Occupation limits
Montana Non-Compete Law (2026): Disfavored but enforceable
Montana's general restraint-of-trade statute reads like California's, but the courts have never applied it that way: a covenant that shuts an employee out of their occupation altogether is void, while a narrower restriction is tested for reasonableness and frequently upheld. Montana is therefore a difficult, employee-friendly jurisdiction rather than a prohibition state. The one true ban is sector-specific — § 28-2-724 now removes non-competes and non-solicits from contracts with essentially the entire licensed health care workforce, following expansions in 2025 and a final extension to all physicians on Jan. 1, 2026.
The rule
How Montana treats non-compete agreements
Montana is routinely miscounted among the total-ban states because § 28-2-703 tracks California's language; the divergence is entirely judicial. Note too that Montana courts will blue-pencil in sale-of-business and partnership settings but have declined to do so in employment agreements, so an overbroad employment covenant tends to fail outright.
If you are an employer
Draft narrowly, pay separately for any covenant added mid-employment, expect no judicial rewriting in the employment context, and understand that firing someone without cause will generally end your ability to enforce.
If you are a worker
Outside health care your Montana non-compete may well be enforceable if it is modest in scope — but it fails if it effectively bars you from your trade, if you were let go without cause, or if you signed it mid-job without getting anything new for it.
| Classification | Strict-scrutiny common law plus a statutory health-care ban |
|---|---|
| Pay threshold | None for the general workforce. The line Montana draws is occupational: licensed physicians, naturopathic physicians, registered nurses, APRNs, physician assistants, psychologists, social workers, professional counselors, addiction counselors, marriage and family therapists and behavioral health peer support specialists cannot be restricted at all. |
| Maximum term | No statutory cap. Montana courts look at whether the covenant is limited in time or place, rests on good consideration, and protects the employer without unduly burdening the employee or the public; roughly one year with a defined territory is the pattern that survives. |
| Notice or consideration | No disclosure or waiting-period rule. There is a consideration rule with real teeth, though: a covenant imposed after hire needs independent consideration, and continued at-will employment alone will not do. |
| Primary statute | Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (with exceptions at §§ 28-2-704, 28-2-705); Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-724 (health care providers) |
Detail
What has changed, and what is still moving
Legislation 2024–2026
Two 2025 acts widened the health-care prohibition in Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-724. HB 198, effective April 16, 2025, brought in naturopathic physicians, registered professional nurses, advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants. HB 620, signed May 19, 2025 and effective Jan. 1, 2026, extended the ban to every licensed physician, while expressly allowing employers to recover loan, relocation, signing-bonus, education and tuition amounts and preserving covenants tied to the sale or purchase of a practice.
Bills to watch
No significant restrictive bills pending; Montana's legislature meets biennially and does not convene again in regular session until 2027.
Leading cases
Dobbins, DeGuire & Tucker, P.C. v. Rutherford, MacDonald & Olson (Mont. 1985) — the three-part reasonableness test. Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (Mont. 2011) — an employer that terminates without cause loses the protectable interest and cannot enforce. Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez (Mont. 2008) — mid-employment covenants require fresh consideration. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. v. Alborn, Uithoven, Riekenberg, P.C., 2016 MT 218 — shareholder restrictive covenant upheld as an enforceable agreement, remanded for reasonableness review.
If you have one in hand
What can make a non-compete unenforceable in Montana
- Your occupation is carved out. Strict-scrutiny common law plus a statutory health-care ban
- The scope is wider than the interest behind it. A restriction that reaches beyond the customers, trade secrets or goodwill the employer can actually point to is the most common reason a covenant fails in Montana.
Whether any of these applies turns on the wording of your own agreement, your role and the case law your court follows. This page maps the statutory landscape; it does not replace advice on a specific contract.
FAQ
Montana non-compete questions
Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Montana?
Montana's general restraint-of-trade statute reads like California's, but the courts have never applied it that way: a covenant that shuts an employee out of their occupation altogether is void, while a narrower restriction is tested for reasonableness and frequently upheld. Montana is therefore a difficult, employee-friendly jurisdiction rather than a prohibition state. The one true ban is sector-specific — § 28-2-724 now removes non-competes and non-solicits from contracts with essentially the entire licensed health care workforce, following expansions in 2025 and a final extension to all physicians on Jan. 1, 2026.
How long can a non-compete last in Montana?
No statutory cap. Montana courts look at whether the covenant is limited in time or place, rests on good consideration, and protects the employer without unduly burdening the employee or the public; roughly one year with a defined territory is the pattern that survives.
Is there a minimum salary for non-competes in Montana?
No. Montana sets no income floor, so pay alone does not decide whether a covenant binds you. The test is whether the restriction goes further than the employer's legitimate interest requires in time, geography and scope of work.
What notice or consideration does Montana require?
No disclosure or waiting-period rule. There is a consideration rule with real teeth, though: a covenant imposed after hire needs independent consideration, and continued at-will employment alone will not do.
Sources
How this entry was checked
- Primary source. Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (with exceptions at §§ 28-2-704, 28-2-705); Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-724 (health care providers) — the statutory text itself.
- Secondary sources consulted. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 28-2-703, 28-2-724 (Justia), HB 198 and HB 620 (2025, 69th Legislature), Fair Competition Law (Beck Reed Riden), Epstein Becker Green, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Littler, ALFA International compendium, Foley & Lardner.
Check it against a third party
None of these is ours. If a figure here matters to a decision, verify it:
- Federal Trade Commission — non-compete hub
- Economic Innovation Group — State Noncompete Law Tracker
- Fair Competition Law (Beck Reed Riden) — 50-state legislation tracker
- GAO-23-103785 — Noncompete Agreements (May 2023)
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.