Colorado Non-Compete Law in 2026: HB 22-1317 and the Highly Compensated Threshold

Are non-competes enforceable in Colorado? Mostly no. Under C.R.S. 8-2-113 as rewritten by HB 22-1317 (effective August 10, 2022), a covenant not to compete is void unless an exception applies. The main exception covers a worker who earns at least the "highly compensated" threshold, when the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary. The 2026 figure is $130,014 (7 CCR 1103-14, in force since January 1, 2026 under a temporary order and carried into the 2026 PAY CALC Order effective February 1, 2026). A customer non-solicit needs 60 percent of the threshold amount, which is $78,008.40 on the 2026 figure. A covenant that restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry gets no highly compensated exception at any income. An employer that enters into, presents or tries to enforce a void covenant is liable for actual damages and a $5,000 penalty per worker harmed, which a court may reduce or waive if the employer acted in good faith.

Reviewed and corrected on 6 October 2026. This is general information, not legal advice; check the cited statute or opinion before relying on it.

Official text, as of 6 October 2026

Everything below was read on 6 October 2026 in the 2026 edition of the Colorado Revised Statutes, published by the Office of Legislative Legal Services at olls.info (Title 8, section 8-2-113), and in the Department of Labor and Employment's 2026 PAY CALC Order.

• C.R.S. 8-2-113(2)(b), the highly compensated exception. It applies to a worker who earns annualized cash compensation "equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets". The subsection opens by excluding covenants that restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry.
• 8-2-113(2)(c)(II), which threshold applies. The threshold is the greater of the Division's amount "(A) As of August 10, 2022; or (B) At the time the covenant not to compete is executed by the parties."
• 8-2-113(2)(d), customer non-solicits. The worker must earn "sixty percent of the threshold amount for highly compensated workers", and the covenant must be no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets.
• 8-2-113(4), notice. It must come in "a separate document from any other covenants between the worker and employer", and "The notice must be signed by the worker."
• 8-2-113(6), Colorado law and forum. "Notwithstanding any contractual provision to the contrary, Colorado law governs the enforceability of a covenant not to compete for a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided and worked in Colorado."
• 8-2-113(8)(b), the penalty. An employer that violates (8)(a) "is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct."
• The number. 7 CCR 1103-14, Rule 1.2.1(G), "Highly compensated employees": "$130,014 annually". The order reads "Adopted December 8, 2025; effective February 1, 2026." CDLE's 2026 Temporary PAY CALC Order, adopted December 12, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, carries the same $130,014 in Rule 1.2.1(G) until the permanent order took over.

What changed in 2026. The threshold figure rose from $127,091 (2025) to $130,014, which applied from January 1, 2026 under CDLE's temporary order and continued under the permanent 2026 order effective February 1, 2026. The 2026 edition of section 8-2-113 shows no amendment after SB 25-083 (effective August 6, 2025). Separately, the FTC's Non-Compete Clause Rule left the federal regulations on February 12, 2026, as described below. CDLE publishes a new figure each year, so check its Labor Rules page before you rely on this number for a covenant signed in 2027.

What the statute does and does not reach

Consider a Denver SaaS employer with one template for everyone: account executives at $95,000 OTE, senior engineers at $185,000, a VP of sales at $260,000. The non-compete runs twelve months, "anywhere the Company does business," with a one-line acknowledgment in the offer letter. That package has at least three separate problems under the statute, and the sections below walk through each.

Two points about timing matter first. HB 22-1317 section 2(2) says the act "applies to covenants not to compete entered into or renewed on or after the applicable effective date of this act." A covenant signed before August 10, 2022 and never renewed stays under the prior text of the statute. A covenant entered into or renewed after that date is judged under the current one. And the threshold is fixed when the covenant is signed (see below), so a covenant from 2023 is measured against the 2023 figure, not against $130,014.

Two mistakes are common. Employers assume a choice-of-law clause saves them, and they assume equity counts toward the threshold. Subsection (6) answers the first. The statute's own wording answers the second: it measures "annualized cash compensation."

