Non-Compete Enforceability by State: A 2026 Map

Non-compete enforceability in 2026 is governed by state law, not the federal government. The FTC's nationwide ban was set aside in Ryan, LLC v. FTC (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024), the agency dropped its appeals in September 2025, and the rule was formally removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. There is no federal floor.

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 50 states sort into five buckets. Five void almost all employee non-competes (California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wyoming for contracts since July 1, 2025); six are highly restrictive with income, notice, or garden-leave rules (Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Oregon); most sit in a reasonableness-based middle; and Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee write presumptions of reasonableness into statute.

The 50-state table and the authority for each bucket are below.

Official text, as of 6 October 2026

Three primary-source texts changed what lawyers can say about non-competes, so here they are in the official words.

• Wyoming, W.S. 1-23-108(a) (Enrolled Act No. 87, 2025): "Any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor shall be void." Source: Wyoming Legislature, SF0107 as enrolled.
• FTC Non-Compete Rule, 91 FR 6507 (effective February 12, 2026): "PART 910 [Removed and Reserved]". Source: Federal Register, Doc. 2026-02866.
• Washington, RCW 49.62.020 as amended by ESHB 1155: "Beginning on June 30, 2027, all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant." Source: Chapter 49.62 RCW.

What changed in 2026: the FTC rule left the CFR, Washington enacted a near-total ban that takes effect June 30, 2027, and Virginia and Tennessee added new conditions that take effect July 1, 2026.

The federal answer that wasn't

For about four months in 2024, the FTC's final rule promised a clean federal answer to "is this non-compete enforceable": no, mostly. The rule, announced April 23, 2024 and published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2024 (89 FR 38342), would have barred new non-competes with workers from September 4, 2024. For workers other than senior executives, it would also have made existing non-competes unenforceable after that date. For senior executives, existing non-competes could stay in force. The rule never took effect.

Then a single district judge in Dallas set the rule aside. Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024) (Brown, J.), reported at 746 F. Supp. 3d 369, vacated the rule nationwide. The court held that the Commission lacks substantive rulemaking authority over unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g) of the FTC Act, and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

The FTC appealed, then walked it back. On September 5, 2025 the Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals in Ryan and the related Properties of the Villages v. FTC and to accept the vacatur. On February 12, 2026 it published a final rule formally removing the Non-Compete Clause Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations: 16 CFR Part 910 is now "Removed and Reserved" (91 FR 6507, FTC Doc. 2026-02866), effective that day. The categorical federal ban is dead.

What replaced it is narrower. At a January 27, 2026 workshop, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said the Commission lacks the power to issue a categorical ban and will use case-by-case enforcement instead, and that firms with overbroad or unjustified non-competes face a risk of FTC action. His prepared remarks are on the FTC's site. That is enforcement risk for outlier agreements, not a floor that voids the ordinary covenant. State law still decides the typical case.

So the operative law in 2026 is what it has always been: state law, fifty different answers. This piece maps every state into one of five enforceability buckets, gives the statute or controlling case for each, and notes the drafting moves that matter.

It is built for the lawyer who needs a defensible answer in twenty minutes, not a treatise reader.

TL;DR

• The FTC non-compete rule is dead at the federal level. It was set aside in Ryan v. FTC (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024), the FTC dropped its appeals in September 2025, and the rule was removed from the CFR effective February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6507). State law controls.
• California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota void almost all employee non-competes (Minnesota for agreements on or after July 1, 2023). Wyoming does the same for contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, with exceptions for executive and management staff, trade secrets, and sale of a business. Washington follows on June 30, 2027.
• Six jurisdictions are highly restrictive (income-threshold, notice, or garden-leave regimes): Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Oregon.
• Most states sit in a reasonableness-based middle (Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and others), with wage floors and notice rules spreading.
• New for 2026: Virginia makes a non-compete unenforceable after a without-cause firing unless severance disclosed at signing is provided (eff. July 1, 2026), and Tennessee adds a $70,000 income floor plus duration presumptions (eff. July 1, 2026).
• Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee write presumptions of reasonableness into statute.
• Maine, Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Nevada carved out low-wage workers but otherwise enforce reasonable agreements.
• Use the bucket as your first question on every engagement. The protectable interest is the second.

