Are Non-Competes Enforceable in 2026 — and What Happened to the Federal Ban?

There is no federal ban on non-competes, and there never was one in force. The rule was struck down before its start date and formally removed from federal regulations in 2026. So whether yours can be enforced depends entirely on the law of the state where you work — and in four states, it cannot be enforced at all.

• The federal ban never took effect for a single day. If you have been told otherwise, that is why this page exists.
• A small group of states void these agreements outright. A larger group allows them only above a salary threshold or outside certain occupations.
• Which state’s law applies is often the whole question — and for remote workers, it is rarely the state on the letterhead.
• An unenforceable clause can still get you sued. Being right is not the same as being left alone.

Jump straight to the tool below to see which questions decide your answer.

• Holding an offer and unsure if you can take it? Start with Three Tiers: What Your State Does.
• Already left, and a letter arrived? Go to What Actually Weakens One.
• Being asked to sign one today? Read Salary Thresholds and Occupational Carve-Outs first.

And the part that decides real cases and that almost nobody explains: whether a judge in your state throws the whole clause out, or quietly rewrites it into a shorter one you are still bound by.

What Happened to the Federal Ban

Start with the correction: there is no federal non-compete ban, and there never has been one in force. If you believed otherwise, you had good reason to — the rule was real, it was widely reported, and it came close. It just never crossed the finish line.

Here is the sequence, with every date, so you can check it yourself:

1. April 23, 2024 — The Federal Trade Commission voted to issue the Non-Compete Clause Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 910), which would have made it an unfair method of competition to enter into, enforce, or represent that a worker was bound by most post-employment non-competes. Its effective date was set for September 4, 2024.
2. August 20, 2024 — In Ryan LLC v. FTC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the FTC lacked the statutory authority to issue the rule and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. The court set the rule aside on a nationwide basis — not just for the parties in the case — so it did not take effect on September 4.
3. September 5, 2025 — The FTC voted 3–1 to dismiss its own appeals (in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits) and to accede to the vacatur, ending the litigation.
4. February 12, 2026 — The FTC formally removed the Non-Compete Clause Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations, conforming the regulations to the court’s order.

Put plainly: the rule that people believe banned non-competes never bound a single employer or a single worker, at any point, for any length of time.

The FTC has said it will continue to act against individual employers under its general authority over unfair methods of competition — for example, its 2025–2026 actions against a pet-cremation company’s nationwide non-competes and a pest-control company’s covenants covering more than 18,000 workers. That is not the same as a rule you can invoke. It is the agency choosing to sue specific companies it considers to have gone too far, and it is not a remedy an individual worker can use for their own agreement. Any broader federal restriction on non-competes would require a new rule or an act of Congress — this article does not predict whether either will happen.

The National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel took a separate position in 2023–2024, arguing that broad non-competes could violate federal labor law. That guidance was rescinded by the agency’s acting general counsel in February 2025, so it is not a current avenue either. See the FTC’s own page on the rule’s status.

Sources for this section: the FTC’s own rule page, the district court’s memorandum opinion in Ryan LLC v. FTC, the FTC’s September 2025 press release on its vote, and the February 2026 Federal Register notice removing the rule.

Three Tiers: What Your State Does

With no federal rule, your state is the whole answer. Every state falls into one of three tiers: it voids most non-competes outright, it makes them conditional on a threshold or carve-out, or it permits them subject to a reasonableness standard applied case by case. Start by finding your tier — everything else in this article builds on it.

California

Non-competes are void for employees, regardless of where or when the agreement was signed, under Business & Professions Code §§ 16600, 16600.1, and 16600.5 as amended effective January 1, 2024. There is more on California’s reach into out-of-state employers in the choice-of-law section below.

Minnesota

Non-compete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2023 are void for most employees and independent contractors under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, with narrow statutory exceptions including the sale of a business.

North Dakota and Oklahoma

Both states have long-standing statutes voiding most employment non-competes (N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06; Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A). Oklahoma’s statute permits narrower activity restraints — agreements not to solicit specific customers — even though it voids general non-competes.

Washington

Non-competes are currently enforceable only above an annually adjusted income threshold — $123,394.17 for employees and $308,485.43 for independent contractors in 2026 (RCW 49.62). That changes: Washington enacted a near-total ban (House Bill 1155, signed March 2026), effective June 30, 2027. If you’re in Washington, the date matters as much as the rule.