TL;DR

• HB 22-1317, effective August 10, 2022, rewrote C.R.S. 8-2-113. A non-compete is void unless it falls in an exception. The highly compensated exception needs trade-secret protection, a covenant no broader than reasonably necessary, and a worker earning at least the threshold at signing and at enforcement. The 2026 figure is $130,014, set in CDLE's PAY CALC Orders (temporary order effective January 1, 2026; permanent order effective February 1, 2026).
• Customer non-solicits ride on 60 percent of the threshold amount, which is $78,008.40 on the 2026 figure.
• The threshold that applies is the greater of the August 2022 amount and the amount when the covenant was signed. The worker's pay is tested at signing and again at enforcement.
• A separate signed notice is required: before a new hire accepts, or at least 14 days before the covenant or its consideration takes effect for a current worker (subsection (4)).
• Subsection (1.5) makes it a class 2 misdemeanor to use force, threats or other means of intimidation to prevent a person from working. Subsection (8) adds a $5,000 civil penalty per worker harmed, subject to a good-faith reduction.
• SB 25-083, effective August 6, 2025, removed the highly compensated exception for covenants that restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry, for covenants entered into or renewed on or after that date.
• Subsection (6) requires a Colorado forum for a worker who primarily resided or worked in Colorado, and applies Colorado law to a worker who primarily resided and worked there.

Part of our state law reference series. To find the current text of any Colorado statute yourself, see how to find and cite Colorado law.

The statutory framework: C.R.S. 8-2-113

This is the map of section 8-2-113 as it stands in the 2026 edition:

• (1) Legislative intent: the General Assembly intends to preserve case law in effect before August 10, 2022 on what counts as a covenant not to compete and on how closely a trade-secret covenant must be tailored.
• (1.5) The intimidation offence: "It is unlawful to use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place the person sees fit." A violation is a class 2 misdemeanor.
• (2)(a) A covenant not to compete that restricts the right to receive compensation for labor is void, except as (2)(b), (2)(d) and (3) provide.
• (2)(b) The highly compensated worker exception for non-competes. (2)(c) holds the definitions. (2)(d) is the customer non-solicit exception at 60 percent.
• (3) Four covenants that (2) does not prohibit: training-cost recovery, a reasonable confidentiality or trade-secret provision, a sale-of-business covenant by an owner, and repayment of an apprenticeship scholarship.
• (4) Notice. (5) Severability. (5.5) A deeming rule for health-care providers and patient disclosures.
• (6) Colorado law governs, and the worker cannot be forced to litigate outside Colorado. (7) A worker or a new employer may seek a declaratory judgment that the covenant is unenforceable.
• (8) Employer liability and the $5,000 penalty. (9) Attorney general enforcement.

The executive and management exception that older versions of the statute carried is gone. HB 22-1317 amended the entire section, and the current text has no such exception.

The HB 22-1317 requirements: what must line up

A non-compete that relies on the highly compensated exception has to satisfy every one of these.

The covenant must protect trade secrets and go no further. Subsection (2)(b) requires that the covenant be "for the protection of trade secrets" and "no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets." Colorado's Uniform Trade Secrets Act defines "trade secret" at C.R.S. 7-74-102(4), and section 8-2-113 cross-refers to that article. General fear of competition is not a trade-secret interest. The statute offers no separate exception for customer goodwill or training investment, apart from the narrow training-cost recovery in (3)(a).

The worker must earn at least the threshold, at signing and at enforcement. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment publishes the figure in its Publication and Yearly Calculation of Adjusted Labor Compensation Order (the "PAY CALC" Order, 7 CCR 1103-14). The threshold that applies to a given covenant is "the greater of" the August 10, 2022 amount and the amount when the covenant was signed, and the worker's annualized cash compensation is tested against it "at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced." In practice, a covenant signed in 2023 is measured against the 2023 figure for the whole of its life, and what is retested at enforcement is the worker's pay.

Source: 7 CCR 1103-14, Rule 1.2.1(G), in each year's PAY CALC Order as published by CDLE: 2022 (adopted November 10, 2021, effective January 1, 2022), 2023 (adopted November 10, 2022, effective January 1, 2023), 2024 (adopted November 9, 2023, effective January 1, 2024), 2025 (adopted November 7, 2024, effective January 1, 2025) and the 2026 order cited above. The 60 percent column is arithmetic on those figures. Check the order for the year a covenant was signed before relying on any number.