Part of our all-50-states legal reference series.

Non-compete enforceability by state: the 50-state table

Quick reference. "Bucket" maps to the five tiers explained below. Many dollar thresholds change each year (Colorado, D.C., Oregon, Virginia, Washington). Illinois steps up on fixed dates, and Tennessee's $70,000 floor is fixed in the statute, so confirm the current figure at signing. Where a cell says "Not verified in our October 2026 review," we did not confirm that point against a primary source; check the source named.

The five buckets, with the authority

Bucket 1: Outright (or near-outright) ban

Five states will not enforce a post-employment non-compete against an ordinary employee. Statutory carve-outs are narrow.

• California: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (void). Section 16600(b)(1) says the section "shall be read broadly, in accordance with Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937," to void any employment non-compete that does not satisfy an exception. Section 16600.1 makes it unlawful to include a void non-compete in an employment contract. Section 16600.5 makes a void covenant unenforceable "regardless of where and when the contract was signed," and bars an employer from attempting to enforce it even if the employment was outside California.
• Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 15 §§ 217, 219A. Section 217 voids restraints on a lawful trade or business except as other statutes allow; § 219A lets a former employee compete in the same or a similar business as long as the employee does not directly solicit the employer's established customers.
• North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06. Void except covenants tied to the sale of a business's goodwill and partnership dissolution.
• Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 181.988. Voids covenants entered into on or after July 1, 2023. Agreements signed before that date are outside the statute.
• Wyoming: W.S. 1-23-108 (eff. July 1, 2025). A covenant not to compete is void if it restricts a person's right to receive compensation for skilled or unskilled labor, except in a contract for the purchase and sale of a business, to the extent it protects trade secrets, for sliding-scale recovery of relocation, education, and training costs (up to 100% for under two years of service, 66% for two to three years, 33% for three to four years), and for "executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel." Physician covenants are void. The statute applies to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025 and does not impair earlier ones.

Bucket 2: Highly restrictive (thresholds, notice, mandatory consideration)

Enforcement is available, but the statute makes it expensive enough that many employers stop drafting.

• Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113 (H.B. 22-1317). Void unless the worker earns at least the "highly compensated" threshold ($130,014 for 2026 per the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; the customer non-solicit threshold is 60% of that, $78,008.40) and the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary. The employer must give notice in a separate document signed by the worker: before a prospective worker accepts the offer, or at least 14 days in advance for a current worker. An employer that violates the statute is liable for actual damages and a $5,000 penalty per worker harmed. Since SB 25-083 (effective August 6, 2025), the highly compensated exemption excludes covenants restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, and dentistry. See Colorado's HB 22-1317 threshold.
• Illinois: 820 ILCS 90/10. A non-compete is void unless the employee's actual or expected annualized earnings exceed $75,000 (non-solicit: $45,000). Those figures rise to $80,000 and $47,500 on January 1, 2027, and again in 2032 and 2037. Covenants are also void for employees covered by certain collective bargaining agreements and most construction employees, and for some employees laid off for pandemic-type reasons unless base-salary pay continues.
• Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 24L. 12-month maximum (24 months if the employee breached a fiduciary duty or took employer property). The agreement must be supported by a garden leave clause (at least 50% of the highest annualized base salary paid in the two years before termination) or other mutually agreed consideration specified in the agreement, and must give the right to consult counsel and advance notice (10 business days for a covenant signed after employment starts).
• Washington: RCW ch. 49.62. For 2026 an employee's annualized earnings must exceed $126,858.83 and an independent contractor's $317,147.09 (the Department of Labor & Industries' annual adjustment). Terms must be disclosed in writing by the time the employee accepts the offer, a covenant longer than 18 months is presumed unreasonable, and a covenant that requires out-of-state adjudication or other states' law is void for Washington-based workers (RCW 49.62.050). This regime is on the way out: ESHB 1155, approved March 23, 2026, makes all non-competes void from June 30, 2027, regardless of when they were signed. Treat Washington as a Bucket 1 ban for anything that will still be in force on that date.
• D.C.: D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq. As of January 1, 2026, non-competes are barred for employees earning less than $162,164 and for medical specialists earning less than $270,274, according to the Department of Employment Services.
• Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.295. 12-month maximum (shortened from 18 months by SB 169). The employee must be a salaried exempt employee whose annual gross salary and commissions at termination exceed $119,541 for 2026 (BOLI). The employer must give written notice at least two weeks before employment starts, or the covenant must be entered into on a bona fide advancement.

