Florida Non-Compete Enforceability in 2026: The CHOICE Act + Section 542.335

Yes, non-competes are enforceable in Florida. The legacy statute, Fla. Stat. § 542.335, enforces a covenant that is backed by a legitimate business interest and reasonable in time, area, and line of business, and it tells courts not to read covenants narrowly. The 2025 CHOICE Act adds a second regime for higher earners, with restrictions of up to four years and a mandatory preliminary injunction.

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

The thing most drafting teams get wrong about Florida non-competes in 2026 is treating the state as one regime when it has become two. There is the legacy § 542.335 covenant, with its time presumptions and mandatory modification, in force since 1996. And there is the CHOICE Act regime in §§ 542.41 to 542.45, which became law in 2025 and runs in parallel for higher-paid employees and contractors.

Teams that draft only against the first leave the stronger protection unused. Teams that try to force every covenant into the second find the technical requirements (salary threshold, written acknowledgment, seven-day review period) and end up back in § 542.335 by default.

Official text, as of 6 October 2026

Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)1 (official text), for a covenant against a former employee, agent or independent contractor that is not tied to a sale of a business:

"a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration."

What changed in 2026. Nothing in § 542.335. The CHOICE Act (Laws of Florida ch. 2025-213) took effect on July 1, 2025, and the 2026 Florida Statutes show no amendment to §§ 542.41 to 542.45; their history note is still "s. 2, ch. 2025-213." On the federal side, the FTC's Non-Compete Clause Rule is no longer in the Code of Federal Regulations: the FTC removed it effective February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6507).

TL;DR

• Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d) presumes a restraint of six months or less reasonable and a restraint of more than two years unreasonable for a former employee. Between those two points there is no presumption: the employer proves the restraint is reasonably necessary, and then the worker must show it is overbroad, overlong or otherwise not reasonably necessary (§ 542.335(1)(c)).
• Covenants that protect trade secrets have their own presumptions in § 542.335(1)(e): five years or less is presumed reasonable and more than ten years is presumed unreasonable.
• The 2025 CHOICE Act (CS/CS/CS/HB 1219, Laws of Florida ch. 2025-213), codified at §§ 542.41 to 542.45, allows covered non-competes and covered garden leave of up to four years for employees and contractors who earn more than twice the annual mean wage. Health care practitioners are excluded.
• A court that finds a restraint overbroad "shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary" (§ 542.335(1)(c)). It may not construe a covenant narrowly or against the drafter (§ 542.335(1)(h)), and it may not weigh the individual hardship to the worker (§ 542.335(1)(g)1).
• Section 542.336 voids a physician non-compete only where one entity employs or contracts with all the physicians who practice that specialty in the county.

Part of our state law reference series.

The statutory framework: Fla. Stat. § 542.335

Section 542.335, titled "Valid restraints of trade or commerce," reads less like a common-law standard and more like a checklist a court is told to follow.

Subsection (1)(a) requires the covenant to be in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.

Subsection (1)(b) requires the party seeking enforcement to "plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant." The term "includes, but is not limited to": trade secrets; valuable confidential business or professional information that is not a trade secret; substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients or clients; customer, patient or client goodwill tied to an ongoing business, a specific geographic location or a specific marketing or trade area; and extraordinary or specialized training. A covenant with no legitimate business interest behind it "is unlawful and is void and unenforceable."

The list is open-ended. In White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court held that home health referral sources may be a protected legitimate business interest "depending upon the context and proof adduced."

Subsection (1)(c) requires the employer to plead and prove that the restraint is "reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest." If the employer shows that prima facie, the person opposing enforcement has the burden of showing the restraint is "overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary." If the restraint is any of those things, "a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests." Modification is mandatory, and it is what practitioners loosely call Florida's blue-pencil practice. The statute itself says "modify."

Subsections (1)(d) and (1)(e) set the time presumptions, covered in the next section.

