cap | Snapshot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Reasonableness | Ala. Code §8-1-190 | ~2 yrs presumed reasonable | Non-competes are allowed if reasonable in time, geography, and scope; the statute treats sale-of-business agreements differently from employment agreements. |
| Alaska | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | Courts apply a reasonableness standard and will blue-pencil overreaching clauses; the agreement must protect a legitimate business interest beyond ordinary competition. |
| Arizona | Reasonableness | A.R.S. §23-494 (broadcast carve-out) | Case-by-case | General non-competes follow a reasonableness test; broadcast-industry non-competes are void by statute. Courts blue-pencil overbroad terms. |
| Arkansas | Reasonableness | Ark. Code §4-75-101 | Case-by-case | Requires reasonableness in duration, geography, and scope plus valid consideration; overreaching clauses are blue-penciled rather than voided outright. |
| California | Banned | Bus. & Prof. Code §16600; SB 699 / AB 1076 | Void — 3 narrow exceptions | Virtually all employment non-competes are void, including ones signed out of state if the employee later works in California. Employers must proactively notify affected workers or face statutory damages and fee-shifting. |
| Colorado | Threshold | C.R.S. §8-2-113 | ~$127,091 (2026) / 14-day notice | Only highly-compensated workers can be bound, and only for trade-secret protection; violations carry a $5,000 per-worker statutory penalty. Non-solicit thresholds run lower — roughly 60% of the non-compete floor. |
| Connecticut | Reasonableness | Conn. Gen. Stat. ch. 370, §20-14p (healthcare) | Physicians: 1 yr / 15 mi | General reasonableness test applies; physician non-competes are capped by statute at one year and 15 miles. |
| Delaware | Reasonableness | 6 Del. Code §2707 (physicians void) | Case-by-case | Physician non-competes are void by statute; other workers face a reasonableness review on duration, geography, and business interest, with blue-penciling favored over voiding. |
| District of Columbia | Threshold | DC Code §32-581.01 | ~$162,000 (2026) — highest in the U.S. | Non-competes are void below the income line, and employers must disclose the agreement in writing before signing. |
| Florida | Reasonableness | Fla. Stat. §542.335 | 2 yrs presumed reasonable (sales) | One of the most employer-friendly states — courts cannot weigh harm to the employee when deciding enforceability, and overbroad clauses are trimmed, not voided. |
| Georgia | Reasonableness | O.C.G.A. §13-8-50 et seq. | Case-by-case | The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act explicitly authorizes courts to blue-pencil duration, geography, or scope down to a reasonable level. |
| Hawaii | Reasonableness | Haw. Rev. Stat. §480-4 (tech carve-out) | Case-by-case | Technology-industry non-competes are void by statute (a 2015 startup-economy carve-out); other workers face the standard reasonableness test. |
| Idaho | Reasonableness | Idaho Code §44-2701 | Case-by-case | A 2018 amendment repealed several employee-protective provisions; current law leans employer-friendly under a reasonableness standard. |
| Illinois | Threshold | Illinois Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90 | $75,000 (indexed) / 14-day review | Void below the wage floor; workers must get a 14-day review period, and continued at-will employment alone is not adequate consideration. |
| Indiana | Reasonableness | Ind. Code tit. 25, art. 22.5, ch. 5.5 (physicians) | Case-by-case | Physician non-competes are banned by a 2020 statute; other workers are governed by common-law reasonableness review. |
| Iowa | Reasonableness | HF 2254 (2026, UIHC clinicians) | Case-by-case | General reasonableness test applies; recent legislation bars non-competes for University of Iowa Health Care physicians, PAs, and nurses, layered on an earlier healthcare-worker statute. |
| Kansas | Reasonableness | Weber v. Tillman (Kan. 1996) | Case-by-case | Requires meaningful consideration at signing under common law; courts blue-pencil overreaching duration or geography. |
| Kentucky | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | Duration, geography, and restricted activities must all be reasonable; reform bills have been introduced but not enacted. |
| Louisiana | Reasonableness | La. R.S. 23:921 | Max 2 yrs, named parishes | Strict format rules apply — the agreement must list the specific parishes covered and cannot exceed two years, or it’s void for non-compliance. |
| Maine | Threshold | 26 M.R.S. §599-A | ~$64,000 (400% federal poverty line) / 3-day notice | Void below the income floor; a 2026 amendment adds sharp restrictions on healthcare-worker non-competes specifically. |
| Maryland | Threshold | Md. Lab. & Empl. Code §3-716 | ~$46,800 (15× minimum wage) | Void below the wage floor; a 2024 amendment extended the ban to certain healthcare and veterinary practitioners. |
| Massachusetts | Threshold | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §24L | 12 mo. cap, FLSA-exempt only | Limited to FLSA-exempt workers, with mandatory garden-leave pay or other agreed consideration; healthcare and student workers are categorically exempt. |
| Michigan | Reasonableness | MCL §445.774a | Case-by-case | Requires reasonableness in duration, geography, and restricted work; reform bills have been introduced repeatedly without passing. |
| Minnesota | Banned | Minn. Stat. §181.988 | Void (agreements from 7/1/2023 on) | Every employment non-compete is void with no executive carve-out and no income floor; out-of-state choice-of-law clauses meant to dodge the ban are also voided. |
| Mississippi | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | No statutory reform to date; courts weigh duration, geography, scope, and the underlying business interest directly. |
| Missouri | Reasonableness | Mo. Rev. Stat. §431.202 | Case-by-case | Requires a legitimate business interest beyond ordinary competition; recent reform proposals have stalled. |