Bucket 3: Moderate, reasonableness-based

Largest bucket. Enforces covenants reasonable in time, geography, and scope against a protectable interest with valid consideration.

• Texas: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50-15.52. The covenant must be ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement, with reasonable limits on time, geography, and scope. If the limits are unreasonable, § 15.51(c) says the court shall reform the covenant, but the promisee may not recover damages before reformation. SB 1318 (effective September 1, 2025) added conditions for physician covenants (one year, five miles, a buyout capped at one year's pay) and extended similar conditions to dentists, nurses, and physician assistants. See Texas non-compete enforceability.
• New York: No general statute. BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999), supplies the test. Governor Hochul vetoed the 2023 ban (S3100A) on December 22, 2023. See New York's reasonableness test.
• Pennsylvania: Act 74 of 2024 (the Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act) makes a health care practitioner's non-compete void unless it is one year or less and the practitioner was not dismissed by the employer. For other workers, see the note in the table.
• Virginia: Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8. Void for "low-wage employees": in 2026, those earning under $1,507.01 a week (about $78,364.52 a year at 52 weeks) and any employee entitled to overtime under the FLSA. From July 1, 2026, health care professionals licensed by listed boards cannot be required to sign non-competes, and (SB 170) a covenant is unenforceable if the employer discharges the employee without providing severance benefits or other monetary payment, unless the discharge is for cause. The payment must be disclosed when the covenant is signed. The statute does not define "cause" or set an amount. See Virginia's notice of the 2026 average weekly wage.
• North Carolina: Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Assocs., 117 N.C. App. 307 (1994). North Carolina's blue-pencil rule lets a court, at most, decline to enforce a distinctly separable part of a covenant; it may not revise or rewrite the covenant.

Also here, with the authority in the table: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii (tech workers), Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico (health care), Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Bucket 4: Statutory presumptions favor the employer

These states write presumptions of reasonable duration into statute, or in Alabama's case a statutory list of permitted covenants.

• Florida: Fla. Stat. § 542.335. For a former employee, a court presumes a restraint of six months or less reasonable and a restraint of more than two years unreasonable. A court must modify an overbroad restraint to the extent reasonably necessary, and must construe a covenant "in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests." See Florida's pro-enforcement § 542.335.
• Georgia: O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq. (Restrictive Covenants Act). Signed May 11, 2011 as H.B. 30, after a constitutional amendment approved in November 2010. A two-year restraint is presumed reasonable and one longer than two years unreasonable (§ 13-8-57(b)). A court may modify an otherwise void covenant (§ 13-8-53(d)). Post-employment non-competes are limited to employees who solicit customers, make sales, manage, or are key employees or professionals (§ 13-8-53(a)).
• Tennessee: Tenn. Pub. Ch. 934 (HB 1034), effective July 1, 2026. An employer may not require, request, or enforce a non-compete against an employee whose annualized compensation is under $70,000 (§ 50-1-211). A court presumes reasonable a restraint of two years or less against a former employee (not tied to a sale of a business) and presumes a longer restraint unreasonable, though it may modify (§ 50-1-210).
• Alabama: Ala. Code § 8-1-190 (H.B. 352 of 2015, effective January 1, 2016, replacing § 8-1-1). Subsection (b) lists the covenants allowed to preserve a protectable interest. An employee of a commercial entity may agree not to compete in a specified geographic area, with restraints of two years or less presumed reasonable (§ 8-1-190(b)(4)), and not to solicit current customers, with 18 months or as long as post-separation consideration is paid, whichever is greater, presumed reasonable (§ 8-1-190(b)(5)). The "uniquely essential" language in § 8-1-190(b)(1) governs contracts between businesses that limit hiring each other's employees, not employee non-competes.

Bucket 5: Special carve-outs

Reasonableness-test states where the legislature carved out specific categories.