Subsection (1)(g) lists what a court must and must not weigh. It "shall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought." It may consider as a defense that the party seeking enforcement has stopped doing business in the relevant area or line of business, but only if the shutdown was not caused by a violation of the restriction. It must consider all other pertinent legal and equitable defenses and the effect of enforcement on public health, safety and welfare.

Subsection (1)(h) is where the pro-enforcement tilt shows. A court "shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement," and "shall not employ any rule of contract construction that requires the court to construe a restrictive covenant narrowly, against the restraint, or against the drafter of the contract."

Subsections (1)(j) and (1)(k) matter in litigation. Violating an enforceable covenant "creates a presumption of irreparable injury," but no temporary injunction may issue without a proper bond, and a contract term waiving the bond is not enforceable. Absent a fee clause in the contract, a court "may award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party" in an action to enforce or challenge a restrictive covenant.

The 2025 CHOICE Act

The Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth Act was CS/CS/CS/HB 1219 (2025), Laws of Florida ch. 2025-213 (text of the act). The House passed it on April 23, 2025 (91 to 21) and the Senate on April 24, 2025 (28 to 9). It was presented to the Governor on June 18, 2025 and became law without his signature on July 3, 2025 (bill history). Section 22 of the act says "This act shall take effect July 1, 2025." The Senate companion, SB 922, was laid on the table when the House bill passed.

It does not replace § 542.335. It creates a parallel regime for two kinds of covered agreement. A restrictive covenant that does not meet the CHOICE Act definitions "is governed by s. 542.335" (§ 542.45, last sentence).

Who is covered. A "covered employee" is an employee or individual contractor who earns, or is reasonably expected to earn, a salary "greater than twice the annual mean wage of the county in this state in which the covered employer has its principal place of business," or, if the employer's principal place of business is outside Florida, of the county where the employee resides (§ 542.43(3)). The definition does not include a health care practitioner as defined in § 456.001. "Salary" is base compensation on an annualized basis plus the fair market value of non-cash benefits; it excludes bonuses, commissions, tips, severance, retirement and health care benefits, and discretionary incentives (§ 542.43(10)).

The dollar threshold: not verified. The statute gives no dollar figure, and we have not confirmed one. Section 542.43(1) defines "annual mean wage" as the Bureau of Labor Statistics figure for all occupations in Florida, while subsection (3) speaks of the annual mean wage "of the county." We have not resolved how the two fit together. Not verified in our October 2026 review: check the current Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data and the statute before relying on a threshold.

Which agreements the Act reaches. Under § 542.45(1) the covered non-compete section applies to (a) a covered employee whose primary place of work is in Florida, "regardless of any applicable choice of law provisions," or (b) a covered employer whose principal place of business is in Florida and whose agreement is expressly governed by Florida law. Section 542.44(1) says the same for garden leave.

Inside that perimeter, the statute creates two vehicles.

Covered non-compete agreement (§ 542.45). The worker agrees, for no more than four years and within a geographic area stated in the agreement, not to take a role with another business where the worker would provide services similar to those provided to the employer in the previous three years, or where it is "reasonably likely" the worker would use the employer's confidential information or customer relationships (§ 542.43(6)). The employer must give the worker the proposed agreement at least seven days before the offer expires, the worker must be advised in writing of the right to seek counsel, and the worker must acknowledge in writing that the job will bring confidential information or customer relationships. If the worker is also on covered garden leave, the non-compete period is reduced day for day by the non-working part of the notice period.

Covered garden leave agreement (§ 542.44). The worker agrees to give up to four years of advance notice before leaving and not to resign before that period ends. The employer agrees to keep the worker on and to keep paying the same salary and benefits as in the month before notice; it need not provide discretionary incentive pay or any work (§ 542.43(5)). After the first 90 days of the notice period the worker does not have to provide services, may do non-work activities during business hours, and may work for another employer with the employer's permission. The employer, and only the employer, may shorten the notice period, by giving at least 30 days' advance written notice (§ 542.44(2)(c)4 and (3)(b)).