| Montana | Banned | Mont. Code §28-2-703 | Void — narrow exceptions | Broadly prohibits employee non-competes with limited exceptions for business sales and partnership dissolutions; healthcare non-competes are separately voided by statute. |
| Nebraska | Reasonableness | Mertz v. Pharmacists Mutual (Neb. 2004) | Case-by-case | No statutory ban, but courts apply unusually strict construction and will void an overreaching clause entirely rather than trim it. |
| Nevada | Threshold | NRS 613.195 | Hourly workers exempt | Void for hourly workers and for anyone terminated without cause; salaried employees are still subject to a reasonableness test. |
| New Hampshire | Reasonableness | RSA 275:70; SB 402 (physician associates) | Case-by-case | Employers must disclose the non-compete before the worker accepts the offer or before any pay change, or the agreement is void; physician associates are exempt entirely since July 2026. |
| New Jersey | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | Governed by court-made reasonableness review; a near-total ban has been proposed repeatedly (most recently S1407) but has not passed. |
| New Mexico | Reasonableness | NM Stat §24A-4-3 (healthcare void) | Case-by-case | Healthcare-worker non-competes are void by statute; other workers face a common-law reasonableness test on duration, scope, and protectable interest. |
| New York | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | Non-competes remain enforceable under a court reasonableness test; statewide ban attempts in 2023 and 2024 both stalled. Healthcare workers face added statutory restrictions. |
| North Carolina | Reasonableness | N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-4 | Case-by-case | Applies a strict reasonableness test; courts will strike offending provisions but generally won’t rewrite a clause to make it enforceable. |
| North Dakota | Banned | N.D. Cent. Code §9-08-06 | Void since 1865 — narrow exceptions | One of the oldest non-compete bans in the country; narrow exceptions exist for business sales and partnership dissolution, with no statutory damages for workers. |
| Ohio | Reasonableness | Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (Ohio 1975) | Case-by-case | Multi-factor reasonableness test; courts routinely blue-pencil duration, geography, or scope instead of voiding the whole agreement. |
| Oklahoma | Banned | 15 Okla. Stat. §§217–219 | Void — narrow solicitation carve-out | General non-competes are void; employers may only restrict direct solicitation of established customers, not competition or contact initiated by the customer. |
| Oregon | Threshold | ORS §653.295 | ~$116,427 (2026) / 12-mo. cap / 2-wk notice | Only enforceable above the salary line, capped at 12 months, and only if the employer gave two weeks’ written notice before the job started. |
| Pennsylvania | Reasonableness | Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (2024) | Case-by-case | Physicians, CRNPs, dentists, and other licensed clinicians are exempt by statute; other workers need consideration beyond continued at-will employment (Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems). |
| Rhode Island | Threshold | R.I. Gen. Laws §28-59-1 | Low-wage / non-exempt / students exempt | Void for low-wage workers, non-exempt employees, and students; healthcare workers face added restrictions, while higher earners face a reasonableness test. |
| South Carolina | Reasonableness | Common-law “red pencil” rule | Case-by-case | If any part of the clause is unreasonable, the entire agreement is void — South Carolina courts do not blue-pencil or trim overbroad language. |
| South Dakota | Reasonableness | SDCL §53-9-11 | Statutory 2-yr cap | Statutory two-year duration cap; the agreement must be reasonable in geography and tied to a legitimate business interest. |
| Tennessee | Threshold | HB 1034 (eff. 7/1/2026) | $70,000 income floor | Void below the new income threshold; above it, courts apply the long-standing Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver reasonableness test, with extra limits for physicians. |
| Texas | Reasonableness | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §15.50 | 2 yrs routinely upheld (sales) | Enforceable if limited in geography, duration, and scope and tied to a legitimate business interest; courts blue-pencil rather than void overreaching language. The same statute governs Texas non-solicit clauses. |
| Utah | Reasonableness | Utah Code §34-51-201 | Statutory 12-mo. cap | Duration is capped at 12 months by statute; broadcast-industry and post-employment health-platform non-competes face further restrictions. |
| Vermont | Reasonableness | Common-law reasonableness | Case-by-case | Governed by court-made reasonableness review; multiple reform bills have been introduced since 2023 without passing. |
| Virginia | Threshold | Va. Code §40.1-28.7:8 | Tied to state average weekly wage | Void for low-wage and overtime-eligible workers; higher earners are still subject to a duration, geography, and scope reasonableness test. |
| Washington | Threshold | RCW ch. 49.62; ESHB 1155 (2026) | ~$126,858 / 18-mo. cap — near-ban from 6/30/2027 | Currently enforceable only above the income line; newly signed legislation phases in a near-total ban effective June 30, 2027, one of the fastest shifts of any state. |
| West Virginia | Reasonableness | W. Va. Code §47-11E-2 (physicians) | Case-by-case | Physician non-competes face statutory limits; other workers are governed by a standard reasonableness test that courts are generally willing to enforce. |
| Wisconsin | Reasonableness | Wis. Stat. §103.465 | Case-by-case | Strict construction applies — if any element of the clause is unreasonable, the entire restraint is void, with no blue-penciling permitted. |
| Wyoming | Banned | SF 107 (2025) | Void — carve-outs for executives/equity holders | A 2025 statute voids most employee non-competes prospectively; Wyoming moved from a permissive reasonableness regime to a near-ban in a single legislative session. |
No states match that search.