What counts as pay. The statute defines "annualized cash compensation" as "the amount of the gross salary or wage amount, the fee amount, or the other compensation amount for the full year." A worker employed for less than a calendar year qualifies if she "would reasonably expect to earn more than the threshold amount during a calendar year of employment" ((2)(c)(III)). The statute uses the word "cash," so an employer that counts equity toward the threshold is taking a risk its wording does not support. We found no official guidance on how commissions or bonuses are treated, so check any variable pay component against the text.

The customer non-solicit threshold for 2026 is $78,008.40. Subsection (2)(d) lets an employer use a customer non-solicit for a worker earning at least 60 percent of the threshold amount, at signing and at enforcement, if it is "no broader than reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets." The same measuring rule applies: the threshold is the greater of the August 2022 amount and the amount when the covenant was signed.

Notice is a hard procedural gate. Under subsection (4)(a), a covenant that is otherwise permissible is void unless notice of the covenant and its terms goes to a prospective worker before she accepts the offer, or to a current worker at least 14 days before the earlier of the covenant's effective date or the effective date of any additional compensation or change in terms that provides consideration for it. Subsection (4)(b) requires a separate document, in clear and conspicuous terms, in the language in which the worker and employer communicate about the worker's performance, signed by the worker. Subsection (4)(d) gives a safe harbor: the notice comes with a copy of the agreement, identifies the agreement by name and states that it "contains a covenant not to compete that could restrict the workers' options for subsequent employment following their separation from the employer", and points to the specific sections or paragraphs. A worker may ask for another copy once a calendar year ((4)(c)).

Reasonable in scope is still law. Subsection (1) preserves existing case law on how closely a trade-secret covenant must be tailored. The statute sets no fixed duration. Tie geography to where the worker actually worked and scope to what she actually did, and expect a court to ask whether each restriction protects a trade secret.

The penalties: criminal under (1.5), civil under (8)

There are two separate exposures, and the civil one is the bigger day-to-day risk.

The civil penalty. Subsection (8)(a) says an employer "shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section." Under (8)(b), an employer that violates it is liable for actual damages and a penalty of $5,000 per worker or prospective worker harmed. The attorney general and any harmed worker may sue for injunctive relief and penalties, and a private plaintiff may also recover reasonable costs and attorney fees. The penalty is per head, so one template pushed across 20 below-threshold reps could mean up to $100,000 in penalties. Subsection (8)(c) lets the court award no penalty, or less than the maximum, if the employer shows that it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe it was not violating the section. Where the attorney general has recovered under the statute, a worker cannot recover the same damages, penalties or injunctive relief a second time ((8)(d)). The attorney general may also recover three times the amount an employer recovered or tried to recover as training costs in violation of (3)(a).

HB 24-1324 (effective August 7, 2024) amended (3)(a), (8)(a) and (8)(b) and added (8)(d) and (9). Subsection (9)(a) gives the attorney general express authority to enforce subsections (2), (3), (4), (6) and (8)(a), and SB 25-083 later added (5.5) to that list.

The criminal offence. Subsection (1.5)(a) makes it unlawful to use force, threats or other means of intimidation to prevent a person from engaging in any lawful occupation, and (1.5)(b) makes a violation a class 2 misdemeanor. For offences committed on or after March 1, 2022, a class 2 misdemeanor carries up to 120 days in jail, a fine of up to $750, or both (C.R.S. 18-1.3-501(1)(a.5)). The statute does not say that presenting or enforcing a void covenant is itself an intimidation offence. That conduct falls under (8)(a) and its civil penalty. Not verified in our October 2026 review: whether any prosecutor has charged an employer under (1.5) over a covenant. Check the Colorado Judicial Branch and a case-law database.

The 2025 amendments: SB 25-083

SB 25-083 was signed on June 3, 2025 and took effect August 6, 2025. Its section 2(2) says it "applies to covenants not to compete entered into or renewed on or after the applicable effective date of this act." It leaves the highly compensated framework for general employees alone and adds a healthcare regime.

Healthcare workers. Subsections (2)(b) and (2)(d) now open with an exception for "a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state." For those covenants the highly compensated and customer non-solicit exceptions do not apply, whatever the worker earns. "Practice of medicine" includes practice as a physician assistant ((2)(c)(I.7)). Covenants signed or renewed before August 6, 2025 are not covered by the amendment until they are renewed.