Mandatory preliminary injunction. On the employer's application, "a court must preliminarily enjoin" the covered worker from providing services to anyone else during the covered period (§ 542.45(5)(a)). The court may modify or dissolve the injunction only if the worker shows, by clear and convincing evidence based on non-confidential information, one of three things: the worker will not do similar work or use confidential information or customer relationships; the employer failed to pay the agreed consideration and had a reasonable chance to cure; or the new employer is not in, and is not preparing to enter, a similar business in the geographic area in the agreement. The court must also enjoin a new employer who engages the worker, subject to a similar showing (§ 542.45(5)(b)). Confidential filings go under seal.

Damages, fees and gross misconduct. A prevailing covered employer "is entitled to recover all available monetary damages for all available claims," and "the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs" (§ 542.45(5)(c) and (d)). The fee right runs to whichever side wins. If the worker commits gross misconduct, the employer may reduce salary or benefits or take other appropriate action during the period, and that is not a breach (§ 542.45(5)(e)).

The combination favors employers. We have not compared it against every other state's statute, so we make no claim about how it ranks nationally.

Time presumptions under § 542.335

Most Florida non-compete drafting still happens under § 542.335, because most workers do not clear the CHOICE Act salary line. The presumptions are written into the statute in two places, and they are rebuttable (§ 542.335(1)(d) and (e)).

Covenants not based on trade secrets, subsection (1)(d).

• Former employee, agent or independent contractor, not tied to a sale of a business: six months or less is presumed reasonable; more than two years is presumed unreasonable.
• Former distributor, dealer, franchisee or trademark or service mark licensee: one year or less is presumed reasonable; more than three years is presumed unreasonable.
• Seller of a business, a professional practice, shares, a partnership interest, a membership interest or another equity interest: three years or less is presumed reasonable; more than seven years is presumed unreasonable.

Covenants based on trade secrets, subsection (1)(e). Five years or less is presumed reasonable; more than ten years is presumed unreasonable.

What happens in between. For an employee covenant between six months and two years, there is no presumption either way. The employer still has to plead and prove a legitimate business interest and that the restraint is reasonably necessary. If it makes that showing, the burden moves to the worker to show the restraint is overbroad, overlong or otherwise not reasonably necessary (§ 542.335(1)(c)). A court that agrees the restraint is too long or too wide must modify it rather than strike it.

The practical drafting point is that a six-month covenant starts with a presumption and a twelve- or eighteen-month covenant starts with a proof problem. Tying the duration to a stated interest in the recitals gives the court something to point to.

Industry-specific notes

Healthcare. Fla. Stat. § 542.336 applies to a physician licensed under chapter 458 or 459 who practices a specialty in a county where one entity employs or contracts with, directly or through related or affiliated entities, all physicians who practice that specialty in the county. The covenant is not supported by a legitimate business interest, and it stays void and unenforceable for three years after a second entity that employs or contracts with one or more physicians in that specialty begins offering those services in the county. The statute does not ban ordinary physician non-competes where competing practices exist.

The CHOICE Act excludes health care practitioners, so a physician covenant is governed by § 542.335 plus § 542.336, not by the CHOICE Act vehicles. A system hiring specialists in a market it dominates should check § 542.336 county by county and specialty by specialty.

Sales. Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers are a listed legitimate business interest (§ 542.335(1)(b)3). A covenant that reaches "all customers of the Company" is easy to attack as broader than necessary. Drafting it around customers the employee dealt with during a defined look-back period gives the employer a more defensible restraint, and § 542.335(1)(c) lets a court narrow the rest.

Tech. Trade-secret protection runs in parallel under Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 to 688.009, and a covenant protecting trade secrets gets the longer presumptions in § 542.335(1)(e). A clause such as "engaging in the business of software" is exposed to the "overbroad" argument. Describing the specific product category and market segment narrows that exposure.

