---
type: Law Survey
title: Worldwide Non-Compete Survey
description: Worldwide comparison matrix for non-compete.
resource: 'https://openagreements.org/surveys/non-compete/worldwide'
tags:
  - non-compete
  - survey
  - international
---

# Worldwide Non-Compete Survey

# Schema

Each row compares one jurisdiction across the survey columns:

- `enforceability` — Are non-competes enforceable?
- `bottomLine` — Summary
- `keyLaw` — Main law or case
- `exceptions` — Main exceptions
- `banEffectiveDate` — When the ban took effect
- `courtNarrowing` — Can a court narrow it?
- `appliesToContractors` — Applies to contractors?
- `extendedForBreach` — Restriction extended during a breach?
- `maxLength` — Maximum length set by law
- `employerPayToEnforce` — Must the employer pay to enforce?
- `noticeRequirement` — Advance notice required?
- `incomeThreshold` — Pay or earnings threshold
- `saleOfBusiness` — Sale-of-business covenants
- `customerNonSolicit` — Customer non-solicits
- `employeeNonSolicit` — Employee non-solicits
- `futureEffective` — Future effective law

| Jurisdiction | Are non-competes enforceable? | Summary | Main law or case | Main exceptions | When the ban took effect | Can a court narrow it? | Applies to contractors? | Restriction extended during a breach? | Maximum length set by law | Must the employer pay to enforce? | Advance notice required? | Pay or earnings threshold | Sale-of-business covenants | Customer non-solicits | Employee non-solicits | Future effective law |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Alabama](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alabama) | reasonable | Alabama voids non-competes by default but enforces an employee covenant that fits the Restrictive Covenant Act's narrow safe harbor, protects a statutory interest, and is properly signed. | Ala. Code § 8-1-190 et seq. (Restrictive Covenant Act) | Sale of business; current-customer non-solicit (18-mo); employee no-hire for uniquely essential workers; professional exemption (physicians, CPAs, veterinarians, physical therapists) |  | rewrite | unclear | Not addressed by statute or case law | 2 years presumed reasonable (employee) |  | None | None | Allowed — sale-of-business safe harbor | Allowed for current customers (18 months) | Allowed no-hire for uniquely essential workers |  |
| [Alaska](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska) | reasonable | Alaska has no non-compete statute; employee covenants are enforceable under common law if reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and no broader than needed. | common law (Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988)) |  |  | rewrite | unclear | Silent — no Alaska authority | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Reasonableness test applies | Customer-list restraint allowed as a narrower alternative to a non-compete (Metcalfe) | Same Data Management reasonableness factors; no Alaska case squarely on point in our review |  |
| [American Samoa](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa) | unsettled | No non-compete statute and no on-point case law found in our review; a court would likely apply the Restatement reasonableness test, with local public policy disfavoring broad restraints. | A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 (imported common law); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 |  |  | unsettled | unclear | Silent — no statute or case law | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Likely enforced more readily than employee restraints under § 188 | Customer non-solicit acting as a non-compete gets § 188 reasonableness review | Employee non-solicit acting as a non-compete gets § 188 reasonableness review |  |
| [Arizona](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/arizona) | reasonable | Arizona has no general non-compete statute; an employee covenant is enforceable under common law only if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. | common law (Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 982 P.2d 1277 (Ariz. 1999)) | Broadcast-employee ban (A.R.S. § 23-494); physicians enforceable only under heightened scrutiny |  | trimOnly | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale covenants get more latitude than employment covenants (Gann) | Reasonableness test applies | Reasonableness test applies |  |
| [Arkansas](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/arkansas) | reasonable | Arkansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, protects a statutory business interest, and is no broader in time and scope than necessary, with overbroad covenants reformed by the court. | Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 (Act 921 of 2015; amended by Act 232 of 2025) | Physician practice restrictions void (§ 4-75-101(k), 2025); Title 17 Subtitle 3 licensees excluded; non-solicits/NDAs excluded |  | rewrite | unclear | Open question — prospective injunctions allowed, contractual tolling unsettled | 2 years presumptively reasonable |  | None | None | Judged under common-law reasonableness, with less scrutiny than an employment covenant | Excluded from non-compete statute | Excluded from non-compete statute |  |
| [California](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/california) | banned | Employee non-competes and customer non-solicits are void by statute, and since 2024 entering or enforcing one is a civil violation with a private right of action. | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 | Sale of a business or ownership interest (§§ 16601–16602.5) | Longstanding (§ 16600); 2024 enforcement laws SB 699 / AB 1076 effective Jan 1, 2024 | no | yes | No (covenant is void) | Not applicable — void |  | None | None | Allowed — §§ 16601–16602.5 | Void by statute | High-risk; likely void post-AMN |  |
| [Colorado](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/colorado) | payThreshold | Colorado voids most employee non-competes and customer non-solicits, allowing a non-compete only against a highly compensated worker ($130,014 in 2026) to protect trade secrets — and no compensation level rescues a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry. | C.R.S. § 8-2-113 | Health-care provider ban (eff. Aug 6, 2025, SB 25-083); sale-of-business; reasonable confidentiality; capped training-repayment | Aug 10, 2022 (covenants entered or renewed on/after; HB 22-1317) | unsettled | unclear | Open question — threshold must be met at enforcement, cutting against extension | No general duration limit |  | Separate notice required before signing | $130,014 (2026) | Allowed for an owner of an interest in the business; minority-owner duration cap | $78,008.40 threshold (2026); trade-secret limit | Unsettled; statute silent |  |
| [Connecticut](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut) | reasonable | Connecticut enforces employee non-competes only if reasonable under common law, but several occupation-specific statutes cap or void covenants for covered workers. | common law (Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976)); occupation statutes | Physician/PA/APRN 1-yr & 15-mile caps; security guards; broadcast employees; homemaker-companion/home-health bans |  | unsettled | unclear | Silent — open question | No general statutory cap; physicians/PAs/APRNs capped at 1 year |  | None | None | Enforced under common-law reasonableness to protect the goodwill the buyer purchased | Reasonableness test applies | Same Scott reasonableness test as non-competes; no Connecticut case squarely on point in our review |  |
