Employment law · 50-state reference
Non-Compete Laws by State (2026)
There is still no federal ban on non-compete agreements. Whether the clause in your contract is worth anything comes down to one thing: the state whose law governs it. This reference covers all 50 states and the District of Columbia — who is banned from using non-competes, what salary you have to clear before one binds you, how long it can last, and which statute says so.
Federal status
Is there a federal non-compete ban in 2026?
No — and there never was one in force. The Federal Trade Commission approved a rule on 23 April 2024 that would have voided nearly every employment non-compete in the country. It was scheduled to bite on 4 September 2024. Two weeks before that date, Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas set the rule aside nationwide in Ryan LLC v. FTC, holding that the agency had no authority to write substantive competition rules. The rule never applied to a single employer.
The agency spent a year appealing, then stopped. On 5 September 2025 the Commission voted 3–1 to drop its Fifth and Eleventh Circuit appeals and accept vacatur. On 12 February 2026 it formally deleted 16 CFR Part 910 from the Code of Federal Regulations. Nothing is pending that could bring the rule back.
Dead rule, live agency
Abandoning the rulemaking did not mean abandoning the subject. The FTC now attacks non-competes one employer at a time under Section 5 of the FTC Act. It has secured consent orders against Gateway Services (final November 2025, roughly 1,800 pet-cremation workers), Rollins/Orkin (final June 2026, more than 18,000 employees held to a two-year, 75-mile restriction) and Adamas Amenity Services (February 2026, no-hire clauses between building-services contractors). It has also sent warning letters to healthcare employers, thirteen pest-control firms and a mortgage-services company. The pattern is consistent: broad, low-wage, industry-wide covenants draw fire; narrowly drawn executive and sale-of-business terms do not.
The other federal route closed too. NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo argued in GC Memo 23-08 (May 2023) that overbroad non-competes chill Section 7 rights; Acting General Counsel William Cowen rescinded that memo on 14 February 2025. No Board decision ever adopted the theory, so nothing was overruled — but the enforcement channel is shut. In Congress, the bipartisan Workforce Mobility Act (S. 2031, reintroduced June 2025 by Senators Murphy and Young) sits in committee with no markup scheduled.
Practical upshot: every question about whether your non-compete is enforceable is a question of state law. That is what the table below answers.
Interactive reference
Non-compete laws by state: all 50 states + DC
Search by state, statute, case or keyword. Select any row for the full picture — thresholds, duration caps, notice duties, 2024–2026 legislation, live bills, leading cases and a link to the governing statute.
| Pay threshold | Maximum term | Statute |
|---|
Nothing matches that
Try a shorter search term, or clear the restriction-type filters.
How to read “restriction level”: a 0–100 index built from six weighted factors — statutory ban, income protection, duration cap, notice and consideration duties, penalty regime and reform momentum. 100 means a worker faces no enforceable restraint; 0 means a court will enforce a reasonable covenant with no statutory friction. It ranks jurisdictions against each other, and is not a prediction about any individual agreement.
State detail
State
Total bans
What states are non-competes illegal in?
Five jurisdictions refuse to enforce employment non-competes at essentially any pay level. A sixth is already on the calendar.
| State | Authority | What you need to know |
|---|---|---|
| California | Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16600, 16600.1, 16600.5 | The strictest regime in the country. No salary carve-out, no reasonableness escape hatch, and § 16600.5 reaches agreements signed elsewhere. Since 2024 an employer that merely tries to enforce one commits a civil violation, and the worker — including a job applicant — can sue for damages, an injunction and mandatory attorney's fees. |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 181.988 (1 July 2023) | Void for every employee and independent contractor regardless of earnings. Prospective only — a covenant signed on 30 June 2023 still lives under prior common law. A companion statute, § 181.9881, extends the ban to restrictive covenants buried in service contracts between businesses. |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06 | Void since the territorial code, with narrow exceptions for the sale of goodwill and the dissolution of a partnership or LLC. Osborne v. Brown & Saenger (2017) also strikes down out-of-state choice-of-law and forum clauses aimed at routing around it. |
| Oklahoma | 15 Okla. Stat. §§ 217, 219A | True non-competes are void, but the statute expressly rescues one narrow covenant: an employer may bar a departing worker from directly soliciting established customers. Blanket "don't work in this industry" clauses are unenforceable. |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 (SF 107, 1 July 2025) | Newest arrival, and the one with real seams. Covenants are void by default, but four exceptions survive — sale of a business, trade-secret protection, "executive and management personnel" and their professional staff (a phrase the statute never defines), and sliding-scale recovery of relocation, training or education costs. Prospective only. |
Washington: the sixth ban, dated 30 June 2027
Governor Ferguson signed HB 1155 on 23 March 2026. From 30 June 2027 every non-competition covenant with a Washington-based employee or contractor is void — and unlike Minnesota and Wyoming, it applies retroactively to agreements already signed. Customer-non-servicing clauses and forfeiture-for-competition provisions fall with it. Employers must notify affected workers in writing by 1 October 2027. Sale-of-business terms, confidentiality obligations, franchise agreements and narrowly drawn 18-month customer non-solicits survive. Until that date, Washington's existing threshold rules still govern — so a Washington worker's covenant is not void today.