• Maine: 26 M.R.S. § 599-A. An employer may not require or permit a non-compete with an employee earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level, or with a veterinarian who has no ownership interest in the facility. The employer must disclose the requirement before the offer and provide a copy at least three business days before signing.
• Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-3. Unenforceable against nonexempt employees, student interns, workers 18 or younger, and low-wage employees. "Low-wage" means average annual earnings of not more than 250% of the federal poverty level (§ 28-59-2(7)).
• Maryland: Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716. Null and void for employees earning 150% of the State minimum wage or less, for licensed health workers who provide direct patient care and earn $350,000 or less in total annual compensation (contracts executed on or after July 1, 2025), and for veterinary practitioners and technicians. For direct-patient-care health workers earning more than $350,000, covenants may not exceed one year or 10 miles.
• New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:70-a. An employer may not require, and a court will not enforce, a non-compete for a low-wage employee, defined as one who earns an hourly rate less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage.
• Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195. A covenant may not apply to an employee paid solely on an hourly basis, and may not restrict a former employee from serving a former customer who left voluntarily if the employee did not solicit the customer. If the covenant is unreasonable in time, geography, or scope, the court "shall revise the covenant." After a layoff or restructuring, it is enforceable only while the employer pays the employee's salary, benefits, or equivalent compensation, including severance.

The 2024-2026 trend lines

The direction of travel is not subtle. Three patterns are doing most of the work.

Bans are spreading, and 2025 and 2026 picked up the pace. Minnesota voided covenants entered into from July 1, 2023. Wyoming's statute took effect July 1, 2025 for new contracts. Washington went further in 2026: ESHB 1155 (approved March 23, 2026) moves the state from an income-threshold regime to a ban on all non-competes from June 30, 2027.

New York's full ban passed both chambers in 2023, and the Governor vetoed it that December, saying she wanted to protect middle-class and low-wage workers while letting businesses keep "highly compensated talent" and objecting to the bill's "one-size-fits-all approach." Whether a narrower replacement has since passed is not verified in our October 2026 review; check nysenate.gov. In Connecticut, HB 5492 (2026) would have voided non-competes for employees earning less than twice the minimum wage; the General Assembly's status page shows it tabled in the House on April 2, 2026.

Income thresholds are the working compromise. Colorado, Illinois, Washington, D.C., Oregon, Virginia, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, and now Tennessee (a $70,000 floor from July 1, 2026) run some version.

Thresholds range from 200% of the federal minimum wage in New Hampshire to $350,000 for Maryland health professionals and $270,274 for D.C. medical specialists.

Pay and notice requirements keep getting added. Massachusetts requires garden-leave pay of at least 50% of base salary or other agreed consideration. Oregon requires two weeks' written notice. Colorado requires a separate signed notice. Virginia ties enforceability to severance after a without-cause firing, Nevada limits enforcement after a layoff to the period of pay, and Washington's current law requires pay after a layoff.

The burden is shifting onto the employer in real dollars or real procedural steps. For a drafter, that makes a non-compete a budget item, not a free contract clause.

Healthcare is its own category. Pennsylvania's Act 74 of 2024, New Mexico's health care practitioner statute, Maryland's health provisions (from July 1, 2025), Indiana's SEA 475 (July 1, 2025), Texas SB 1318 (September 1, 2025), Colorado SB 25-083 (August 6, 2025), Utah H.B. 270 (May 6, 2026), Montana's § 28-2-724, Wyoming's physician rule, and Virginia's 2026 health care provision converge: you cannot restrict a doctor's practice the way you can a sales rep's.

The 20-minute playbook

When the question lands on your desk and the partner wants an answer by lunch:

1. Locate the state bucket. California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Minnesota, and (for contracts since July 1, 2025) Wyoming: stop drafting a non-compete unless an exception fits.
2. Confirm the wage threshold. In Colorado, Illinois, Washington, D.C., Oregon, Virginia, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Tennessee (from July 1, 2026) this is a gate. Below it, the covenant is void regardless of how you draft it.
3. Name the protectable interest in one sentence. Trade secret, customer goodwill, specialized training. If you cannot name it, you do not have one.
4. Check what the statute makes you pay. Massachusetts requires garden leave or other agreed consideration. Virginia requires disclosed severance after a without-cause firing. Nevada and Washington tie enforcement after a layoff to pay. Price the restriction accordingly.
5. Pick non-solicit or non-compete. A non-solicit is the lower-risk, lower-reward instrument and survives in several states that ban non-competes outright (Oklahoma's § 219A is the textbook example).