| [Delaware](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware) | reasonable | Delaware enforces reasonable non-competes under Chancery/Supreme Court case law but increasingly refuses to blue-pencil overbroad ones, and physician practice-restricting covenants are void by statute. | common law (FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 (Del. Ch.)); physician ban 6 Del. C. § 2707 | Physician practice covenants void (§ 2707); home-inspector trainees; sale-of-business reviewed less searchingly |  | no | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale covenants get less scrutiny than employment covenants; match goodwill | Reviewed for reasonableness like a non-compete; overbroad ones not blue-penciled | Reasonableness-tested; overbroad employee non-solicit voided, not blue-penciled (Sunder) |  |
| [District of Columbia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia) | payThreshold | The District bans non-competes for most employees and permits them only for highly compensated employees (above an annually adjusted pay floor) whose covenant meets strict scope, duration, and 14-day notice requirements. | D.C. Code § 32-581.02 (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020) | Highly compensated employees above the pay threshold ($162,164 in 2026); medical specialists ($270,274 in 2026, 730-day cap); sale-of-business; confidentiality/long-term-incentive carve-outs; broadcast employees cannot be bound; pre-Oct 1, 2022 agreements under common law | October 1, 2022 | rewrite | unclear | Open question — caps run as fixed days from separation | 365 days (non-medical highly compensated employee); 730 days (medical specialist) |  | 14 days before execution | $162,164 (2026); medical specialists $270,274 | Excluded from ban | Outside the statutory ban unless it forecloses work; reasonable at common law | Not addressed |  |
| [Florida](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida) | reasonable | Among the most employer-friendly states — enforceable with a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a 2025 CHOICE Act high-earner track. | Fla. Stat. § 542.335 | Specialist-physician ban in monopolized counties (§ 542.336) |  | rewrite | yes | Not addressed by statute | No hard cap; over 2 years presumed unreasonable for employees | optionalPaidTrack | None | None | 3 years presumed reasonable; over 7 years presumed unreasonable | Reasonableness test applies | Reasonableness test applies |  |
| [Georgia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/georgia) | reasonable | Georgia enforces non-competes that are reasonable in time, area, and scope under the Restrictive Covenants Act, but only against employees who perform covered higher-level job functions. | Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 13-8-50 to 13-8-59 | Employee-category gate (§ 13-8-53(a)); longer presumptions for distributors/franchisees (3 yr) and sellers (5 yr+) |  | rewrite | n/a | No — courts will not extend beyond expiration | 2 years for employees (rebuttable presumption) |  | None | None | Longer of 5 yrs or payout period presumed reasonable | Allowed if reasonable | Allowed if reasonable |  |
| [Guam](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/guam) | banned | Guam voids employee non-competes by statute — 18 GCA § 88105, a transplant of California's restraint-of-trade rule that the Supreme Court of Guam reads as a per-se ban — leaving only narrow sale-of-business and partnership-dissolution exceptions. | 18 GCA § 88105; Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32 | Sale of business good will (§ 88106); partnership dissolution (§ 88107) |  | no | unclear | Not addressed | Not applicable (employee covenant void regardless of duration) |  | None | None | Allowed within a narrow statutory exception — a seller of business goodwill may agree not to compete in a specified district while the buyer operates there | Likely void: Guam adopts California's § 16600 restraint rule, so a customer non-solicit carries the same void risk as a non-compete (predicted; no Guam holding squarely on point) | Void risk but unsettled: the Supreme Court of Guam left facial validity open, while the adopted § 16600 framework voids employee non-solicits |  |
| [Hawaii](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/hawaii) | reasonable | Hawaii treats non-competes as restraints of trade under its antitrust statute, enforcing only covenants ancillary to a legitimate purpose, and flatly banning non-compete/non-solicit clauses for technology-business employees. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4 | Technology-business employee ban (§ 480-4(d)); statutory categories: sale-of-business, partner-withdrawal, lease-use, trade-secret covenants |  | unsettled | unclear | Open question | No statutory limit (reasonable period required) |  | None | None | Allowed statutory category | Banned for technology-business employees | Banned for technology-business employees |  |
| [Idaho](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/idaho) | reasonable | Idaho enforces non-competes only against key employees or key independent contractors and only if reasonable, with an 18-month duration safe harbor and mandatory judicial modification of overbroad terms. | Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 to 44-2704 | Only key employees/independent contractors; healthcare weighed against patient access; sale-of-business reviewed less strictly |  | rewrite | yes | Unsettled — no authority | 18 months (rebuttable presumption) |  | None | None | Courts defer more to sale covenants than employment covenants | Allowed; solicitation requires affirmative conduct | Not addressed |  |
| [Illinois](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/illinois) | payThreshold | Illinois enforces employee non-competes only above a $75,000 earnings floor and only if they clear the Freedom to Work Act's consideration and 14-day-notice gates and the Reliable Fire reasonableness test. | Illinois Freedom to Work Act, 820 ILCS 90 (Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo) | Construction workers; broadcasters; temp-agency nurses; public-sector CBA; COVID-19 layoffs; certain mental-health professionals; sale of business excluded | Jan 1, 2022 (Public Act 102-358) | rewrite | unclear | Not addressed by statute — open question | No statutory maximum (duration judged for reasonableness) |  | 14 calendar days before start or signing | $75,000 non-compete; $45,000 non-solicit | Excluded from Freedom to Work Act | Allowed above $45,000 and if reasonable | Allowed above $45,000 and if reasonable |  |
| [Indiana](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/indiana) | reasonable | Indiana enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, activity, and geography and protects a legitimate interest; courts disfavor them and use a strict eraser blue pencil. | common law (Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008)) | Physician-hospital covenants banned (SEA 475, 2025); primary-care physician non-competes banned (SEA 7, 2023); physician covenants must meet HEA 1004 |  | trimOnly | unclear | Unsettled | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Buyer-favoring standard versus employee covenants (sale/equity sale) | Reasonableness test applies | Blanket no-hire overbroad |  |