Montana is the one most lists get wrong. Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 borrows California's language about contracts in restraint of trade, and plenty of trackers file Montana under "total ban" on that basis. Montana courts read it far more narrowly: only a full restraint is void, and a partial restraint that is reasonable in time, geography and scope gets enforced. Montana belongs with the reasonableness states. It does have a genuine ban — for licensed physicians, effective 1 January 2026 — which is a different thing entirely.
Pay floors
Salary thresholds by state for 2026
Thirteen jurisdictions took a middle path: a non-compete is void below a stated earnings level and permitted above it. Most figures are re-indexed every January, so a covenant that was unenforceable last year can become enforceable this year if the worker got a raise — and vice versa.
| Jurisdiction | 2026 floor | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| District of Columbia | $162,164 | Highest in the nation; $270,274 for medical specialists. Indexed annually. |
| Colorado | $130,014 | Non-solicitation covenants use a lower floor of $78,008.40. Penalty of $5,000 per affected worker. |
| Washington | $126,858.83 | $317,147.09 for independent contractors. Sunsets on 30 June 2027 when the full ban lands. |
| Oregon | $119,541 | CPI-indexed. Worker must also be FLSA-exempt, or the employer must pay garden leave. |
| Virginia | $78,364.52 | State average weekly wage ($1,507.01/week). Since 1 July 2025 all overtime-eligible employees are protected regardless of pay. |
| Illinois | $75,000 | Rises to $80,000 on 1 January 2027. Non-solicits use $45,000. |
| Tennessee | $70,000 | Brand new — HB 1034, Public Chapter 934, effective 1 July 2026, prospective only. |
| Maine | $63,840 | 400% of the federal poverty level. |
| Maryland | $46,800 | 150% of the state minimum wage. Separate rule caps healthcare providers earning $350,000 or less. |
| Rhode Island | $39,900 | 250% of the federal poverty level; also protects interns and workers aged 18 or under. |
| New Hampshire | $30,160 | 200% of the federal minimum wage, measured hourly. |
| Massachusetts | Structural | No dollar figure — non-competes simply cannot bind FLSA non-exempt employees, students or workers under 18. |
| Nevada | Structural | No dollar figure — any employee paid solely on an hourly wage is protected, excluding tips from the calculation. |
If you count only inflation-indexed dollar thresholds, the figure is eleven. Massachusetts and Nevada use a structural test instead of a number, which is why published counts differ by one or two.
Time limits
How long can a non-compete last?
Ten jurisdictions put a number in the statute. Everywhere else, duration is argued case by case under a reasonableness standard — where twelve to twenty-four months is the usual battleground and anything longer needs an unusually good story.
| Jurisdiction | Limit | Hard cap or presumption? |
|---|---|---|
| Utah | 1 year | Hard cap |
| District of Columbia | 365 days | Hard cap — 2 years for medical specialists |
| Massachusetts | 12 months | Hard cap — extendable to 24 where the employee breached a duty or took property |
| Oregon | 12 months | Hard cap |
| Idaho | 18 months | Presumption; longer needs consideration beyond the job itself |
| Washington | 18 months | Presumption, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence — sunsets 30 June 2027 |
| Georgia | 2 years | Presumptively reasonable |
| Louisiana | 2 years | Hard cap, plus mandatory parish-by-parish geography |
| South Dakota | 2 years | Hard cap — 3 years for sale-of-business covenants |
| Florida | 4 years | A ceiling inside an expansion — see below |
Florida moved the other way
While most legislatures spent 2025 narrowing non-competes, Florida widened them. The CHOICE Act (HB 1219, chaptered as Laws of Florida ch. 2025-213, effective 1 July 2025 and codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 542.41–542.45) authorises covenants of up to four years plus garden-leave arrangements for workers earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant county. Employers must give a seven-day review window and advise the worker in writing to consult counsel. Licensed healthcare practitioners are excluded. Florida is now the most employer-friendly jurisdiction in the country for high earners.