A common drafting mistake is the kitchen-sink covenant copied across state lines: 24 months, nationwide, all-activities, no consideration recital, no garden leave.

In a state that lets courts reform a covenant (Florida, Texas, Nevada, Alaska) it may be narrowed. In a state that will not rewrite it (Nebraska, Wisconsin, North Carolina), it can fail whole. In Bucket 2 it can be void on the threshold before anyone reads the geographic scope. In Bucket 1 it never had a chance.

A drafting checklist by bucket

Bucket 1: the default answer is no. Do not draft a non-compete unless a statutory exception fits (sale of a business, trade secrets, and in Wyoming executive and management staff). Use a properly scoped non-solicitation where the state allows it, as Oklahoma does in § 219A, and a real trade-secrets program under the state UTSA or the federal DTSA.

Spend the time on the trade-secrets program.

Bucket 2: hit the threshold, hit the notice deadline, hit the consideration requirement, and do not assume any are optional.

In Massachusetts, the agreement must carry a garden leave clause or other mutually agreed consideration that is specified in the agreement (§ 24L(b)(vii)). In Colorado, the statute requires a separate signed notice. In Washington, the terms must be disclosed by the time the offer is accepted, and out-of-state forum and choice-of-law clauses are void for Washington-based workers.

Bucket 3: the standard moves are well known. Short duration (12 months is a strong default, 24 months is litigated hard everywhere), narrow geography tied to where the employee actually worked, narrow activity scope tied to what the employee actually did.

Texas and the more careful side of New York reward narrow tailoring with predictable enforcement.

Bucket 4: you can be more aggressive, but stay inside the statutory presumptions. In Florida that means six months for the safe harbor and nothing over two years; in Georgia, two years. Florida requires a signed writing and a legitimate business interest, and Georgia limits post-employment non-competes to certain categories of employee. Neither has a mandatory notice like Colorado's or Massachusetts's.

Bucket 5: the threshold check is the gatekeeper. Confirm the employee is above the wage or category cutoff before you sign anything. Then draft to the reasonableness standard of the state.

Two questions in any state, in any bucket, before drafting:

1. Is the protectable interest real? If you cannot name the trade secret, the specific customer relationship, or the goodwill in one sentence, you do not have a protectable interest. You have a retention tool, and courts look at that closely.
2. Will you actually litigate this? A non-compete you will not enforce signals to the next employer that you can be bluffed. Decide, and price the restriction (salary, equity, garden leave, severance) accordingly.

Which Massachusetts rule applies to which agreement

Massachusetts shows why the date and type of the agreement matter. In Automile Holdings, LLC v. McGovern, 483 Mass. 797 (2020), the Supreme Judicial Court noted that the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act "only applies to employee noncompetition agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018," and that, by its terms, it does not apply to nonsolicitation agreements or to agreements made in connection with the sale of a business. The case itself concerned an anti-raiding covenant between a dealership group and a former executive and minority owner, which the court treated as arising from a business sale.

The statute's own definitions (§ 24L(a)) carry the same exclusions: covenants not to solicit or hire employees, covenants not to solicit customers, clients, or vendors, and sale-of-business covenants are not "noncompetition agreements." So the first question in Massachusetts is which kind of covenant you have and when it was signed. Only an employee non-compete signed on or after October 1, 2018 has to meet the garden-leave and notice rules. Read the opinion in the SJC's slip opinion and the statute at malegislature.gov. See also Massachusetts's garden-leave statute.

FAQ

Are non-competes enforceable in 2026? It depends on the state. There is no federal ban: the FTC rule was set aside and removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in February 2026. California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota void almost all employee non-competes, Wyoming does so for contracts since July 1, 2025 (with exceptions), Washington joins them in 2027, and the rest enforce reasonable covenants, many only above an income threshold.

Did the FTC non-compete ban take effect? No. The rule was set to take effect September 4, 2024, but a federal court set it aside nationwide on August 20, 2024 (Ryan v. FTC). The FTC dropped its appeals in September 2025 and formally removed the rule from the CFR effective February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6507). No employer was ever required to comply.