| [Iowa](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/iowa) | reasonable | Iowa enforces an employee non-compete only if it satisfies a three-prong reasonableness test, with the employer bearing the burden; courts may reform an overbroad covenant rather than void it. | common law (Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 595 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 1999)) | Mental-health professionals (§ 147.161); health-care staffing workers (§ 135Q.2); franchise nonrenewal (§ 537A.10); UIHC clinical roles (HF 2254, 2026) |  | rewrite | yes | Unsettled | No statutory safe harbor (case by case) |  | None | None | Sale covenants get indulgent review versus employee covenants | Reasonableness test applies | Iowa non-compete reasonableness framework applies |  |
| [Kansas](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas) | reasonable | Kansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, reasonable under the four-factor Weber test, and not adverse to the public welfare, and is one of the more employer-friendly states; courts will narrow an overbroad restraint. | common law (Weber v. Tillman, 913 P.2d 84 (Kan. 1996)) | Non-competes excluded from K.S.A. 50-163 Restraint of Trade Act; non-solicit & owner safe harbors; no physician/healthcare ban |  | rewrite | unclear | No — Doan declined an indefinite tolling-during-breach clause | No statutory limit for non-competes |  | None | None | Owner/seller safe harbor; sale non-competes still common-law | Statutory safe harbor for defined covenants | Statutory safe harbor for owner no-recruit covenants |  |
| [Kentucky](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky) | reasonable | Kentucky enforces a non-compete only if it is supported by valid consideration and reasonable in scope; existing employees must get new consideration, and courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms. | common law (Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009); Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014)) | Temporary health-care staffing ban (KRS 216.724) |  | rewrite | unclear | Unsettled | No statutory cap |  | None | None | Reasonable geography may be supplied | Often easier to enforce than trade-secret claim | Same Kegel reasonableness and Creech consideration rules; no on-point Kentucky case in our review |  |
| [Louisiana](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/louisiana) | reasonable | Louisiana voids every non-compete by default and enforces one only if it fits a narrow statutory exception with named parishes and a two-year cap, so most out-of-state templates fail. | La. R.S. 23:921 | Employee exception (subsection C, 2-yr/named parishes); sale of business; physician burn-off limits; automobile salesmen banned; intern/apprentice ban (Aug 1, 2026) |  | trimOnly | unclear | Silent — likely barred by 2-year cap | 2 years from termination (employee covenant) |  | None | None | Allowed — La. R.S. 23:921(B), up to 2 years | Allowed only within statutory named geography | Outside § 23:921; reasonable duration required |  |
| [Maine](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maine) | payThreshold | Maine treats non-competes as contrary to public policy and enforces them only when reasonable, and bans them entirely for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level (and for non-owner veterinarians). | 26 M.R.S. § 599-A | Veterinarian (non-owner) ban; health-care-practitioner restriction (L.D. 2200, eff. July 13, 2026); employer no-poach ban (§ 599-B) | Wage-floor ban (threshold indexed; $62,600 in 2025) | unsettled | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory maximum (reasonable duration) |  | 3 business days before offer deadline or signing | 400% of federal poverty level ($62,600 in 2025) | Statute (§ 599-A) reaches only employees; sellers under common-law reasonableness | Alternative restrictive covenant under § 599-A | Employer no-poach banned (§ 599-B) |  |
| [Maryland](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maryland) | reasonable | Maryland enforces an ordinary employee non-compete only if it is reasonable under the Becker common-law test, but a statute voids covenants outright for low-wage, veterinary, and many health care workers. | Becker v. Bailey, 268 Md. 93 (1973); Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716 | Low-wage ban (≤150% min wage); veterinary ban; health-care ≤$350k ban; high-earner clinician cap (1 yr/10 mi); client/patient-list carve-out |  | trimOnly | unclear | Unsettled | No fixed cap for ordinary employees; 1 year for covered health-care |  | None | ≤150% minimum wage; health care ≤$350,000 | Enforced under common-law reasonableness almost as a matter of course, though the controlling authority is old and lightly litigated | Client/patient-list carve-out | Becker/Seneca reasonableness test; § 3-716 low-wage void reaches only the signer's own job |  |
| [Massachusetts](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/massachusetts) | reasonable | Massachusetts enforces an employee non-compete only if it meets the 2018 Noncompetition Agreement Act — paid garden leave or agreed consideration, a 12-month cap, and strict notice — and voids them entirely for physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and most broadcasters. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 24L | Physician, nurse, psychologist, social-worker, broadcaster bans; excluded workers (FLSA-nonexempt, interns, laid-off/no-cause, age ≤18); sale-of-business & non-solicit/NDA carve-outs |  | rewrite | yes | No automatic extension; statutory misconduct trigger (up to 2 yrs) or express tolling clause | 12 months (up to 2 years on breach of fiduciary duty/taking property) | requiredAllNoncompetes | Earlier of formal offer or 10 business days before start | None | Excluded from Noncompetition Agreement Act | Excluded; common-law reasonableness applies | Excluded; common-law reasonableness applies |  |
| [Michigan](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/michigan) | reasonable | Michigan enforces an employee non-compete if it protects a reasonable competitive business interest and is reasonable in duration, geography, and type of employment, with no categorical worker or profession ban. | MCL § 445.774a; St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel, 270 Mich. App. 260 (2006) | B2B/sale-of-business covenants judged under antitrust rule of reason; no physician or profession ban |  | rewrite | unclear | Unsettled | No fixed numeric cap |  | None | None | Rule of reason (antitrust) | Reasonableness test applies | Enforceable under common-law reasonableness rather than the MCL 445.774a non-compete statute |  |
| [Minnesota](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/minnesota) | banned | Most employee and independent-contractor non-competes signed on or after July 1, 2023 are void and unenforceable, with only sale-of-business and business-dissolution exceptions surviving. | Minn. Stat. § 181.988 | Sale of business; dissolution of business; pre-July 1, 2023 agreements under common law; NDAs/nonsolicits excluded | July 1, 2023 (prospective only) | no | yes |  |  |  | None | None | Allowed sale-of-business exception | Excluded from statutory ban | Excluded unless it functions like non-compete |  |