Patient disclosures. Under subsection (5.5), a covenant is deemed to restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry if it "prohibits or materially restricts" a health-care provider from telling a patient she was treating about (a) her continuing practice, (b) her new professional contact information, or (c) the patient's right to choose a provider. Once a covenant is deemed to restrict the practice, the highly compensated and customer non-solicit exceptions do not apply to it. Certified midwives appear in the statute's definition of "health-care provider," which (5.5) uses.

Sale-of-business covenants. Subsection (3)(c) permits a covenant tied to the sale of a business, an ownership share or substantially all of its assets "that restricts competition by an owner of an interest in the business." For a minority owner who received equity as compensation, the covenant's length in years "must not exceed" the total consideration received from the sale divided by the average annualized cash compensation received from the business over the prior two years, or over the period of affiliation if shorter. The statute does not address option holders by name, so whether a small option holder counts as "an owner" is open to argument.

Industry-specific notes

Healthcare. Hospitals, physician groups and dental practices should treat covenants signed or renewed on or after August 6, 2025 that restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice nursing or dentistry as void. Other protections remain: a reasonable confidentiality or trade-secret provision under (3)(b), recovery of training costs under (3)(a) (limited to reasonable cost for training "distinct from normal, on-the-job training" and declining proportionally over the two years after the training), and sale-of-business covenants on actual owners under (3)(c). Earlier covenants stay under the prior text until they are renewed, so the date of signing or renewal matters.

Technology. Take an engineer who signed in 2023 at a $145,000 base. The threshold fixed for that covenant is the 2023 figure of $112,500. If she later moves to a $135,000 base plus equity, her cash pay still clears $112,500, so the pay test is met at enforcement. A drop below the signing-year figure would not meet it, and equity would not fill the gap, because the statute measures cash. The trade-secret purpose and the notice still have to be there.

Sales. This is the category with the most below-threshold workers. A rep at $80,000 to $115,000 OTE is below the non-compete threshold for any covenant signed from 2024 on ($123,750 or more) but above the customer non-solicit threshold ($78,008.40 on the 2026 figure, and lower in earlier years). Her non-solicit can stand if notice was given and it is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets. A reflexive "all customers, all geographies, twelve months" clause is void to the extent it goes further than that.

Recent appellate authority

A Colorado Court of Appeals decision on liquidated damages in a physician covenant is Crocker v. Greater Colorado Anesthesia, P.C., 2018 COA 33, 463 P.3d 860 (the citation as printed in the OLLS annotations). The Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that a physician's non-compete was unenforceable, agreeing that the new practice "could not enforce a noncompete provision against a dissenting shareholder forced out of employment by the action of a merger," and that damages under a noncompete agreement "must be reasonably related to the injury actually suffered and not simply related to an injury prospectively estimated at the time of contract formation." The court applied the statute as it read in 2017 (section 8-2-113(3), C.R.S. 2017). The damages rule may still matter for a physician covenant signed before August 6, 2025 that remains in force.

Not verified in our October 2026 review: whether a published Colorado appellate decision has applied the highly compensated exception since August 2022. Search a case-law database or the Colorado Judicial Branch site for decisions citing 8-2-113 filed after that date.

The federal backdrop

The FTC's Non-Compete Clause Rule was set aside in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024). On September 5, 2025 the Commission voted 3 to 1 to dismiss its appeals and accede to the vacatur. A final rule removed 16 CFR Part 910 from the Code of Federal Regulations, effective February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6507). State law is the operative law for Colorado workers. For the wider 2026 picture, see non-compete law updates for 2026.

Choice of law for Colorado-based remote workers

The most consequential subsection for multi-state employers is (6). A covenant that applies to a worker who, at the time her employment ends, "primarily resided or worked in Colorado may not require the worker to adjudicate the enforceability of the covenant outside of Colorado." Colorado law governs the covenant's enforceability for a worker who "primarily resided and worked in Colorado," notwithstanding any contract term to the contrary. The two limbs are worded differently: the forum rule turns on resided or worked, and the governing-law rule turns on resided and worked.

For an employer based in another state with Colorado remote workers, a "governed by the laws of the State of [HQ]" clause does not control the non-compete question for a worker who lives and works in Boulder. The Colorado notice rules, thresholds and penalties apply to that worker's covenant. A worker or her new employer can also seek a declaratory judgment that the covenant is unenforceable under subsection (7).