Which states ban non-competes entirely? California, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Minnesota will not enforce a standard employee non-compete. Wyoming voids most employee non-competes entered into on or after July 1, 2025, with exceptions for executive and management personnel, trade secrets, and sale of a business. Washington enacted a near-total ban (ESHB 1155) that takes effect June 30, 2027 and applies to covenants signed earlier. Narrow carve-outs (sale of a business, partnership dissolution) survive in the ban states.

Is a non-compete enforceable if you are laid off or fired without cause? In most states a court still weighs the covenant on reasonableness regardless of who ended the job. A few states add a pay condition. Virginia, from July 1, 2026, makes a non-compete unenforceable after a without-cause firing unless the employer provides severance disclosed at signing. Nevada limits enforcement after a reduction in force to the period in which the employer pays salary or severance, and Washington's current law requires pay after a layoff. Check your state and the agreement's wording.

What is the income threshold for a non-compete to be enforceable? It varies by state and many figures change each year. Examples: Colorado (non-compete floor $130,014 for 2026), Illinois (more than $75,000, rising to $80,000 in 2027), D.C. (under $162,164 barred in 2026, higher for medical specialists), Oregon (above $119,541 in 2026), and Washington ($126,858.83 for employees in 2026, until the 2027 ban). Tennessee adds a $70,000 floor effective July 1, 2026. Below the line, the covenant is void no matter how it is drafted.

How long can a non-compete last? Most enforcing states ask for a reasonable duration, and several set a number. Massachusetts caps employee non-competes at 12 months (24 months for a fiduciary breach or taking employer property); Oregon and Utah cap them at one year; Louisiana and South Dakota at two years; Florida presumes six months or less reasonable and more than two years unreasonable for a former employee; and Georgia presumes two years or less reasonable. Twenty-four months and beyond is litigated hard everywhere.

Can a court rewrite an overbroad non-compete? It depends on the state. Florida and Texas require courts to modify or reform an overbroad covenant, Nevada says the court "shall revise" it, and Alaska and Ohio let courts alter it too. Georgia and Michigan let a court modify or limit it. Wisconsin voids the entire covenant if any part is an unreasonable restraint, Nebraska enforces a covenant as written or not at all, and North Carolina will not rewrite one, though it may decline to enforce a distinctly separable part.

Are non-solicitation agreements treated the same as non-competes? No. A non-solicit (no poaching customers or coworkers) is the lower-risk instrument and survives in several states that ban non-competes outright, such as Oklahoma. It protects less but is easier to enforce, so it is often the right fallback in ban and high-threshold states.

Closing

The federal answer that was almost the story of 2024 is a footnote. The 2026 law of non-competes is state common law and state statutes, with legislatures steadily adding limits and courts trimming the edges.

Your state's bucket tells you whether to draft at all, what to limit, and what you must pay for. The protectable-interest question tells you whether you are drafting a contract or building a paper tiger.

On the federal side, the FTC Chairman said at the January 27, 2026 workshop that the Commission lacks the power to issue a categorical ban and that the case-by-case approach is the one Congress gave it. Until Congress acts, fifty answers it is.

For the deep dives behind the high-stakes states, see California's Section 16600 ban, Colorado's HB 22-1317 threshold, Massachusetts's garden-leave statute, Florida's pro-enforcement § 542.335, and the New York and Texas reasonableness tests.

When a non-compete will not hold, the trade-secret and confidentiality program does the work instead, so pair this with NDA Enforceability by State in 2026 and NDA vs Non-Compete vs Non-Solicit. For more cross-jurisdiction drafting traps, see Choice-of-Law Clauses That Quietly Fail: A State-by-State Breakdown and Jury-Trial Waivers: Enforceable in All 50 States?.

Primary sources read

Official or primary texts consulted for the 2026 figures and corrections: Idaho Code 44-2701, N.H. RSA 275:70-a, Md. Lab. & Empl. 3-716, Fla. Stat. 542.335, Data Management v. Greene, D.C. DOES 2026 notice, Washington L&I thresholds, Oregon BOLI, Tennessee Pub. Ch. 934, Utah Code 34-51-201, Texas SB 1318, K.S.A. 50-163, and Mont. Code 28-2-724.

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.