Non-Compete Laws by State (2026)

Alabama enforces non-compete agreements under common law, and courts have the power to modify overbroad restrictions:

• Common law enforcement: Alabama enforces non-competes under common law — there is no specific statute governing them
• Reasonableness test: Non-competes must be reasonable in time, geographic scope, and activity restricted — courts generally uphold restrictions of 2 years or less
• Blue-pencil doctrine: Alabama courts can blue-pencil (modify) an overly broad non-compete to make it reasonable, rather than voiding the entire agreement
• Consideration required: For existing employees, continued employment is generally sufficient consideration
• Protectable interests: Must protect a legitimate business interest such as trade secrets, customer relationships, or specialized training
• Alabama courts balance employer protections against employee hardship

Arkansas enforces non-compete agreements under common law (Ark. Code § 4-75-101):

• Courts require the agreement to be reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and the activities restricted
• Arkansas allows blue-penciling — courts may modify an overbroad covenant rather than void it entirely
• Generally 2 years is the accepted maximum duration; longer terms face heavy scrutiny
• The employer must provide adequate consideration — typically a job offer or continued employment with additional benefits
• Courts will not enforce covenants that merely prevent competition without protecting a legitimate business interest (trade secrets, customer relationships, specialized training)
• Arkansas has no statute imposing additional requirements beyond common law reasonableness

Connecticut enforces non-compete agreements under common law with an employee-friendly approach:

• Connecticut does not have a comprehensive non-compete statute, but courts enforce non-competes under common law with a reasonableness standard
• Non-competes must be reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of restricted activity
• Connecticut courts tend to be employee-friendly and apply strict scrutiny to non-compete agreements
• Must be supported by adequate consideration — continued employment alone may not be sufficient for existing employees in Connecticut
• Connecticut enacted HB 6594 (2023) which restricts non-compete agreements for home health care workers — reflecting a trend toward limiting non-competes
• Connecticut courts may blue-pencil (modify) overly broad agreements, but prefer to strike them entirely if they are fundamentally unreasonable
• Non-competes are generally not enforceable against independent contractors in Connecticut

D.C. has enacted one of the most restrictive non-compete bans in the country:

• Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act (D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq., effective October 2022): D.C. broadly bans non-compete agreements for most workers. Employers generally cannot require or request that an employee sign a non-compete
• Highly compensated exception: Non-competes may only be used for "highly compensated employees" earning more than $150,000/year (adjusted annually). For medical specialists, the threshold is $250,000/year
• Even for exempt employees: Non-competes for highly compensated employees must meet strict requirements — they must be provided at least 14 days before employment begins, cannot exceed 1 year, and the employer must provide the employee with a written copy
• Anti-retaliation: Employers cannot retaliate against employees who refuse to sign a non-compete or who ask about the ban
• Penalties: Employers who violate the ban face penalties of $350–$1,000 per violation paid to the employee, plus administrative fines of $350–$1,000 per violation paid to D.C.

Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act (effective 2011) significantly changed how non-compete agreements are enforced in the state:

• Constitutional amendment: Georgia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 authorizing the legislature to regulate non-compete agreements, which led to the 2011 Act
• Reasonableness required: Non-competes must be reasonable in time (generally up to 2 years), geographic territory, and scope of restricted activity
• Judicial modification: Georgia courts can now modify overly broad agreements to make them enforceable — rather than striking the entire agreement
• More employer-friendly: The 2011 law is significantly more employer-friendly than pre-2011 Georgia law, which strictly construed non-competes against the employer
• Applies to employees, independent contractors, distributors, dealers, franchisees, and lessees

Iowa enforces non-compete agreements under common law reasonableness standards:

• Iowa Code § 550 governs non-compete agreements — courts apply a reasonableness test
• A non-compete is enforceable only if it: (1) is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (2) is reasonable in duration and geographic scope, and (3) is not unduly harsh on the employee
• Iowa courts can modify (blue-pencil) overbroad covenants rather than voiding them entirely
• Courts must protect a legitimate business interest such as trade secrets, customer relationships, or specialized training — covenants protecting against ordinary competition are disfavored
• Generally 2 years is accepted as a reasonable maximum duration in Iowa
• Continued employment alone may constitute adequate consideration in Iowa

Kansas enforces non-compete agreements under common law with a reasonableness standard:

