Non-compete laws by state (2026): where non-competes are banned, limited or enforceable
Reviewed 1 July 2026
There is no federal ban, so each state sets its own non-compete rules. A few void them outright, a growing group enforce them only above an income threshold, and most enforce them if reasonable.
Washington sets its last non-compete pay limit before the ban
What happened
A non-compete is a clause that stops someone working for a rival after they leave. On 30 September, Washington set its pay limit for early 2027. The clause will only hold for staff paid more than $131,326.59 a year. From 30 June 2027 the state bans every non-compete, old ones too.
What it means for you
No single rule covers the whole US. The clause must fit the state your employee works in. Check pay against the new limits in Washington and Illinois before January.
Dates to know
- 1 October 2026Maryland limits now reach some employees of licensed architects.
- 1 January 2027The Washington pay limit rises to $131,326.59 a year.
- 1 January 2027The Illinois pay limit rises from $75,000 to $80,000 a year.
- 30 June 2027Washington voids all non-competes, old ones included.
Source: Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. We check this page every week. Last checked .
A non-compete is a contract term that limits where an employee can work after they leave. There is no federal ban in force, so whether a non-compete can be enforced is a matter of state law.
The big picture
4 states void employee non-competes, 16 enforce them only above an income threshold or under significant statutory limits, Florida has strengthened enforcement for higher earners, and the rest enforce them if they are reasonable.
Position as at 1 October 2026. Source.
Is there still a federal ban on non-competes?
No. A federal court struck down the FTC's 2024 rule, and it was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on 12 February 2026.
The rule would have banned most employee non-competes. The FTC dropped its appeals in September 2025 and now enforces only case by case, so state law decides.
Which states ban employee non-competes?
Four: California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma.
Minnesota's ban covers agreements signed on or after 1 July 2023. Some still allow narrower clauses, such as reasonable customer non-solicitation in Oklahoma. Washington becomes the fifth on 30 June 2027, when every non-compete in the state becomes void, old ones included.
What is an income-threshold state?
A state that voids a non-compete unless the employee earns above a set yearly amount.
The amount usually rises each year. For 2026 it is about $126,859 in Washington, about $119,541 in Oregon and about $130,014 in Colorado (its highly-compensated test). Illinois uses $75,000, rising to $80,000 on 1 January 2027.
US non-compete clauses, drafted state by state
- Covenants drafted to state law
- No template clause in void states
- Notice and consideration requirements met
Non-compete by state
51 jurisdictions
| Source | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Banned | Void: banned for employees | – | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, 16600.1, 16600.5 | source |
| Minnesota | Banned | Void: banned (agreements on/after 1 Jul 2023) | – | Minn. Stat. § 181.988 | source |
| North Dakota | Banned | Void: banned for employees | – | N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06 | source |
| Oklahoma | Banned | Void: banned (customer non-solicit allowed) | – | Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 219A | source |
| Florida | Strengthened | Strengthened: CHOICE Act (high earners) | 2x county mean wage (covered employees) | Fla. Stat. §§ 542.41–542.45 (CHOICE Act); § 542.335 | source |
| Colorado | Limited | Void unless highly-compensated worker; no exception for medicine, advanced practice nursing or dentistry | $130,014/yr (2026) | C.R.S. § 8-2-113 (HB22-1317; SB25-083) | source |
| District of Columbia | Limited | Void unless highly-compensated ($162,164) | $162,164/yr ($270,274 medical specialists) (2026) | D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq. | source |
| Illinois | Limited | Void below $75,000/yr income threshold | $75,000/yr (2026); $80,000/yr from 1 Jan 2027 | 820 ILCS 90 (Freedom to Work Act) | source |
| Louisiana | Limited | Void unless statutory carve-out met; 2-yr cap; banned for interns and apprentices from 1 Aug 2026 | 2-year cap; parishes/municipalities named | La. Rev. Stat. § 23:921 (physician limits, Act 273 of 2024; interns and apprentices, Act 150 of 2026) | source |
| Maine | Limited | Void at/below $63,840/yr (400% FPL); banned for health care practitioners from 29 Jul 2026 | $63,840/yr (2026) | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26 § 599-A (PL 2025, c. 718) | source |
| Maryland | Limited | Void below wage threshold; health care and veterinary limits; some architects' employees from 1 Oct 2026 | 150% of State minimum wage ($22.50/hour) | Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716 (2026, ch. 301) | source |
| Massachusetts | Limited | Limited: garden leave; no FLSA non-exempt | Non-exempt excluded | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 24L | source |
| Nevada | Limited | Limited; banned for hourly-only workers | Hourly-only barred | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195 | source |
| New Hampshire | Limited | Void for low-wage (up to 200% min wage) | $30,160/yr (2026) | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:70-a | source |
| Oregon | Limited | Void unless above income threshold | $119,541/yr (2026) | Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.295 | source |
| Rhode Island | Limited | Void for low-wage (250% FPL) & non-exempt | $39,900/yr (2026) | R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-59-1 et seq. | source |
| Tennessee | Limited | Void below $70,000/yr (eff 1 Jul 2026) | $70,000/yr (from 1 Jul 2026) | Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-701 et seq. (HB 1034) | source |