Process rules
States that require advance notice
This is the quietest way a non-compete dies. In eight jurisdictions the employer must hand over the covenant a set number of days before the worker signs or starts. Miss the window and the clause is unenforceable no matter how reasonable its terms are.
| Jurisdiction | Lead time | Extra duties |
|---|---|---|
| Colorado | 14 days | Separate signed notice, delivered before the earlier of the effective date or the date consideration is offered |
| District of Columbia | 14 days | Must include prescribed statutory language plus disclosures on moonlighting and incentive plans |
| Illinois | 14 days | Must advise the worker in writing to consult an attorney |
| Oregon | 14 days | Written warning before day one that a non-compete is a condition of the job; signed copy due within 30 days of termination |
| Massachusetts | 10 business days | Must state the right to counsel; garden-leave pay or other agreed consideration required |
| Maine | 3 business days | Existence of the covenant must be disclosed before the offer is even extended |
| New Hampshire | Before acceptance | A copy must be provided prior to the worker accepting the offer |
| Washington | By acceptance | Separate disclosure required if the covenant only becomes enforceable later through a pay rise |
Two related duties are often confused with advance notice and are not the same thing. Virginia requires employers to post the statute or a Department of Labor summary in the workplace. California imposed a one-off duty to notify current and former employees by 14 February 2024 that their existing covenants are void — a duty Washington will replicate by 1 October 2027.
Occupation-specific bans
Doctors, nurses and clinical staff
Healthcare is where the legislative energy went. At least 22 states now carry a statute aimed specifically at clinician non-competes, and a dozen of those arrived between 2025 and mid-2026. If you are licensed to treat patients, check this before you check the general rule for your state.
| State | Effective | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | 1 Jan 2025 | Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act — physicians, CRNPs, PAs, CRNAs and dentists capped at one year; void entirely if the practitioner is dismissed without cause; patient notification duty within 90 days |
| Illinois | 1 Jan 2025 | Bars covenants against mental- and behavioral-health providers where enforcement would raise the cost or difficulty of care for veterans or first responders |
| Indiana | 1 Jul 2025 | Physician covenants with hospitals, hospital parents, affiliates and systems are void |
| Arkansas | Jul 2025 | Act 232 voids covenants restricting physicians and osteopaths from practising in their scope |
| Oregon | 9 Jun 2025 | Voids covenants with physicians, PAs and nurse practitioners; SB 951 also constrains management companies |
| Maryland | 1 Jul 2025 | Providers earning $350,000 or less are fully protected; above that, one year and ten miles with a patient-notification duty |
| Colorado | 6 Aug 2025 | SB 25-083 voids covenants against physicians, PAs, APRNs, dentists and certified midwives regardless of salary, and permits patient notification |
| Texas | 1 Sep 2025 | SB 1318 — physician covenants capped at one year and five miles with a salary-capped buyout; void on discharge without good cause; extended for the first time to dentists, nurses and PAs |
| Montana | 1 Jan 2026 | HB 620 extends the ban from psychiatrists to all licensed physicians |
| California | 1 Jan 2026 | SB 351 voids covenants imposed by private-equity- or hedge-fund-owned medical and dental practices, on top of the general ban |
| Utah | 6 May 2026 | HB 270 bans covenants across 30+ licensed professions and bars non-solicits that stop a clinician telling patients where they have moved |
| Virginia | 1 Jul 2026 | SB 128 bans covenants with anyone licensed by the Boards of Medicine, Nursing, Counseling, Optometry, Psychology or Social Work — pay-blind, prospective only |
| Maine | 13 Jul 2026 | Practitioners without an ownership interest are protected; veterinarians covered separately |
Longer-standing clinician rules also exist in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia. Open a state in the table above for its exact citation.
Methodology
Why one source says four ban states and another says six
Search this topic for ten minutes and you will collect three different numbers. The Economic Innovation Group says four. Katz Banks Kumin says six. Wikipedia says four but names a different set. Nobody is lying — they are applying different tests.