| [Mississippi](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/mississippi) | reasonable | Mississippi enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, territory, and activity to protect a legitimate interest, and it will not be enforced after a bad-faith firing. | common law (Texas Road Boring Co. v. Parker, 194 So. 2d 885 (Miss. 1967)) | Bad-faith-termination defense (Empiregas); minors may disaffirm; lawyers barred (R. 5.6); no health-care statutory ban |  | rewrite | unclear | No judicial tolling (Frierson); express extension clause given effect (Cascio) | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale/owner covenants favored over employment restraints for goodwill | Reasonableness test applies | Not addressed |  |
| [Missouri](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri) | reasonable | Missouri enforces a non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable and protects the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition, with the employer bearing the burden. | Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006) | Employee no-hire/anti-raiding safe harbor (§ 431.202, ≤1 yr); owner/sale covenants (§ 431.204); no physician statutory cap |  | rewrite | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory limit (~2 yrs commonly within range) |  | None | None | Allowed — owner/sale covenants (§ 431.204) | Reasonableness test applies | Safe harbor — § 431.202, up to 1 year |  |
| [Montana](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/montana) | reasonable | Montana's restraint-of-trade statute voids absolute restraints, but reasonable partial restraints survive under the Dobbins rule of reason, and covered health-care provider non-competes are now banned. | Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (Dobbins, DeGuire & Tucker, P.C. v. Rutherford, 708 P.2d 577 (Mont. 1985)) | Health-care provider ban (§ 28-2-724, HB 198/HB 620, all physicians Jan 1, 2026); sale-of-goodwill (§ 28-2-704); partnership dissolution (§ 28-2-705); employer-initiated termination usually defeats enforcement (Wrigg) |  | no | unclear | Not addressed | No general statutory limit |  | None | None | Allowed for sale of goodwill | Partial-restraint analysis; scope unsettled | Partial-restraint analysis; scope unsettled |  |
| [Nebraska](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska) | reasonable | Nebraska enforces only narrowly tailored covenants limited to customers the employee personally served, refuses to rewrite overbroad ones, and has no general statutory ban as of 2026. | common law (Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 106 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 1960); Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co., 407 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 1987)) | Franchise non-competes reformable by statute (§ 87-404); sale-of-business more favorable; successor enforcement by merger |  | no | unclear | Silent | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale covenants can run broader than employee restraints; time/space reasonable | Limited to customers with whom employee did business | Same three-part Brown reasonableness test; overbroad covenants not reformed (Waadah) |  |
| [Nevada](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada) | reasonable | Nevada enforces employee non-competes that meet a four-part statutory reasonableness test, but bans them for solely hourly-wage workers and requires courts to revise overbroad covenants. | NRS 613.195 | Hourly-wage workers excluded; volunteer-customer safe harbor; layoff/RIF enforceable only while employer pays; sale-of-business antitrust carve-out (NRS 598A.040) |  | rewrite | unclear | Silent — no authority | No statutory limit |  | None | Hourly-wage workers excluded | Allowed — NRS 598A.040 carve-out | Volunteer-customer safe harbor | Not addressed |  |
| [New Hampshire](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-hampshire) | payThreshold | New Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a three-part common-law test, but voids them for low-wage employees (at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage) and requires pre-acceptance notice to new hires. | Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979); RSA 275:70 and RSA 275:70-a | Low-wage ban (≤200% federal min wage); pre-acceptance notice (RSA 275:70); geographic-practice bans for physicians/nurses/APRNs/podiatrists; sale-of-business | APRN health-care ban eff. Aug 23, 2025 (low-wage ban date not stated) | rewrite | unclear | Unsettled — no controlling authority | No statutory limit |  | Before job acceptance or offer-change acceptance | ≤200% federal minimum wage | Allowed if reasonable and tied to goodwill/assets | Reasonableness test applies | Foster reasonableness test; RSA 275:70-a low-wage ban reaches only the signer's own work |  |
| [New Jersey](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-jersey) | reasonable | New Jersey enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Solari/Whitmyer three-part reasonableness test and readily blue-pencils overbroad covenants, though a pending bill would ban most of them. | Solari Industries, Inc. v. Malady, 55 N.J. 571 (1970); Whitmyer Bros., Inc. v. Doyle, 58 N.J. 25 (1971) | Sale-of-business more freely enforceable; physician public-interest scrutiny; psychologist rule (N.J.A.C. 13:42-10.16); attorney ban (RPC 5.6) |  | rewrite | unclear | Yes — court may toll the restricted period during an actual breach (ADP v. Kusins) | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Freely enforceable if tied to goodwill | Reasonableness test applies | Solari/Whitmyer non-compete reasonableness applies |  |
| [New Mexico](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-mexico) | reasonable | New Mexico enforces ordinary employee non-competes only when reasonable and supported by valid consideration, but a statute makes covered health-care practitioner non-competes unenforceable. | Lovelace Clinic v. Murphy, 76 N.M. 645 (1966); NMSA 1978, § 24A-4-2 | Health-care practitioner ban (§ 24A-4-2); sale-of-business more lenient |  | unsettled | n/a | Open question — no authority | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale covenants enforced more readily than employment covenants if reasonable | Enforceable if reasonable, ≤1 yr (health-care) | Enforceable if reasonable, ≤1 yr (health-care) |  |
| [New York](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/new-york) | reasonable | New York has no general non-compete statute; employee non-competes are enforceable only to the extent reasonable under the common-law BDO Seidman three-part test, with a statutory ban only for broadcast-industry employees. | BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382 (1999) | Broadcast-employee ban (N.Y. Labor Law § 202-k); sale-of-business/goodwill more favorable |  | rewrite | unclear | Express contractual tolling enforced in Delta; an equivalent extension without tolling language remains unresolved | No statutory limit |  | None | None — $500,000 pending bill not law | Pending bill would preserve 15% owner covenants | Reasonableness test applies | Employee no-recruit clauses less burdensome than non-competes; reasonable |  |