Appellate authority

The Florida Supreme Court's best-known modern non-compete decision is White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017), decided September 14, 2017 together with Hiles v. Americare Home Therapy, Inc. It resolved a certified conflict between the Fourth District and the Fifth District over whether referral sources can be a legitimate business interest. The Court approved the Fourth District's decision in White, which relied on Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 180 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and quashed the Fifth District's decision in Hiles, which had relied on Florida Hematology & Oncology Specialists v. Tummala, 927 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

The Court's holding is limited. It held that home health service referral sources "may be a protected legitimate business interest within the meaning of section 542.335, depending upon the context and proof adduced." It described the question as "inherently a factual inquiry, which is heavily industry- and context-specific," and noted that the statute protects interests "far beyond those explicitly listed." It also said "the reasonable scope of the covenants is not before this Court" and remanded for reconsideration of the facts. In passing, the Court noted that § 542.335 "commands courts to modify, or blue pencil," an overbroad covenant, but it did not decide how any covenant should be modified.

As for the CHOICE Act, we did not find a reported appellate decision construing §§ 542.44 or 542.45 in our October 2026 review, but our case-law search was limited, so check a case-law database before you rely on that. Not verified in our October 2026 review.

The modification rule in practice

Section 542.335(1)(c) makes modification mandatory: a court that finds a restraint overbroad, overlong or otherwise not reasonably necessary must modify it and grant only the relief reasonably necessary. Texas points the same direction. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.51(c) says a court "shall reform" an unreasonable covenant, though it bars damages for a breach before reformation. Florida's statute has no such damages limit, and it adds the no-narrow-construction rule in (1)(h) and the no-hardship rule in (1)(g)1.

A hypothetical shows how it plays out. A salesperson with a defined territory signs a twenty-four-month, statewide, "any competing business" covenant. If the employer proves substantial customer relationships, the court can keep the covenant but narrow the geography to the counties the salesperson served and the activity to the product line the salesperson sold. The employer gets an injunction on a narrower footprint. (This is an illustration of how the statute works, not a description of a particular case.)

Modification has limits. If the covenant is unsupported by a legitimate business interest, it is void, and an unsigned or unwritten covenant is not enforceable at all (§ 542.335(1)(a) and (b)). The modification rule rescues overbroad covenants, not ones that fail those threshold requirements.

Drafting checklist for the Florida non-compete

A working checklist for 2026, split between the two regimes.

For a vanilla § 542.335 covenant.

1. In writing, signed by the worker. Florida does not enforce an unsigned or oral covenant.
2. A specific recital of the legitimate business interest: substantial customer relationships, confidential information, specialized training, customer goodwill, or referral sources where the facts support it. Plead the ones that apply.
3. Duration matched to the presumptions. Six months or less is presumed reasonable for an employee; more than two years is presumed unreasonable; in between, expect to prove reasonable necessity. Use the longer trade-secret presumptions only for a covenant that protects trade secrets.
4. Geography tied to the worker's actual territory, not the entire state by default.
5. Scope tied to the work the worker actually did: specific product line, customer type, market segment.
6. Choice of law. For a worker based in California or Massachusetts, check those states' statutes first (see below).

For a CHOICE Act covered non-compete or covered garden leave.

1. Confirm the worker's salary exceeds twice the annual mean wage as § 542.43 defines it, using the salary definition in § 542.43(10). Confirm the threshold figure against current Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
2. Confirm the worker is not a health care practitioner. The exclusion is statutory.
3. Give the worker the proposed agreement at least seven days before the offer expires, and advise the worker in writing of the right to seek counsel. Document the dates.
4. Include the worker's written acknowledgment about confidential information or customer relationships, which the Act requires.
5. Pick the vehicle. A covered non-compete limits where the worker can go after the employment ends. Covered garden leave keeps the worker on payroll during a notice period, so the employer has to be able to carry the salary cost.
6. Define gross misconduct in the agreement. The Act lets the employer reduce pay or take other appropriate action for gross misconduct but does not define the term.
7. Check the nexus. The Act applies if the worker's primary place of work is in Florida, or if the employer is based in Florida and the agreement is expressly governed by Florida law (§ 542.45(1)).