A multi-state employer onboarding remote workers under one template either keeps state-specific addenda or accepts that Colorado's rules will govern the Colorado workers' covenants.

Colorado is strict, but it is not alone. California voids non-competes under Section 16600, and Washington keeps an indexed salary floor until June 29, 2027, then bans nearly all non-competes under ESHB 1155 (Chapter 149, Laws of 2026, approved March 23, 2026, effective June 30, 2027; see the Washington guide). For the full picture, see the non-compete enforceability by state map, and Texas for comparison.

What goes wrong in practice: the Denver SaaS template

Back to the hypothetical template. Three failure modes.

The $95,000 AEs are below the non-compete threshold, so their non-competes are void under (2)(a). Their customer non-solicit clears the 60 percent threshold, but the template's "all customers" language is likely broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets, and it needs the (4) notice. Sending a demand letter to a departing AE on a void covenant is the conduct subsection (8)(a) addresses, with the civil penalty that follows.

The $185,000 senior engineers clear the threshold on base. Suppose two took base reductions to $115,000 for 2025, expecting to be made whole through RSU acceleration. For a covenant signed in 2024, the threshold fixed at signing was $123,750, so $115,000 in cash falls below it at enforcement. RSU value does not change that, because the statute measures cash compensation.

The $260,000 VP's notice sits on page 47 of an offer letter in the onboarding portal. Subsection (4)(b) requires a separate document signed by the worker. A hidden notice invites the argument that the covenant is void under (4)(a).

Salary tiering is not optional. A confidentiality-only template for staff below the customer non-solicit threshold. Confidentiality plus a tightly scoped customer non-solicit for workers between 60 percent of the threshold and the full threshold. A trade-secret non-compete with separate notice machinery for workers at or above the threshold. Healthcare templates layered on top.

Drafting checklist for the Colorado non-compete that survives

One. Confirm the worker's annualized cash compensation met the threshold in force when the covenant was signed (the greater of that year's figure and the August 2022 figure) and still meets it at enforcement. For 2026 that figure is $130,014. If the worker falls short, drop the non-compete. A customer non-solicit needs 60 percent of the same threshold ($78,008.40 on the 2026 figure).

Two. Confirm the worker is not in a role that restricts the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry. If she is, drop the non-compete and the customer non-solicit, and use a confidentiality provision under (3)(b), training-cost recovery under (3)(a), or a sale-of-business covenant under (3)(c) where ownership is real.

Three. Describe the trade-secret interest with specificity. Generic references to "proprietary information" invite a challenge under (2)(b). Name categories (source code repositories, customer-pricing models, undisclosed product roadmaps) and tie scope to them.

Four. Tie geography to where the employee worked and scope to what she did. The statute sets no fixed duration.

Five. Give the separate signed notice required by subsection (4): before acceptance for new hires, at least 14 days before the covenant or its consideration takes effect for current workers. Use the (4)(d) safe harbor: attach the agreement, name it, state that it contains a covenant not to compete, and point to the sections. Do not bury it on page 47 of an offer letter.

Six. Drop any choice-of-law or venue clause that purports to remove the covenant from Colorado law for a worker who primarily resided or worked in Colorado. Under (6), Colorado law governs regardless for a worker who primarily resided and worked there.

Seven. Include a reasonable confidentiality provision separately under (3)(b). It does not depend on the pay threshold, but it cannot prohibit disclosure of information that arises from the worker's general training, knowledge, skill or experience, information readily ascertainable to the public, or information the worker has a legal right to disclose.

FAQ

Are non-competes enforceable in Colorado?

Most are not. Under C.R.S. 8-2-113, a non-compete is void unless an exception applies. The main one covers a worker earning at least the highly compensated threshold at signing and at enforcement, when the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary. Covenants that restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry get no such exception after SB 25-083, for covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025.

What is the Colorado non-compete salary threshold for 2026?