| [North Carolina](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina) | reasonable | North Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only if it is in writing, supported by consideration, reasonable in time and territory, and protects a legitimate business interest. | common law (Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989)); writing requirement N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 | Physician/health-care covenants face a public-policy bar (Zaldivar); pending HB 269 (<$75k) and SB 673 (hospital) not enacted |  | trimOnly | unclear | Express tolling clauses enforced (federal courts); equitable tolling unsettled | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Not addressed | Reasonableness test applies | Reasonableness-tested non-recruitment restraint; solicitation needs active persuasion (Crockett) |  |
| [North Dakota](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-dakota) | banned | North Dakota voids employee non-competes by statute, with exceptions only for sale-of-goodwill and owner dissolution or dissociation covenants. | N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06 | Sale of business goodwill; owner dissolution/dissociation; narrow employee anti-raiding non-solicits (Warner); customer non-solicits void |  | no | unclear | Not addressed by statute | No statutory limit for the ban |  | None | None | Allowed only with sale of goodwill | Void if it restrains business | Narrow anti-raiding can be enforceable |  |
| [Northern Mariana Islands](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/cnmi) | reasonable | The CNMI has no non-compete statute; a post-employment covenant is enforceable only if reasonable under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188, which 7 CMC § 3401 imports as Commonwealth law, and the one on-point federal order denied an injunction in a small-island healthcare context. | 7 CMC § 3401 (importing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188); August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona | No statutory carve-outs; small-island public-interest and hardship factors weigh heavily against healthcare/specialist covenants |  | unsettled | unclear | Silent — rely on an explicit tolling clause kept within § 188 reasonableness | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Not addressed | Customer non-solicit restraining competition gets § 188 reasonableness review | Not addressed |  |
| [Ohio](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/ohio) | reasonable | Ohio enforces an employee non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable under the Raimonde test — no broader than needed to protect the employer, not unduly harsh on the employee, and not injurious to the public. | Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d 21 (1975) | Physician public-interest scrutiny; pending S.B. 301 (nonprofit-hospital cap) and S.B. 11 (broad ban) not enacted |  | rewrite | unclear | Yes — a covenant may not expire while enforceability is litigated (Homan) | No statutory cap |  | None | None | Not addressed | Reasonableness test applies | Enforceable under the same Raimonde reasonableness test as a non-compete |  |
| [Oklahoma](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/oklahoma) | banned | Oklahoma voids employee non-competes by statute, permitting only narrow carve-outs for direct customer non-solicitation, employee anti-raiding, and sale-of-business or partnership-dissolution covenants. | Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 | Sale of goodwill (§ 218); partnership dissolution (§ 219); direct customer non-solicit (§ 219A); employee anti-raiding (§ 219B); trade-secret clauses outside the ban |  | no | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory limit on the ban; sale covenants limited to a county and contiguous counties |  | None | None | Allowed — sale of goodwill (§ 218) | Direct solicitation of established customers only (§ 219A) | Allowed anti-raiding clauses (§ 219B) |  |
| [Oregon](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/oregon) | payThreshold | An Oregon employee non-compete is void by default unless the employer meets a strict ORS 653.295 checklist — including pay above an inflation-indexed threshold ($119,541 for 2026) — or pays garden leave. | ORS 653.295 | Medical-licensee (physician/nurse) ban (ORS 653.297, 2025, retroactive); non-solicit/bonus/sale-of-business outside the checklist; garden-leave path | Salary threshold & 12-mo cap eff. Jan 1, 2022; medical-licensee ban eff. June 9, 2025 | no | unclear | Silent — 12-month-from-termination cap cuts against tolling | 12 months from termination (excess void) | payDuringRestriction | Written notice at least 2 weeks before first day | $119,541 (2026) | Outside ORS 653.295 checklist | Outside ORS 653.295 checklist | Outside ORS 653.295 checklist |  |
| [Pennsylvania](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/pennsylvania) | reasonable | Pennsylvania enforces an employee non-compete only if it is ancillary to employment, supported by adequate consideration, reasonably limited in time and territory, and tied to a legitimate business interest, with a 2024 statute sharply restricting health care covenants. | Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 126 A.3d 1266 (Pa. 2015) | Health-care practitioner restrictions (Act 74 of 2024, eff. Jan 1, 2025 — voids covenants over one year and any where employer dismissed practitioner); B2B no-hire clauses unenforceable (Beemac) |  | rewrite | unclear | Unsettled | No statutory limit (except Act 74 one-year cap for health care) |  | None | None | Assigned asset-sale covenant can be enforced | Reasonableness test applies; no-accept clauses scrutinized | B2B no-hire clauses unenforceable (Beemac) |  |
| [Puerto Rico](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/puerto-rico) | reasonable | Puerto Rico has no non-compete statute; a covenant is enforceable only if it satisfies the strict three-part Arthur Young reasonableness test — capped at twelve months, supported by real consideration, and in writing — and courts void rather than rewrite any covenant that falls short. | Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) | Covenants ancillary to a sale of business / ownership exit (e.g. stock-redemption) judged more flexibly than the strict Arthur Young employer-employee test (Reyes Ramis) |  | no | unclear | Silent — risky if it pushes enforcement past the 12-month ceiling | 12 months (additional time excessive and unnecessary) |  | None | None | Sale/ownership exits judged more flexibly than Arthur Young employment test | Reasonableness test applies | Reasonableness test applies |  |
| [Rhode Island](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/rhode-island) | payThreshold | Rhode Island applies common-law reasonableness to most workers but bans non-competes for low-wage and several other worker categories (FLSA-nonexempt, student interns, age 18 or younger) and for physicians and APRNs. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-3 (Rhode Island Noncompetition Agreement Act) | Worker-category bans (low-wage, FLSA-nonexempt, interns, ≤18); physician (§ 5-37-33) and APRN (§ 5-34-50) bans with a 5-year sale-of-practice exception; non-solicits/NDAs/sale excluded from definition | Physician/APRN bans eff. June 17, 2024 (worker-category ban date not stated in note) | rewrite | no | Not addressed | No general statutory length limit; physician/APRN sale-of-practice exception capped at 5 years |  | None | ≤250% federal poverty level | Excluded from statutory definition | Excluded from statutory definition | Excluded from statutory definition |  |