| Utah | Limited | Reasonable; 1-yr cap; healthcare and veterinary non-competes void from 6 May 2026 | 1-year max | Utah Code § 34-51-201 (HB 270, SB 111, 2026) | source |
| Virginia | Limited | Void for low-wage, overtime-eligible & health care professionals; unenforceable if discharged without severance | $78,364.52/yr (1 Jul 2026 to 30 Jun 2027) | Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8 (2025, c. 585; 2026, cc. 883, 1113, 1114) | source |
| Washington | Limited | Void unless above income threshold; all non-competes void from 30 June 2027 | $126,858.83/yr (2026); $131,326.59/yr (Jan to Jun 2027) | Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62 (as amended by 2026 c 149 / HB 1155) | source |
| Wyoming | Limited | Banned with exceptions (eff 1 Jul 2025) | Exec/mgmt & sale-of-business carve-outs | Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-108 (SF 107) | source |
| Alabama | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute) | – | Ala. Code § 8-1-190 et seq. | source |
| Alaska | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (Data Mgmt. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62) | source |
| Arizona | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (disfavored, strictly construed) | source |
| Arkansas | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute); physician non-competes void (2025) | – | Ark. Code § 4-75-101 (Act 232 of 2025) | source |
| Connecticut | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable; physician limits | – | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-14p (physicians), 20-12k (physician assistants), 20-101d (APRNs); common law | source |
| Delaware | Enforceable | Reasonable; physician non-competes void | – | 6 Del. C. § 2707 (physician non-competes void); common law | source |
| Georgia | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (RCA statute) | – | O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq. | source |
| Hawaii | Enforceable | Reasonable; banned for tech workers | – | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(d) (tech-worker ban); common law | source |
| Idaho | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute) | – | Idaho Code § 44-2701 et seq. | source |
| Indiana | Enforceable | Reasonable; physician limits (2025) | – | Ind. Code § 25-22.5-5.5 (physicians); common law | source |
| Iowa | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (three-factor reasonableness test) | source |
| Kansas | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (reasonable, not adverse to public welfare) | source |
| Kentucky | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (reasonable; consideration required) | source |
| Michigan | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute) | – | Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a | source |
| Mississippi | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply) | source |
| Missouri | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202; common law | source |
| Montana | Enforceable | Reasonableness read into statute; not a ban; health care provider limits | – | Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 to -705; § 28-2-724 (health care providers) | source |
| Nebraska | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (no reformation of overbroad covenants) | source |
| New Jersey | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (Solari/Whitmyer test) | source |
| New Mexico | Enforceable | Reasonable; healthcare-worker limits | – | N.M. Stat. § 24A-4-1 et seq. (healthcare); common law | source |
| New York | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg) | source |
| North Carolina | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law; N.C.G.S. § 75-4 (must be in writing) | source |
| Ohio | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21) | source |
| Pennsylvania | Enforceable | Reasonable; healthcare-practitioner limits | – | Common law; Act 74 of 2024, 63 P.S. § 3501 et seq. (healthcare, eff. 1 Jan 2025) | source |
| South Carolina | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law (strictly construed; no blue pencil) | source |
| South Dakota | Enforceable | Reasonable; 2-year statutory cap | 2-year statutory cap | S.D. Codified Laws § 53-9-11 | source |
| Texas | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute); physician and health care practitioner limits (2025) | – | Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50–15.52; § 15.501 (SB 1318, 2025) | source |
| Vermont | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law); void for health care providers since 18 Jun 2026 | – | Common law; 21 V.S.A. § 495q | source |
| West Virginia | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (common law) | – | Common law | source |
| Wisconsin | Enforceable | Enforceable if reasonable (statute) | – | Wis. Stat. § 103.465 | source |
Frequently asked questions
Are non-competes enforceable in my state?
It depends on the state. Find yours in the table above for its position, any income threshold and its source.
What is the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicit?
A non-compete limits where someone can work after leaving. A non-solicit limits contacting former customers or colleagues. Some states that restrict non-competes still allow reasonable non-solicits.
Can Teamed handle non-competes for our US hires?
Yes. As the legal employer, Teamed issues each employment agreement under the right state's law, and its HR and legal experts can advise on what is enforceable where.
US employment law is set state by state, and it keeps moving. When Teamed is your legal employer, this is our job in every state: compliant offers, postings and policies that meet each state’s rules, so you can hire across the US without setting up 50 payrolls or reading 50 statutes.
AI tools helped create this page. How we use AI