$130,014 in annualized cash compensation for a non-compete, and $78,008.40 (60 percent of that) for a customer non-solicit. The figure is in 7 CCR 1103-14, Rule 1.2.1(G), in the 2026 PAY CALC Order, which was adopted December 8, 2025 and took effect February 1, 2026, after a temporary order with the same figure applied from January 1, 2026. CDLE sets a new figure each year. The threshold that applies to a covenant is the greater of the August 2022 figure and the figure when the covenant was signed.

Where is the official text of C.R.S. 8-2-113?

The Office of Legislative Legal Services publishes the Colorado Revised Statutes at olls.info. The 2026 edition of Title 8 contains section 8-2-113. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment publishes the PAY CALC Order, and the Secretary of State publishes it in the Code of Colorado Regulations as 7 CCR 1103-14.

When did HB 22-1317 take effect, and does it apply to old non-competes?

It took effect August 10, 2022. Section 2(2) of the act says it applies to covenants "entered into or renewed on or after the applicable effective date." A covenant signed earlier and never renewed stays under the prior text of the statute.

Does the threshold change every year for existing covenants?

The figure is published every year, but for a given covenant the threshold is the greater of the August 10, 2022 amount and the amount when the covenant was signed. The worker's pay is tested against that number at signing and at enforcement. A later, higher yearly figure does not reset it.

Does a choice-of-law clause let an out-of-state employer avoid Colorado's rules?

Not for a worker who primarily resided and worked in Colorado when her employment ended. Subsection (6) says Colorado law governs the covenant's enforceability notwithstanding any contract term to the contrary, and that a covenant covering a worker who primarily resided or worked in Colorado may not require her to litigate its enforceability outside Colorado.

What is the penalty for an unenforceable non-compete in Colorado?

An employer that enters into, presents or attempts to enforce a void covenant is liable for actual damages and a $5,000 penalty per worker or prospective worker harmed (subsection (8)(b)), and a worker who sues can also recover costs and attorney fees. A court may award no penalty, or less than $5,000, if the employer acted in good faith with reasonable grounds ((8)(c)). Using force, threats or other means of intimidation to prevent a person from working is separately a class 2 misdemeanor under subsection (1.5), with up to 120 days in jail and a fine of up to $750.

How long can a Colorado non-compete last?

The statute sets no fixed duration. Subsection (1) preserves existing case law on how closely a trade-secret covenant must be tailored, so the covenant still has to be limited to what protects the trade secrets, in time, geography and scope. A minority owner's sale-of-business covenant has its own duration formula in (3)(c).

Are physician and healthcare non-competes enforceable in Colorado?

Not through the highly compensated or customer non-solicit exceptions. For covenants entered into or renewed on or after August 6, 2025, subsections (2)(b) and (2)(d) exclude covenants that restrict the practice of medicine (including physician assistants), advanced practice registered nursing or dentistry. Subsection (5.5) treats a covenant that materially restricts a provider from telling patients about her continued practice, new contact details or their right to choose as a covenant restricting the practice.

Does equity or RSU compensation count toward the threshold?

The statute measures "annualized cash compensation," defined as gross salary or wages, fees or other compensation for the full year. An employer that relies on equity to clear the threshold takes a risk that the wording does not support. We found no official guidance on the point, so check the text and the facts of the pay arrangement.

What notice does Colorado require before a non-compete is signed?

A separate written notice, in clear and conspicuous terms, in the language in which the worker and employer communicate about her performance, signed by the worker. New hires must get it before accepting the offer. Current workers must get it at least 14 days before the earlier of the covenant's effective date or the effective date of any consideration for it. Under the (4)(d) safe harbor the notice names the agreement, says it contains a covenant not to compete that could restrict the worker's options, and points to the sections.

What changed in Colorado non-compete law in 2025 and 2026?

SB 25-083 (signed June 3, 2025, effective August 6, 2025) added the healthcare limits and the patient-disclosure rule, and tightened the sale-of-business exception. The threshold moved to $130,014 on January 1, 2026 (temporary order) and stayed there under the 2026 PAY CALC Order effective February 1, 2026. The 2026 edition of section 8-2-113 shows no amendment after SB 25-083.

For the US statutes, regulations and court rules these laws sit in, see the US primary law API.

Arshita Anand

Co-Founder & CEO · Attorney

Arshita leads product and strategy at Vaquill AI, the US primary law data API. As an attorney, she decides which law we carry, how each section is sourced and cited, and what legal AI and compliance teams need from the data.