Legal Chain flags jurisdiction risk automatically. When you draft or upload a contract, Legal Chain’s AI detects the governing state, cross-references the applicable non-compete and non-solicit rules, and scores the clause — before it ever reaches a court.
Try state-aware detection →Non-solicit vs. non-compete: why the rules diverge
A non-solicit clause bars a former employee from pursuing your customers or staff — it doesn’t stop them from working for a competitor. Because it restricts specific conduct rather than someone’s livelihood, courts nationwide treat non-solicits more leniently than non-competes, even in states that ban non-competes outright.
Texas non-solicit requirements
Texas non-solicit clauses fall under the same reasonableness framework as non-competes, Business & Commerce Code §15.50 — tied to a legitimate business interest and limited in duration and scope. Courts in Texas routinely blue-pencil an overbroad customer list down to accounts the employee actually serviced, rather than voiding the clause.
Where non-solicits get separate treatment
Colorado sets its non-solicit income threshold at roughly 60% of the non-compete floor. California courts have extended §16600 to void customer non-solicits too, not just non-competes. Employee (anti-raiding) non-solicits are generally enforced more consistently across states than customer non-solicits.
Multi-state workforces: whose law actually applies?
The most common question isn’t “is my non-compete enforceable” — it’s “which state’s law governs a remote employee.” Three factors decide it, roughly in order of weight.
1. Where the employee performs the work
Most courts apply the law of the state where the employee actually works, not where the contract was signed or the employer is headquartered. California and Minnesota codify this directly and void out-of-state choice-of-law clauses used to route around local protections.
2. Where the worker moves next
When a worker relocates and joins a competitor in a new state, that state’s courts may apply their own law to the dispute — which is how California became a common venue for voiding out-of-state non-competes via declaratory judgment.
3. What the contract’s choice-of-law clause says
Outside California and Minnesota, choice-of-law clauses still carry weight, but courts weigh whether the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties and whether it conflicts with the fundamental policy of the state with the greater interest.
4. The practical default
Map your workforce by current state of residence, not headquarters. When in doubt, draft to the strictest applicable state’s standard — a template built for California rarely fails elsewhere, but one built for Florida often fails in California.
Frequently asked questions
Straight answers to the non-compete and non-solicit questions we hear most from small businesses and individuals.
It depends on the state. In Illinois, Pennsylvania, and a handful of others, continued at-will employment alone is not adequate consideration for a non-compete signed mid-employment — the employer needs to offer something specific, like a signing bonus or promotion. In most other states, continued employment for a meaningful period is enough, and a non-compete signed at hire is almost always considered supported by consideration.
A non-compete stops someone from working for a competitor or starting one. A non-solicit only stops them from pursuing your specific customers or employees — they can still take a job with a competitor. Because non-solicits are narrower, courts enforce them more readily, and income thresholds for non-solicits are typically lower than for non-competes in threshold-ban states.
California and Minnesota both void non-competes for anyone performing services in-state, regardless of where the agreement was signed or which state’s law it names. In most other states the answer turns on a choice-of-law analysis, but the general trend favors the law of the state where the employee is currently working.
Yes, two ways. Defensively, a worker sued to enforce a non-compete can argue overreach, missing consideration, or unreasonable scope. Offensively, in states like California, Minnesota, and Colorado, a worker can file suit to have an overbroad non-compete declared void before switching jobs, and several states let the worker recover attorney’s fees if they win.
Most enforcement-friendly states uphold six-to-twelve-month terms routinely and view anything past two years with skepticism. Oregon caps duration at 12 months by statute; Washington caps it at 18 months. Florida is the notable outlier, where two-year non-competes are regularly upheld for sales personnel.
Increasingly, yes. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island, Indiana, Iowa, and New Hampshire have all passed physician-specific bans, and more states are expected to follow. If you’re a licensed clinician, check your state’s healthcare-specific statute before assuming the general non-compete rule applies — many of these bans extend to nurse practitioners and dentists as well.
No. Legal Chain is a technology platform, not a law firm, and this page is not legal advice. Legal Chain’s AI flags jurisdiction-specific risk in restrictive covenants automatically, and its Global Lawyer Finder connects you with a licensed attorney in your state at no charge when a matter needs one.
Drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant? Legal Chain scans the clause, identifies the governing state, and flags anything that won’t survive a court challenge — free to start, with attorney review available on demand.
Start Free Today →