Florida

Florida is the clearest example of a state moving toward greater enforceability rather than less. Its CHOICE Act (Fla. Stat. § 542.336), effective July 1, 2025, allows non-compete and “garden leave” agreements of up to four years for workers earning more than twice the annual mean wage in their county — roughly $100,000 or more, depending on the county. The trend nationally is toward more restriction; Florida is the counter-example, and if you work there, it changes what “reasonable” means in your state.

Texas

Texas enforces non-competes that meet a statutory reasonableness test (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50–15.51) and, notably, allows a court to rewrite — not just strike — an overbroad covenant into one it considers reasonable. More on what that means for you in the doctrine section below.

Salary Thresholds and Occupational Carve-Outs

In a growing group of states, the question isn’t whether your non-compete is well drafted — it’s whether you clear a dollar figure written into the statute. Below the line, the agreement is void regardless of anything else in it.

Healthcare: the most active carve-out area

Healthcare is where occupational carve-outs are moving fastest, and the details vary sharply by state and by exactly which license you hold.

Colorado now voids non-competes and customer non-solicitation covenants for physicians, advanced-practice registered nurses, dentists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists, regardless of income, under Senate Bill 25-083, effective August 6, 2025 — before that date, physicians could be bound to pay liquidated damages for competing even though they couldn’t be barred from practicing outright.

Maryland voids non-competes entirely for licensed medical professionals in direct patient care earning $350,000 or less a year; above that figure, a covenant is capped at one year and a 10-mile radius, effective July 1, 2025.

Indiana has barred non-competes for physicians since a 2020 statute (Ind. Code § 25-22.5-5.5). Tennessee has regulated non-competes for healthcare providers by statute since 2008 (Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-148), separately from — and in addition to — its new general $70,000 threshold above.

Independent contractors are addressed unevenly: Washington’s and Minnesota’s statutes above extend to contractors; most other states’ thresholds are written for employees only, which is itself a fact worth checking against your own classification.

What Actually Weakens One (and What Doesn’t)

There is no trick that gets you out of a non-compete. But there are real, recognized questions — and some of the things people rely on most turn out to be the weakest.

Consideration

Some states require that an employee receive something of value in exchange for signing a non-compete, particularly when the agreement is signed after employment has already started rather than at hire. Whether continued employment alone counts as sufficient consideration varies by state — it is a recognized argument, not a settled national rule, and it depends on your state and on when you signed.

The employer’s own breach

As a general contract principle, a material breach by the employer — for example, unpaid wages — can sometimes affect whether a restrictive covenant can still be enforced. This is fact-specific and varies by state; it is not automatic, and it is not a basis for concluding on your own that the agreement no longer applies.

How the employment ended

Some states address by statute whether a layoff or a termination without cause affects enforceability; most do not, and leave it to case law or don’t address it directly. The common belief that being fired automatically voids a non-compete is not generally correct. Acting on that belief — for example, by immediately going to work for a direct competitor — is a real and costly risk, not a safe assumption.

Scope

Duration, geography, and the range of restricted activity are the three factors reasonableness states look at. This article does not publish “typical” numbers for any of them, because there aren’t real ones — those figures circulate widely online and are not law.

Role changes and company sales

A significant change in your role or duties, and a change in company ownership, are both recognized questions courts sometimes consider — not settled rules with a predictable outcome. Whether a materially different job means the original bargain no longer applies, and whether a covenant transfers automatically to a new owner, both depend on your state and on the specific agreement’s language.

Strike, void, or rewrite: the doctrine that decides what “too broad” is worth

When a court finds a non-compete’s terms too broad, states take one of three approaches, and which one your state uses changes the entire outcome for you.

California’s Supreme Court has expressly declined to save an otherwise unlawful restraint by narrowing it: in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the court rejected the idea that a “reasonable” or narrowly drawn restraint could survive Section 16600 — reinforcing that in California, the question is whether the restraint is void, not how to trim it. This is the difference between walking away and being restricted, and it is decided entirely by your state.