| [South Carolina](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina) | reasonable | South Carolina has no non-compete statute and enforces a covenant only if it meets all five common-law reasonableness factors, strictly construes it against the employer, and will not blue-pencil or reform an overbroad covenant. | Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 717 S.E.2d 103 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) (five-factor test from Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan) | Sale-of-business reviewed more leniently (Palmetto Mortuary); pending H.4767 physician-ban bill not enacted |  | no | unclear | Points against it — extending past stated end date is against public policy (Stonhard) | No statutory cap |  | None | None | Sale covenants get relaxed review versus employment covenants (Palmetto) | Must be narrow under reasonableness test | May seek employees absent contract interference |  |
| [South Dakota](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-dakota) | reasonable | South Dakota voids restraints on a lawful profession, trade, or business unless they fit a narrowly construed statutory exception, and SDCL 53-9-11 permits an employee non-compete only within its two-year, geographic, existing-customer, and like-business limits. | S.D. Codified Laws §§ 53-9-8 and 53-9-11 | Sale-of-goodwill (§ 53-9-9); partnership dissolution (§ 53-9-10); captive insurance agent contractors (§ 53-9-12); healthcare practitioner restrictions voidable for contracts on/after July 1, 2023; owner covenants on transfer of an ownership interest in a business entity, up to three years (HB 1180, effective July 1, 2026) |  | rewrite | no | Not addressed by statute | Two years or less for employee covenants (SDCL 53-9-11) |  | None | None | Allowed — § 53-9-9; owner covenants up to 3 years from July 1, 2026 | Allowed within existing-customer limits | No-hire with customer/vendor can be void |  |
| [Tennessee](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/tennessee) | reasonable | Tennessee enforces a non-compete that is reasonable and protects a legitimate business interest; a 2026 statute effective July 1, 2026 will void covenants against employees earning under $70,000 and add rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions. | common law (Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984)); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-1-210, 50-1-211 (2026 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 934, eff. July 1, 2026) | Coming July 1, 2026 — $70,000 pay-threshold ban; health-care-provider safe harbor (§ 63-1-148; emergency-medicine physicians excluded, covenants void under Udom); sale-of-business longer presumption; non-solicits/NDAs preserved |  | rewrite | yes | Open question — 2026 statute silent | Rebuttable presumptions: 2 yrs employee/contractor; 3 yrs distributor; 5 yrs+ seller; health-care safe harbor 2 yrs |  | None | $70,000 from July 1, 2026 | Seller covenants get 5-year/payout presumption vs 2 years for employees | Preserved by 2026 statute | Preserved by 2026 statute |  |
| [Texas](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/texas) | reasonable | Texas enforces non-competes that are ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and reasonable in time, geography, and scope, with overbroad covenants reformed rather than voided. | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50 (Covenants Not to Compete Act) | Physician buyout/1-yr limits & good-cause rule (§ 15.50(b),(d)); dentist/nurse/PA buyout limits (§ 15.501) |  | rewrite | unclear | Unsettled — any extension must satisfy § 15.50(a) reasonableness | No statutory limit (1 year for covered physicians/health-care) |  | None | None | Same § 15.50 test, but § 15.51(b) flips the burden to the seller when the purpose is not personal services | Reasonableness test applies if it functions as restraint | Covenant not to compete under § 15.50 per Marsh; minority of panels disagree |  |
| [U.S. Virgin Islands](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands) | reasonable | The U.S. Virgin Islands enforces a non-compete only if it is reasonable in duration, area, and scope under a single trial-court decision, and aggressive restraints are hard to enforce in a small-island, non-at-will economy. | Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. 2019) (common law via 1 V.I.C. § 4) |  |  | rewrite | unclear | Silent — no statute or case addresses tolling | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Arvidson reasonableness; favorable sale treatment inferred | Arvidson reasonableness if partial restraint | Arvidson reasonableness if partial restraint |  |
| [Utah](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/utah) | reasonable | Utah enforces employee non-competes only if they satisfy both the common-law Rose Park reasonableness test and a hard one-year statutory cap, and it bans healthcare and veterinarian non-competes entered on or after May 6, 2026. | Utah Code § 34-51-201 (Post-Employment Restrictions Act) | Health-care worker & veterinarian bans (5% owner carve-out) from May 6, 2026; sale-of-business; reasonable severance; narrow broadcasting exception |  | no | n/a | No safe extension — one-year cap runs from separation; equitable tolling within the cap open | 1 year (a longer covenant is void) |  | None | None | Exempt from one-year cap if value received for sale | One-year cap does not apply | One-year cap does not apply |  |
| [Vermont](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/vermont) | reasonable | Vermont has no general non-compete statute and enforces covenants under a common-law reasonableness test, though a 2025-2026 legislative overhaul (H.205, H.583) could sharply curtail them if enacted. | common law (Vt. Elec. Supply Co. v. Andrus, 132 Vt. 195 (1974); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188) | Barber/cosmetology training covenants void (26 V.S.A. § 281(c)); attorneys (R. Prof. Conduct 5.6); sale-of-business more leeway; pending H.583 health-care ban not in force |  | unsettled | unclear | No equitable rewriting of the time term (Roy's Orthopedic) | No statutory limit |  | None | None — pending H.205 not law | Sale covenants get breathing room versus employment covenants | Reasonableness test applies; protecting customer relationships and goodwill is a recognized legitimate interest (no Vermont case squarely on point in our review) | Judged under the same reasonableness test as a non-compete; no Vermont case squarely on an employee anti-raiding covenant in our review |  |
| [Virginia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virginia) | payThreshold | Virginia bans non-competes outright for statutory low-wage employees, FLSA non-exempt employees, and health care professionals, while other workers remain subject to a strict common-law reasonableness test with no judicial blue-penciling. | Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8; common law (Omniplex World Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Investigations Servs., 270 Va. 246 (2005)) | Low-wage/FLSA-non-exempt ban (commission/incentive-earner exclusion); health-care-professional ban; severance-or-disclosed-comp rule for without-cause discharge; NDAs/trade-secret preserved | Low-wage ban July 1, 2020; FLSA-non-exempt expansion July 1, 2025; health-care ban and severance rule July 1, 2026 | no | yes | Not resolved — strict construction makes an extension clause an overbreadth risk | No statutory limit | severanceIfNoCause | None | Under $1,507.01/week (2026); FLSA non-exempt | Reasonable sale covenant allowed for health-care | Direct-solicitation bar allowed; passive customer-initiated work protected (§ 40.1-28.7:8) | Unenforceable against protected low-wage workers (Sentry Force) |  |