- Montana accounts for most of the gap. Count statutes and Montana is a ban state. Count outcomes and it is not, because its courts enforce reasonable partial restraints. We exclude it.
- The District of Columbia is often counted as a ban because its 2020 law was written as one. The 2022 amendments turned it into a $162,164 threshold regime. We count it under thresholds.
- Wyoming is new enough that trackers published before July 2025 do not include it at all, and its undefined "executive and management personnel" exception makes "near-total" a fair description rather than "total".
- Washington is counted early by some sources because HB 1155 is signed. It does not operate until 30 June 2027, so we list it separately.
Our rule, stated so you can disagree with it: a jurisdiction counts as a near-total ban only where a statute voids employment non-competes across the board and courts do not routinely rehabilitate them under a reasonableness gloss — and only where the law is already in force. That yields five today and six from 30 June 2027.
The exception everyone forgets
"Banned" never means banned for business sales
Every single ban state carves out the sale of a business, and most also carve out partnership or LLC dissolution: California §§ 16601–16602.5, Minnesota § 181.988(1)(b), North Dakota § 9-08-06, Oklahoma §§ 218–219 and Wyoming's SF 107. Washington's 2027 ban preserves it too.
The distinction is about what is being bought. A covenant that binds someone who sold goodwill or an ownership stake is protecting the value of a transaction the seller was paid for. A covenant that binds an ordinary employee is protecting nothing they were separately compensated for. That is why one survives a ban and the other does not — and why "California bans non-competes" is a sentence that misleads a founder selling their company. Even in the sale context, most states still test the covenant for reasonable duration and geography, and Washington adds a 1% minimum ownership floor before the exception applies at all.
Multistate employment
Are non-competes enforceable across state lines?
Often not — and this is the question that trips up national employers most reliably. The classic workaround was a choice-of-law clause: sign the worker in Seattle but govern the contract by Texas law. Six jurisdictions have shut that door.
| Jurisdiction | Mechanism | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| California | Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.5; Lab. Code § 925 | Void regardless of where or when signed. Employees, former employees and applicants can sue for damages, injunctive relief and mandatory attorney's fees. |
| Washington | RCW 49.62.050 | Out-of-state choice-of-law and venue clauses are void for Washington-based workers. |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 181.988(3) | Cannot require a Minnesota worker to litigate elsewhere or under another state's law. |
| Colorado | C.R.S. § 8-2-113(5) | Same — Colorado law and Colorado forum for Colorado workers. |
| North Dakota | Osborne v. Brown & Saenger (2017) | Case law voids foreign choice-of-law and forum clauses as contrary to public policy. |
| Oklahoma | Public-policy case law | Same result through the courts rather than a statute. |
The practical consequence for a multistate employer: one national template is now a liability rather than an efficiency. California's version is the sharpest — attempting to enforce a void covenant against a Californian is itself actionable, and the exposure runs through the Unfair Competition Law (§ 17200) plus the statute's own fee-shifting provision. Employers with staff in ban states should be running state-specific covenants, not a governing-law clause.
If you have one in hand
What actually voids a non-compete
Most non-competes are never litigated, and a fair number would not survive if they were. These are the grounds that do the work, roughly in order of how often they decide the outcome.
- Your state bans them. Five states, and it does not matter what the contract says.
- You earn below the threshold. Thirteen jurisdictions have one. Check the figure for the current year, not the year you signed.
- The employer botched the process. Eight jurisdictions require advance notice; several require a written recommendation to consult a lawyer. These are strict — a covenant delivered on day one in Illinois is unenforceable regardless of its terms.
- The scope is indefensible. "Any capacity, anywhere, for three years" is the classic loser. Georgia's Court of Appeals voided exactly that phrasing in All States AG Parts v. Herzig (2025) and refused to rewrite it.
- Nothing was given in exchange. Several states — Kentucky, Indiana, South Carolina among them — require fresh consideration when a covenant is imposed mid-employment. Continued employment alone is not always enough.
- You were fired without cause. Now a statutory ground in Virginia (where no severance was paid), Pennsylvania and Connecticut for clinicians, and Texas for physicians.
- Your occupation is carved out. Physicians, nurses, broadcasters, security guards, cosmetology students, auto salespeople and interns each have their own protections somewhere.