• Kansas does not have a specific non-compete statute — enforcement is governed by common law developed through court decisions
• Non-competes must be reasonable in scope, geographic area, and duration to be enforceable
• Kansas courts typically uphold non-competes of up to 2 years in duration, depending on the circumstances
• Kansas courts apply a blue-pencil doctrine — courts can modify or narrow overly broad provisions rather than voiding the entire agreement
• Non-competes must be supported by adequate consideration — continued employment is generally sufficient for existing employees
• Kansas courts consider whether the restriction protects a legitimate business interest (trade secrets, customer relationships, specialized training)
• Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements are evaluated separately and may be enforced even if a non-compete is invalid

Louisiana is one of the few states with a specific non-compete statute, and it is strictly construed:

• Statutory framework: La. R.S. § 23:921 governs non-compete agreements — Louisiana is the only civil law state and its approach differs from all other states
• Geographic specificity required: The agreement must specify the parishes, municipalities, or parts thereof where the restriction applies — a statewide or nationwide restriction is void
• Maximum duration: Non-competes cannot exceed 2 years from the date of termination
• Strictly construed: Louisiana courts strictly construe non-competes against the employer — any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the employee
• No blue-pencil: Louisiana courts will not blue-pencil (modify) an overly broad non-compete — if any essential term is missing or unreasonable, the entire covenant is void
• Written agreement required: The non-compete must be in writing

Michigan enforces non-compete agreements under the Antitrust Reform Act, with judicial power to modify overly broad terms:

• The Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MCL § 445.774a) expressly permits non-compete agreements if they are reasonable
• To be enforceable, a non-compete must be reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and type of employment or business restricted
• Duration is generally considered reasonable at 1-2 years — longer periods face greater scrutiny
• The agreement must protect a legitimate competitive business interest such as trade secrets, confidential information, or customer relationships
• Michigan courts have blue-pencil (reformation) power — they can modify overly broad non-competes to make them reasonable rather than striking them entirely
• Non-competes must be supported by consideration — for existing employees, continued employment may be sufficient
• Non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements are also enforceable if reasonable

Mississippi enforces non-compete agreements under common law reasonableness standards:

• Mississippi does not have a specific statute governing non-compete agreements — enforcement is based on common law
• Courts apply a reasonableness test: the covenant must be reasonable in time, geographic scope, and the type of activity restricted
• Mississippi allows blue-penciling — courts may modify an overbroad covenant to make it reasonable rather than voiding it entirely
• The employer must demonstrate a legitimate business interest (trade secrets, customer relationships, specialized training)
• Generally 2 years is considered a reasonable maximum duration in Mississippi
• Adequate consideration is required — a job offer constitutes sufficient consideration; continued employment without additional benefit may or may not suffice depending on circumstances

Missouri enforces non-compete agreements under common law reasonableness standards:

• Missouri does not have a specific statute governing non-compete agreements — enforcement is based on common law
• Courts apply a reasonableness test: the covenant must be reasonable in time, geographic scope, and the type of activity restricted, and must protect a legitimate business interest
• Missouri courts can blue-pencil overbroad covenants — they may modify them to make them reasonable rather than voiding them entirely
• A legitimate business interest includes trade secrets, customer relationships, and specialized training
• Generally 2 years is accepted as a reasonable duration; narrow geographic scope is required
• Adequate consideration is required — a job offer or continued employment with additional benefit may suffice

Nebraska enforces non-compete agreements under common law but applies strict standards:

• Nebraska courts enforce non-compete agreements only if they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic area
• Nebraska is one of the strictest states — courts apply a strict construction approach and do not use blue-pencil or judicial reformation to save overbroad agreements
• If any part of a non-compete is found unreasonable, the entire restriction is void — courts will not narrow or rewrite it
• Non-competes must be supported by adequate consideration — continued employment alone may not suffice for existing employees
• Nebraska courts require the restriction to protect a legitimate business interest such as trade secrets, customer relationships, or specialized training
• The Nebraska Supreme Court has consistently held that overly broad non-competes are unenforceable in their entirety

North Dakota is one of only four states that ban non-compete agreements:

• NDCC § 9-08-06: Declares that every contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business is void. This is one of the broadest non-compete bans in the country, similar to California's.
• Narrow exceptions: Non-compete agreements are enforceable only in connection with the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership. Employment non-competes have no exceptions in North Dakota.
• Out-of-state non-competes: Even if you signed a non-compete in another state, North Dakota courts will not enforce it against you while you work in North Dakota. The state's strong public policy against restraints on trade takes precedence.
• Non-solicitation agreements: While non-compete clauses are void, courts have sometimes enforced narrowly tailored non-solicitation agreements that do not prevent the employee from working in their field but only from soliciting specific clients.
• Trade secret protections: Employers can still protect trade secrets and confidential information through nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and under the North Dakota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NDCC § 47-25.1).