Whichever state you’re in, a non-compete you left with a former employer often becomes relevant if you’re weighing a severance offer or a new dispute over how your employment ended — see Should You Sign a Severance Agreement? What You Give Up (2026) for what signing one actually costs, and Wrongful Termination Lawyer: Build Your Case if the dismissal itself, not the covenant, is what you’re questioning. And whatever a court eventually does with your non-compete, an employer’s window to bring a claim is not unlimited — see Statute of Limitations by State: How Long You Have to Sue for how those deadlines work generally.

What genuinely weakens a non-compete, and what people wrongly believe does

• No consideration beyond continued employment — a recognized argument in states that require something more, especially for agreements signed after hire.
• The employer materially breached first — a recognized general contract principle, fact-dependent and state-specific.
• The scope is genuinely unreasonable — duration, geography, or activity restraints that go further than any legitimate interest requires.
• The state voids it by statute — the single strongest argument, and the one this article’s tiers exist to help you locate.

• I never received a copy — affects what you can prove, not whether the agreement exists.
• I signed without reading it — generally binds you regardless, in nearly every state.
• Everyone here signs one — how common a practice is has no bearing on enforceability.
• They’ve never enforced one before — past non-enforcement against someone else does not waive the employer’s right to enforce yours.

Which State’s Law Applies (Remote Workers, Read This)

Nowhere is this sharper than California. If you work in California, Business & Professions Code § 16600.5 — added by Senate Bill 699, effective January 1, 2024 — provides that:

• A contract void under Section 16600 is unenforceable regardless of where and when it was signed.
• An employer is barred from attempting to enforce such a contract regardless of whether it was signed, or the employment maintained, outside California.
• An employer is separately barred from entering into such a contract with a current or prospective employee in the first place.
• Violating either of the above is a civil violation.
• You — as an employee, former employee, or prospective employee — have a private right of action for injunctive relief, actual damages, or both, with recovery of your attorney’s fees and costs.

That last point is the one worker-side coverage of this topic almost never mentions, because most of what ranks on this subject is written for the employer managing the risk, not the worker who could use it: if a California-based worker is threatened with an out-of-state non-compete, the employer — not just the worker — is the one taking on legal exposure. California also separately requires (Business & Professions Code § 16600.1, added by Assembly Bill 1076) that employers notify current and former employees in writing that a void non-compete is void; that notice obligation ran through a one-time deadline of February 14, 2024, for employees covered at that time. Read Section 16600.5 directly, or the full text of SB 699.

How far this reaches against employers based entirely outside California, with no California operations of their own, is not yet fully settled by the courts — that is stated here as an open question, not a resolved one, because a confident answer either way would mislead you.

California also limits, separately, when an employer can require a California-based worker to litigate a dispute outside California or under another state’s law (Labor Code § 925). That limit does not apply if the worker was independently represented by their own counsel in negotiating that specific clause — a real exception, not a technicality, and one that has been litigated both ways depending on how clearly the representation is documented.

The general principle for every remote worker, not just those in California: your employer’s “governed by the laws of [State]” clause is a starting point the other side wrote, not the end of the analysis. Some states protect their own workers from having another state’s law imposed on them; most simply leave it to a court, applying its own choice-of-law rules, to decide which state’s interest is stronger. This section resolves nothing for you — it tells you that the question exists and that it is worth raising with an attorney before you assume either state’s law controls.

What a Non-Compete Is Not

A confidentiality agreement and a trade secret obligation are legally separate from a non-compete, and they survive regardless of what happens to it — whether it’s struck down, voided by statute, or simply expires. A worker who concludes their non-compete is void and, on that basis, takes a client list, a pricing file, or source code with them has created a far larger problem than the one they solved. Trade secret law — including the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and your state’s own statute — operates independently of whether your non-compete is worth anything at all. For more on how intellectual property and trade secret claims work, see Intellectual Property Lawyer: Full Guide.

A non-solicitation clause — restricting you from approaching your former employer’s clients or recruiting former colleagues — is a separate, often narrower restriction, and it is frequently enforceable even in states that restrict or void general non-competes (Oklahoma is one clear example, as noted above).

A covenant given in connection with the sale of a business — where you were an owner or partial owner, not simply an employee — is generally treated under different, more permissive rules than an ordinary employment non-compete. That’s a distinct topic and not the subject of this article.

If your situation involves a separate workplace claim — discrimination, harassment, retaliation — that runs on its own track from anything discussed here; see Employment Discrimination Lawyer Guide.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are non-competes enforceable in 2026?