Blue pencil, red pencil, reformation — why it matters
When a covenant is too broad, states do one of three things. Reformation states (Texas, Kansas, Nevada) instruct the court to rewrite it into something enforceable. Blue-pencil states strike offending words but will not add any. Red-pencil states — South Carolina, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Delaware's Court of Chancery in practice — throw the whole clause out. In a red-pencil state, one overreaching sentence can void the entire covenant, which is why an aggressive draft is a bad bet there.
Two habits worth having either way. Tell a prospective employer about the covenant early — concealing it exposes them to a tortious-interference claim and can cost you the offer, while disclosing it lets their counsel assess enforceability before you resign. And get the specific document reviewed: this page maps the statutory landscape, but the outcome for any individual agreement turns on its own wording, your role and your state's case law.
For employers
A 2026 compliance checklist
- Retire the national template. Six jurisdictions void foreign choice-of-law clauses, so one governing-law provision no longer protects a multistate workforce.
- Diary the indexed thresholds. Colorado, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington all move in January. A covenant that bound someone last year may not this year.
- Build the notice step into onboarding. Fourteen days in Colorado, DC, Illinois and Oregon; ten business days in Massachusetts; before the offer in Maine and New Hampshire. This is the cheapest failure to avoid and the most common one.
- Audit clinical roles separately. Twenty-two states now regulate them independently of the general rule, and several ignore salary entirely.
- Prepare for Washington by mid-2027. HB 1155 is retroactive and carries a written-notice duty by 1 October 2027, with statutory damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater.
- Reach for the narrower tool first. Confidentiality terms, trade-secret protection, customer non-solicits and garden leave survive in almost every state where a full non-compete does not.
- Do not assume federal risk is zero. The FTC's 2025–26 consent orders show it still pursues broad, low-wage, industry-wide covenants under Section 5.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Are non-competes illegal in 2026?
There is no nationwide ban. The FTC's rule was struck down in August 2024 and removed from federal regulations on 12 February 2026, so enforceability is decided entirely by state law. Five states — California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming — void them for nearly all employees, while most others enforce a covenant that is reasonable in duration, geography and scope.
What states are non-competes unenforceable in?
California, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming void employment non-competes almost entirely, and Washington joins them on 30 June 2027 under HB 1155. Montana is frequently listed as a sixth, but its courts still enforce reasonable covenants despite the state's restraint-of-trade statute, so it is better classified as a reasonableness state.
Did the FTC ban on non-competes ever take effect?
No. The rule was finalised on 23 April 2024 with a 4 September 2024 effective date, but Judge Ada Brown set it aside nationwide in Ryan LLC v. FTC on 20 August 2024 — before it could operate. The Commission dropped its appeals on 5 September 2025 and deleted the rule from the CFR in February 2026, so no employer obligation under it ever became binding.
Is a 2-year non-compete legal?
It depends where you are. Two years sits inside the statutory limit in Georgia, Louisiana and South Dakota, but breaks the twelve-month caps in Massachusetts, Oregon and Utah, the 365-day cap in DC, and Washington's 18-month presumption. In states with no statutory number, courts weigh it case by case — two years is often upheld for a senior executive and often struck down for a rank-and-file worker.
Is a 5-year non-compete enforceable?
Almost never in an employment contract. Every state with a statutory cap sets it at two years or less, and reasonableness states routinely find five years excessive for an employee. The exceptions are Florida, whose CHOICE Act permits up to four years for qualifying high earners, and sale-of-business covenants, which are judged far more leniently everywhere.
What voids a non-compete agreement?
The common grounds are: your state bans them outright; you earn below the state's threshold (thirteen jurisdictions have one, from $30,160 in New Hampshire to $162,164 in DC); the employer missed a statutory notice deadline (eight jurisdictions impose one); the restriction is unreasonably broad in time, geography or scope of work; there was no valid consideration; or you were discharged without cause in a state that treats that as a defence. In several states a missed notice deadline alone kills the covenant regardless of its terms.
Can my employer enforce a non-compete if I move to another state?
Frequently not. California, Washington, Minnesota and Colorado have statutes voiding out-of-state choice-of-law and forum clauses for workers who primarily live and work there, and North Dakota and Oklahoma reach the same result through public-policy case law. California goes furthest: § 16600.5 lets an employee, former employee or even a job applicant sue for damages and an injunction with mandatory attorney's fees, even where the contract was signed elsewhere.
Does a ban state let a business buyer use a non-compete?