| [Washington](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/washington) | payThreshold | Employee non-competes are void unless earnings exceed an inflation-adjusted threshold ($126,858.83 in 2026); a near-total ban takes effect June 30, 2027. | RCW ch. 49.62 (ESHB 1155 ban from 2027) | Confidentiality, trade-secret, qualifying sale-of-business and franchise covenants; narrow non-solicits | Near-total ban effective June 30, 2027 (ESHB 1155) | rewrite | yes | Not addressed by statute | 18 months (longer presumed unreasonable) | ifLaidOff | Written disclosure no later than offer acceptance | $126,858.83 (2026) | Qualifying sale-of-business covenants excluded | Narrow non-solicits excluded | Franchise no-poach clauses restricted |  |
| [West Virginia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/west-virginia) | reasonable | West Virginia enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Reddy reasonableness test, but a facially unreasonable covenant is void with no judicial narrowing, and a physician statute caps medical covenants at one year and thirty miles. | common law (Reddy v. Cmty. Health Found. of Man, 171 W. Va. 368 (1982)) | Physician covenants capped at one year/30 road miles and void on employer termination (W. Va. Code § 47-11E); sale-of-business lesser scrutiny; non-piracy clauses less restrictive |  | no | unclear | Open question | No general statutory limit; physician covenants capped at 1 year |  | None | None | Sale covenants get lower scrutiny than employment covenants | Patient/customer non-solicits preserved for physicians | Employee non-solicits preserved for physicians |  |
| [Wisconsin](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin) | reasonable | Wisconsin enforces employee non-competes only if they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest under a demanding five-factor test, and an overbroad covenant is voided in full because courts will not blue-pencil it. | Wis. Stat. § 103.465 | Sale-of-business/equity covenants judged under common-law rule of reason; lawyers barred (SCR 20:5.6) |  | no | unclear | No — an extension-during-breach clause voids the entire covenant (H&R Block v. Swenson) | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Common-law rule of reason for sale/equity covenants | Governed by § 103.465 | Governed by § 103.465 |  |
| [Wyoming](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wyoming) | banned | For contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, Wyoming voids most employee non-competes that restrict the right to receive compensation for labor, allowing only four narrow statutory exceptions; pre-2025 covenants remain under demanding common law. | Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 (2025) (SF 107) | Four carve-outs: sale-of-business; trade-secret protection; tenure-capped relocation/education/training repayment; executive and management personnel. Separate physician-to-physician practice ban. | July 1, 2025 (prospective only; signed Mar 19, 2025) | no | yes | Not addressed | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Allowed carve-out | No express exception; unresolved if labor restriction | No express exception; unresolved if labor restriction |  |
| [Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au) | reasonable | Australian non-competes are presumptively void restraints of trade and bind a former worker only so far as reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, with NSW adding a statutory read-down power. | Lindner v Murdock's Garage [1950] HCA 48; Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) | Sale-of-business judged more leniently; NSW statutory read-down; proposed federal ban (not yet law) |  | trimOnly | yes | Not addressed | No statutory limit |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Reasonableness test applies to narrower non-solicits | Workforce risk can support non-solicit |  |
| [Australian Capital Territory, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/australian-capital-territory) | reasonable | An Australian Capital Territory non-compete binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate business interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so an overbroad clause cannot be rewritten — in the Territory's leading case a 24-month restraint on a general manager was upheld, while a parallel restraint failed entirely because an overbroad defined term was embedded in the operative clauses and could not be severed or read down. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; in the Territory's leading case the restraint period had expired by trial, the injunction claim was not pressed, and the court awarded monetary relief rather than extending the restraint. | No statutory cap; reasonableness turns on the combined effect of duration and area, and a 24-month restraint on a general manager — the longest rung of a cascading clause — was upheld in Steadfast ICT Security v Peak. |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Client solicitation breach enforced | Presumptively void at common law and binding only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; an employer cannot restrain a former employee's mere competition |  |
| [New South Wales, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/new-south-wales) | reasonable | A NSW non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only to the extent it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, but the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) lets the Supreme Court enforce an overbroad clause to a reasonable extent instead of voiding it outright. | Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4; common-law restraint of trade | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold but would exclude sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and prefer damages over extending an injunction. | No statutory cap; periods beyond about 12 months in employment are heavily scrutinised. |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | 12-month client non-solicit upheld | Workforce stability via non-solicit |  |
| [Northern Territory, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/northern-territory) | reasonable | A Northern Territory non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, and in the leading Supreme Court employment case an eighteen-month restraint failed entirely as longer than necessary even though the court considered fifteen months at most would have been reasonable. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business and franchise covenants are judged in their commercial context; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case — an eighteen-month restraint on an insurance broker was held void as longer than necessary (fifteen months at most would have been reasonable), while a six-month client-solicitation restraint was one the court said it would have found enforceable. |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Six-month client solicitation restraint noted as enforceable | Presumptively void at common law and binding only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; an employer cannot restrain a former employee's mere competition |  |