Ohio enforces non-compete agreements under a common-law reasonableness test. Courts evaluate three factors:

• Necessity: The restriction must be necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest (trade secrets, customer relationships, specialized training)
• Undue hardship: The restriction must not impose undue hardship on the employee
• Public interest: The restriction must not be injurious to the public

Ohio courts can blue-pencil (modify) overly broad non-competes rather than voiding them entirely. Generally, courts consider 1–2 years a reasonable duration. Consideration is required — continued employment may be sufficient but is not always accepted, especially for at-will employees with long tenure.

Oklahoma is one of only a handful of states that bans non-compete agreements:

• Oklahoma prohibits non-compete agreements under Okla. Stat. tit. 15 §§ 217–219 — making it one of only 4 states with an outright ban (along with California, North Dakota, and Minnesota)
• Any contract that restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business is void and unenforceable in Oklahoma
• Exception — sale of a business: Non-competes are enforceable when entered into as part of the sale of the goodwill of a business, provided they are reasonable in time and geographic scope
• Oklahoma employers cannot require employees to sign non-competes, even as a condition of employment
• Oklahoma courts do not blue-pencil or reform non-compete agreements — they are simply void
• Employers may still protect trade secrets through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 78 § 85)

Virginia restricts non-compete agreements for low-wage workers under legislation effective in 2020:

• Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8 prohibits employers from enforcing non-compete agreements against low-wage workers
• Non-competes are unenforceable for workers earning less than the average weekly wage ($1,340/week as of 2024) or earning less than $65,000 per year
• For higher-earning employees, Virginia enforces non-competes under common law reasonableness standards — the restriction must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geography
• Virginia courts have the power to blue-pencil (modify) overly broad non-competes to make them enforceable rather than voiding them entirely
• Employers who violate the low-wage worker ban may face civil penalties and the employee may recover damages and attorney fees
• The law also covers non-compete provisions embedded in other agreements such as employment contracts or severance agreements

Washington has one of the most employee-friendly non-compete laws in the nation under RCW 49.62 (effective 2020):

• Non-compete agreements are unenforceable for employees earning under $116,594/year (threshold adjusted annually for inflation)
• For independent contractors, non-competes are unenforceable if the contractor earns under $291,484/year
• Maximum enforceable duration is 18 months — any longer is void
• The employer must pay garden leave (continued compensation at the employee's base salary) during the entire restriction period, or the agreement is void
• Non-competes must be disclosed in writing to the employee no later than the time of acceptance of the offer of employment
• Employees who are laid off cannot be held to non-competes unless the employer pays garden leave through the restriction period
• Violating the statute entitles the employee to actual damages or a statutory penalty of $5,000, plus attorney fees

West Virginia enforces non-compete agreements under common law with a reasonableness standard:

• West Virginia does not have a specific non-compete statute — enforceability is governed by common law
• Courts apply a reasonableness test considering the scope of activities restricted, geographic area, and duration
• Non-competes must be supported by valuable consideration and protect a legitimate business interest (such as trade secrets or customer relationships)
• West Virginia courts can blue-pencil (modify or narrow) overly broad non-competes rather than voiding them entirely
• Duration of 1–2 years is generally considered reasonable in West Virginia
• Geographic restrictions must be reasonable and related to the employer's actual business territory
• Non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements may be enforced separately from non-competes

Wisconsin has one of the most employee-friendly non-compete laws in the country under Wis. Stat. § 103.465:

• Wisconsin statute (Wis. Stat. § 103.465) governs non-compete agreements — courts apply a strict reasonableness test
• A non-compete must be necessary for the protection of the employer, reasonable in time and territory, not harsh or oppressive to the employee, and not contrary to public policy
• Critical rule: Wisconsin courts will NOT blue-pencil — if any part of the covenant is unreasonable, the entire covenant is void. This makes Wisconsin non-competes more likely to be unenforceable than in most states
• Courts strictly apply each requirement — if an employer drafts an overbroad agreement, the whole thing fails
• Generally 2 years is accepted as a reasonable maximum duration in Wisconsin
• Adequate consideration is required — a job offer is typically sufficient; continued employment alone generally is not