Yes. Every ban state preserves an exception for the sale of a business and, in most cases, the dissolution of a partnership or LLC — California §§ 16601–16602.5, Minnesota § 181.988(1)(b), North Dakota § 9-08-06, Oklahoma §§ 218–219 and Wyoming's SF 107. These covenants bind someone who sold goodwill or an ownership interest, not ordinary employees, and most states still require reasonable geographic and time limits.
Are non-competes banned for doctors and nurses?
In a growing number of states, yes. At least 22 states now have a healthcare-specific ban or limit, including Pennsylvania (2025), Indiana (July 2025), Oregon (June 2025), Colorado (August 2025), Texas (September 2025), Montana (January 2026), Utah (May 2026) and Virginia (July 2026). Texas takes a middle path — physician covenants are permitted but capped at one year and five miles, with a salary-capped buyout option.
How many US workers are bound by a non-compete?
Roughly 30 million, or about one in five American workers, according to the FTC's 2024 rulemaking, which drew on research by Starr, Prescott and Bishara finding 18.1% of labour-force participants currently bound and 38% having signed one at some point. These are not only executive agreements: the GAO found 13.3% of workers earning under $40,000 a year are covered.
If the federal rule is dead, can the FTC still challenge my non-compete?
Yes — the agency abandoned the rule, not the subject. It now brings case-by-case actions under Section 5 of the FTC Act, including consent orders against Gateway Services (final November 2025, about 1,800 workers) and Rollins/Orkin (final June 2026, more than 18,000 workers), a no-hire case against Adamas (February 2026), and warning letters to healthcare, pest-control and mortgage-services employers. The pattern targets broad, low-wage, industry-wide covenants rather than narrowly tailored executive or sale-of-business terms.
Should I tell a new employer about my non-compete?
Generally yes, and early. Concealing it exposes the new employer to a tortious-interference claim and can be grounds for withdrawing the offer, while disclosure lets their counsel assess enforceability before you resign. In a ban state the covenant is void anyway, and in California an employer that tries to enforce one may itself face liability — but confirm that conclusion with a lawyer before you act on it.
Drafting the agreement, not just researching it?
Jurizmo's employment templates are built to be edited state by state — service contracts, offer letters and confidentiality terms you can adapt to the rules on this page.
Methodology & sources
How this reference was built
Every jurisdiction was checked against its own code or session laws, then cross-read against 2025–2026 client alerts from national employment practices. Where a statute is unindexed or a bill's fate was unresolved at the time of writing, the entry says so rather than guessing. Bills that died at sine die are recorded as dead, not "pending" — a distinction most trackers lose.
The restriction level is a composite index, not a legal opinion. It weights a statutory ban most heavily (40 points), then income protection (20), duration caps (15), notice and consideration duties (10), penalty regime (10) and reform momentum (5). It exists to make 51 jurisdictions comparable at a glance and should never be substituted for reading the statute.
Last reviewed: 25 August 2026. Next scheduled review: January 2027, when the indexed thresholds reset.
Primary and secondary sources
- Federal Trade Commission, Non-Compete Clause Rule announcement (23 April 2024) and notice acceding to vacatur (5 September 2025)
- Ryan LLC v. FTC, N.D. Tex. (20 August 2024); Properties of the Villages v. FTC, M.D. Fla. (14 August 2024)
- Federal Register, removal of 16 CFR Part 910 (12 February 2026)
- FTC consent orders: Gateway Services (November 2025), Adamas Amenity Services (February 2026), Rollins Inc. (June 2026)
- NLRB General Counsel Memoranda 23-08 and 25-05
- US Government Accountability Office, GAO-23-103785 (May 2023)
- Starr, Prescott & Bishara, "Noncompete Agreements in the U.S. Labor Force", Journal of Law and Economics (2021)
- Colvin & Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute, employer non-compete survey
- Economic Innovation Group, State Noncompete Law Tracker (March 2026)
- State codes and session laws for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (linked per state in the table above)
- Littler, Ogletree Deakins, Seyfarth Shaw, Fisher Phillips, Foley & Lardner and Epstein Becker Green client alerts, 2024–2026
- Washington State Register 25-20-099; Virginia DOLI threshold notice (6 January 2026); DC DOES indexed threshold notice for 2026
This page is general legal information published by Jurizmo and is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and may not reflect amendments enacted after the review date above. Consult a licensed attorney in the relevant state before acting on any agreement.