It depends entirely on the state where you work. Some states void them outright, others allow them only above an income threshold or outside certain occupations, and the rest apply a reasonableness standard case by case. There is no single national answer.

Did the FTC ban non-competes?

No. The FTC issued a rule in 2024 that would have banned most non-competes nationwide, but a federal court set it aside before it ever took effect.

Is the federal non-compete ban still in effect?

There is no federal non-compete ban in effect, and there never has been. The rule was vacated in court in 2024, the FTC dropped its appeal in 2025, and it was formally removed from federal regulations in February 2026.

Which states ban non-competes completely?

California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma void most employment non-competes outright. Washington will join this group on June 30, 2027.

Is my non-compete enforceable if I was fired?

This article cannot tell you that — it depends on your state, your agreement’s wording, and the circumstances. Being fired does not automatically void a non-compete in most states, despite a widespread belief that it does.

Does a non-compete still apply if I was laid off?

In most states, a layoff does not automatically void a non-compete. A small number of states address this by statute; check whether yours is one of them before assuming either way.

What voids a non-compete?

The clearest path is your state’s own statute — if you work in a state that voids these agreements outright, or you fall below a compensation threshold, that governs regardless of the agreement’s wording. Beyond that, factors like inadequate consideration or unreasonable scope are recognized arguments, not guaranteed outcomes.

Do I have to be paid something extra for signing one?

Some states require it, particularly if you sign after you’re already employed rather than at hire. Whether continued employment alone is enough varies by state.

How long can a non-compete last?

This varies by state and by the specifics of the job; this article does not publish “typical” durations because there isn’t a real one — those figures circulate widely but aren’t law.

What is a reasonable geographic radius?

There is no standard figure — reasonableness is assessed against the specific business interest being protected, not against a number that applies everywhere.

Do non-competes hold up in court?

Sometimes, and it depends heavily on the state and the specific terms. This article explains what determines the answer; it does not predict outcomes for individual agreements.

What happens if a clause is too broad?

Depends on your state’s doctrine: some states strike only the offending words, some void the entire clause, and some let a court rewrite it into narrower terms you remain bound by. See the strike-void-rewrite table above.

Which state’s law applies if I work remotely?

Often, the state where you actually perform the work — not the state named in the agreement’s governing-law clause. This is frequently the central question for remote workers and is not resolved by the contract’s own wording alone.

Can they sue me in a different state?

Possibly, depending on the agreement’s forum clause and your state’s limits on those clauses. California, for example, limits when a California-based worker can be required to litigate elsewhere.

What is the difference between a non-compete and an NDA?

A non-compete restricts where you can work after leaving. A confidentiality agreement (NDA) restricts what information you can use or disclose. They are legally separate, and the confidentiality obligation survives even if the non-compete does not.

What is the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause?

A non-compete restricts you from working for a competitor at all. A non-solicitation clause only restricts you from approaching specific clients or recruiting former colleagues — a narrower restriction that is often enforceable even where non-competes are not.

Can I be sued even if the agreement is unenforceable?

Yes. An employer can file a claim on an agreement that ultimately turns out to be unenforceable, and defending against it costs time and money regardless of the outcome.

Does my non-compete transfer if the company is acquired?

It depends on the agreement’s assignment language and your state’s law on whether covenants transfer to a new owner — it is a recognized question, not a settled rule with one answer.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice, and AdvoraHQ is not a law firm and does not represent anyone. Whether a non-compete agreement can be enforced against you depends on the law of the state where you work, on statutes that changed during 2026 and continue to change, on the specific wording of your agreement, on what you received in exchange for signing it, on how your employment ended, and on how a particular court reads all of it. State positions are described here as of the verification date shown and should be confirmed against your state’s current statutes. Nothing on this page tells you whether your own agreement is enforceable, and nothing here should be read as advice to disregard an agreement you have signed: an agreement that would ultimately be held unenforceable can still be litigated, and defending a claim is expensive regardless of the outcome. Obligations concerning confidential information and trade secrets are separate from a non-compete and are not affected by anything described here. The tool on this page points to the questions that apply to your situation; it stores nothing, sends nothing anywhere, and does not assess your agreement. Consult a licensed employment attorney in your state before signing, resigning, or responding to any communication about a restrictive covenant.

Last updated: September 8, 2026.