A covenant that does not meet the CHOICE Act definitions is governed by § 542.335. That is the fallback.

Multi-state employer strategy

For a national employer with workers in several states, the question is whether a Florida choice-of-law clause governs a worker who is based elsewhere. The CHOICE Act reaches a worker whose primary place of work is in Florida regardless of the choice-of-law clause, and reaches a Florida-headquartered employer's agreement that is expressly governed by Florida law. Other states can override the clause.

California's Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.5(a) makes a contract that is void under that chapter "unenforceable regardless of where and when the contract was signed." Massachusetts' Noncompetition Agreement Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 24L(e), says a choice-of-law provision that would avoid the section is not enforceable if the employee has been a resident of or employed in Massachusetts for at least 30 days before leaving. We did not research how New York courts treat a Florida choice-of-law clause for this post; see our New York guide for its test.

Before you send the next Florida covenant out, put § 542.335, §§ 542.41 to 542.45 and § 542.336 side by side and ask which of them the role actually fits.

FAQ

Are non-competes enforceable in Florida? Yes. Under Fla. Stat. § 542.335 the employer must plead and prove a legitimate business interest and that the restraint is reasonably necessary. The statute tells courts not to construe covenants narrowly and not to weigh individual hardship. The 2025 CHOICE Act adds a separate track for higher earners.

How long can a Florida non-compete last? For a former employee under § 542.335(1)(d), six months or less is presumed reasonable and more than two years is presumed unreasonable; in between there is no presumption. For a distributor, dealer or franchisee the numbers are one year and three years. For the seller of a business they are three years and seven years. For a covenant that protects trade secrets, § 542.335(1)(e) presumes five years or less reasonable and more than ten unreasonable. A CHOICE Act covered non-compete can run up to four years.

What is the Florida CHOICE Act non-compete? The CHOICE Act (Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth Act), codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 542.41 to 542.45, was CS/CS/CS/HB 1219 (2025), Laws of Florida ch. 2025-213. It creates two vehicles for covered workers: a covered non-compete (§ 542.45) and covered garden leave (§ 542.44), each for up to four years.

Who does the CHOICE Act apply to? Employees and individual contractors who earn a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage, as § 542.43(3) defines it, excluding health care practitioners. It applies where the worker's primary place of work is in Florida, or where the employer is based in Florida and the agreement is expressly governed by Florida law. We have not verified a dollar figure for the threshold.

Does the CHOICE Act make injunctions automatic? Close to it. On the employer's application a court "must preliminarily enjoin" the covered worker. The worker can get the injunction modified or dissolved only by showing, by clear and convincing evidence based on non-confidential information, that the worker will not do similar work or use confidential information or customer relationships, that the employer failed to pay the agreed consideration after a chance to cure, or that the new employer is not in a similar business in the covered area.

Who pays attorney fees under the CHOICE Act? The prevailing party, whether employer or worker, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs (§ 542.45(5)(d)). A prevailing employer also recovers all available monetary damages for all available claims.

Are physician non-competes enforceable in Florida? Often, yes. Fla. Stat. § 542.336 voids a covenant with a physician only where one entity employs or contracts with all physicians who practice that specialty in the county, and the covenant stays void until three years after a second entity begins offering that specialty there. Otherwise § 542.335 governs, and the CHOICE Act does not apply to health care practitioners.

Can a Florida court rewrite an overbroad non-compete? Yes. Section 542.335(1)(c) says a court "shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary." The rule does not rescue a covenant that is unsigned or has no legitimate business interest behind it.

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

Compare neighboring regimes in our Texas, California, New York, and Massachusetts guides, or see the non-compete enforceability by state map. For drafting across regimes, see our choice-of-law clause breakdown.

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.