Reasonableness test
Wisconsin Non-Compete Law (2026): Enforceable if reasonable
Wisconsin enforces a non-compete only where the restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the employer, and the statute makes the consequence of overreaching unusually severe. If any part of the covenant is unreasonable, the whole covenant fails — the text specifically forbids salvaging the portion that would have been a reasonable restraint. There is no pay threshold, no time cap and no notice duty, so the entire fight is over scope, and Wisconsin gives employers no second chance at it.
The rule
How Wisconsin treats non-compete agreements
Star Direct is the provision most often overstated in both directions. It does not soften the no-blue-pencil rule; it holds only that covenants which are truly divisible — each capable of standing alone and each independently meaningful — get judged separately. Clauses stitched into one interdependent restraint still rise and fall together. Manitowoc is the other trap, because employers who assumed § 103.465 reached only classic non-competes have found their employee-poaching clauses invalidated under the same standard. Wisconsin also has no penalty regime, no private cause of action for merely presenting a bad covenant, and no employee fee-shifting, so an overbroad clause carries only the risk that it will not be enforced.
If you are an employer
Wisconsin will not narrow an overbroad clause for you, so build the restraint as genuinely independent covenants under Star Direct and keep each one tethered to customers, territory or information the employee actually touched.
If you are a worker
Find one unreasonable element in a Wisconsin non-compete and the entire covenant is void, not merely trimmed — and the same statute applies to any employee non-solicitation clause you signed.
| Classification | Statutory reasonableness with all-or-nothing invalidity |
|---|---|
| Pay threshold | None. |
| Maximum term | No statutory ceiling. A reasonable time is whatever the employer's protectable interest actually requires, assessed alongside territory and restricted activity. |
| Notice or consideration | No notice or disclosure requirement. Consideration is required, and Wisconsin accepts an employer's forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee as sufficient. |
| Primary statute | Wis. Stat. § 103.465 |
Detail
What has changed, and what is still moving
Legislation 2024–2026
None. Section 103.465 has stood essentially unchanged for decades; the history line shows only 1995 a. 225, 1997 a. 253 and a renumbering in 2015 a. 197.
Bills to watch
No significant restrictive bills pending. AB 567 and SB 657 (2025-2026) would have voided most employment non-competes with limited exceptions, but both died on March 23, 2026 when the session's bills failed to pass under Senate Joint Resolution 1. A Legislative Council issue brief published April 27, 2026 keeps the subject in front of legislators for the next session.
Leading cases
Chuck Wagon Catering v. Raduege (Wis. 1979) sets out the five requirements: the restraint must be necessary to protect the employer, reasonable in time, reasonable in territory, not harsh or oppressive to the employee, and not contrary to public policy. Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra (Wis. 2009) is the workaround, holding that genuinely separate and independently meaningful covenants are analyzed on their own, so one bad clause does not automatically poison the others. Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning (Wis. 2018) extended § 103.465 to employee non-solicitation provisions. Runzheimer International v. Friedlen (Wis. 2015) settled the consideration question, and Equity Enterprises v. Milosch (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) confirms that a covenant lacking a specified territory is void.
If you have one in hand
What can make a non-compete unenforceable in Wisconsin
- 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 Wisconsin.
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
Wisconsin non-compete questions
Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin enforces a non-compete only where the restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the employer, and the statute makes the consequence of overreaching unusually severe. If any part of the covenant is unreasonable, the whole covenant fails — the text specifically forbids salvaging the portion that would have been a reasonable restraint. There is no pay threshold, no time cap and no notice duty, so the entire fight is over scope, and Wisconsin gives employers no second chance at it.
How long can a non-compete last in Wisconsin?
No statutory ceiling. A reasonable time is whatever the employer's protectable interest actually requires, assessed alongside territory and restricted activity.
Is there a minimum salary for non-competes in Wisconsin?
No. Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin require?
No notice or disclosure requirement. Consideration is required, and Wisconsin accepts an employer's forbearance from terminating an existing at-will employee as sufficient.
Sources
How this entry was checked
- Primary source. Wis. Stat. § 103.465 — the statutory text itself.
- Secondary sources consulted. Wis. Stat. § 103.465 with annotations (Justia), Wisconsin Legislative Council issue brief on noncompete agreements, April 27, 2026, 2025 AB 567 and 2025 SB 657 with status histories, Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra (Wis. 2009), Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning (Wis. 2018), Runzheimer International v. Friedlen (Wis. 2015).
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.