| [Queensland, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/queensland) | reasonable | A Queensland non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case, and longer periods attract closer scrutiny (a six-month restraint on senior managers was upheld in Auto Parts Group v Cooper). |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Restraint-of-trade reasonableness; customer connection is a protectable interest | Presumptively void at common law and binding only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; an employer cannot restrain a former employee's mere competition |  |
| [South Australia, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/south-australia) | reasonable | A South Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; reasonableness is fixed at the date of contract, and no South Australian authority validates extending a restraint because of a breach. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case by reference to the time needed to break the customer connection (a 12-month restraint was upheld in International Cleaning Services v Dmytrenko). |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Client solicitation/dealing in sale context | Staff enticement in sale context |  |
| [Tasmania, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/tasmania) | reasonable | A Tasmanian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only sever covenants the parties themselves drafted as genuinely separate, and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case — a one-month, 50-kilometre covenant was treated as reasonable in Bulk Frozen Foods v Excell, while a three-year restraint survived only for the purchased client connection in Neville Jeffress Advertising v Barlow (No 2). |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Restraint-of-trade reasonableness; protects a genuine customer connection, severable | Presumptively void at common law and binding only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; an employer cannot restrain a former employee's mere competition |  |
| [Victoria, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/victoria) | reasonable | A Victorian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule, and a carefully drafted multi-limb restraint that severance cannot save fails entirely. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; Australian courts treat rolling or indefinite restraints with suspicion and generally prefer damages over extending an injunction. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case and tested as at the date of the contract, and longer periods and wider areas attract closer scrutiny. |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Restraint-of-trade reasonableness; customer connection protectable but void if wider than necessary | Presumptively void at common law and binding only so far as reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; an employer cannot restrain a former employee's mere competition |  |
| [Western Australia, Australia](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/au/western-australia) | reasonable | A Western Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out genuinely distinct, severable covenants under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely. | Common-law restraint of trade (no equivalent of the NSW Restraints of Trade Act 1976) | Sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently; a proposed federal ban would, if enacted, cover most employees earning under the Fair Work Act high-income threshold (with sale-of-business and above-threshold restraints reported to be excluded), but it is not yet law. |  | trimOnly | yes | Untested; reasonableness is fixed at the date of contract, and no Western Australian authority validates extending a restraint because of a breach. | No statutory cap; reasonableness is judged case by case (a six-month competitor restraint was upheld in Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea [No 2], while a 12-month statewide restraint failed even to establish a prima facie case in Bend-Tech Group v Beek). |  | None | None in force — proposed federal ban for workers under the AUD $183,100 Fair Work Act high-income threshold is not yet law | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employee restraints | Customer limb separately assessed | Employee non-solicit limb separately assessed |  |
| [India](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/in) | banned | Post-employment non-competes are void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regardless of how reasonable they are, and Indian law offers no reasonableness saving for post-term restraints — leaving only the sale-of-goodwill exception, in-term covenants, confidentiality, non-solicitation, garden leave during the notice period, and cost-based employment bonds. | Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27 | Sale of business goodwill (Exception 1 to § 27); partnership carve-outs (§§ 11(2), 36(2), 54); in-term exclusive-service covenants | Longstanding — Section 27 has been in force since 1872 | no | yes | Not applicable — the post-term covenant is void | Not applicable — void |  | None | None | Allowed — Exception 1 to § 27 | Targeted non-solicitation remains available | Targeted non-solicitation remains available |  |
| [Philippines](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/ph) | reasonable | The Philippines has no non-compete statute. A post-employment restraint is enforceable only if it is reasonable — limited as to time, trade, and place, tied to a legitimate business interest, and not contrary to public policy — and suing on one is a civil case for the regular courts, not the labor tribunals. | Rivera v. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 163269 (2006); Tiu v. Platinum Plans Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 163512 (2007) | No statutory industry carve-outs. Independent-contractor restraints are treated as ordinary civil/commercial contracts rather than labor matters (Consulta v. CA, G.R. No. 145443). A forfeiture clause can bite for competition during employment (Century Properties v. Babiano, G.R. No. 220978). |  | unsettled | yes | Not addressed | No statutory limit; one- and two-year restraints have been upheld when otherwise reasonable |  | None | None | No statutory seller carve-out; one Civil Code Art. 1306 reasonableness test (reasonable limits required) | Likely the unitary reasonableness test (time, trade, place + legitimate interest) | Not addressed |  |
| [Singapore](https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/sg) | reasonable | Singapore has no non-compete statute; a post-employment restraint is presumptively void and binds a former employee only if the employer proves a legitimate proprietary interest and shows the clause is reasonable between the parties and in the public interest. | Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2007] SGCA 53 | No statutory industry carve-outs; sale-of-business covenants are judged more leniently (CLAAS Medical Centre [2010] SGCA 3). The confidentiality over-and-above trap (Stratech [2005] SGCA 17) often defeats employment non-competes. |  | trimOnly | unclear | Not addressed | No statutory limit |  | None | None | Sale covenants judged less strictly than employment restraints (CLAAS) | Presumptively void; must satisfy restraint-of-trade test | Presumptively void; must satisfy restraint-of-trade test |  |