Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Idaho?
Yes, but only for key employees or key independent contractors and only if the covenant is reasonable. Idaho Code § 44-2701 makes a qualifying covenant enforceable if reasonable as to duration, geography, work scope, and business need.
Idaho is a statute-first jurisdiction for employment non-competes. The chapter 44-27 framework is employer-friendly, but it is not open-ended: the worker must be key, the restraint must protect legitimate business interests, and it cannot impose more restraint than reasonably necessary .
Idaho courts still treat employment covenants as disfavored and strictly construed against the employer. Blaskiewicz reversed summary judgment because the district court skipped the Idaho statutes, while also preserving the older reasonableness and public-policy limits .
Do not draft Idaho as a common-law-only state. A court should start with Idaho Code §§ 44-2701 through 44-2704, then evaluate the facts that bear on reasonableness, business interest, worker hardship, and public injury.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 Idaho Code § 44-2701Idaho Code § 44-2701 supports the rule that key employees and key independent contractors may enter enforceable post-employment non-competes if the covenant is reasonable and protects legitimate business interests.
A key employee or key independent contractor may enter into a written agreement or covenant that protects the employer’s legitimate business interests and prohibits the key employee or key independent contractor from engaging in employment or a line of business that is in direct competition with the employer’s business after termination of employment, and the same shall be enforceable, if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, type of employment or line of business, and does not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
See Idaho Code § 44-2701.
Case law · 2022-10-31
A.2 Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho, P.A.Blaskiewicz supports treating chapter 44-27 as the governing statutory framework while preserving strict construction and reasonableness limits.
While Intermountain Eye and Freiburger remain instructive, the district court’s failure to address the relevant statutes constitutes clear error.
See Blaskiewicz v. Spine Inst. of Idaho, P.A., 171 Idaho 70, 518 P.3d 386 (2022).
Who is a key employee or key independent contractor under Idaho non-compete law?
A covered worker is key if the employer can show high-level inside knowledge, influence, credibility, notoriety, or similar ability to threaten the employer's business interests. Idaho Code § 44-2702 defines the category, and Idaho Code § 44-2704 creates a highest-paid-five-percent presumption.
The statutory definition is functional. It focuses on what the employer exposed the worker to, how the worker represented the employer, and whether the worker can harm legitimate business interests after leaving .
The pay presumption helps employers but does not end the case. If the worker is among the highest-paid five percent, Idaho presumes key status; the worker may rebut that by showing no ability to adversely affect the employer's legitimate business interests .
Independent contractors can be covered if they are key independent contractors. Sky Down Skydiving notes that non-competition clauses are permitted for independent contractors under section 44-2701, though the case itself used that point in a worker-classification analysis .
Do not rely on salary rank alone when the worker is outside the top five percent or when rebuttal evidence is likely. The agreement and enforcement record should identify the inside knowledge, public exposure, customer influence, or similar facts that make the worker key.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 Idaho Code § 44-2702Idaho Code § 44-2702 supports the functional definition of key employees and key independent contractors.
(1) "Key employees" and "key independent contractors" shall include those employees or independent contractors who, by reason of the employer’s investment of time, money, trust, exposure to the public, or exposure to technologies, intellectual property, business plans, business processes and methods of operation, customers, vendors or other business relationships during the course of employment, have gained a high level of inside knowledge, influence, credibility, notoriety, fame, reputation or public persona as a representative or spokesperson of the employer and, as a result, have the ability to harm or threaten an employer’s legitimate business interests.
See Idaho Code § 44-2702.
Primary law
B.2 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704 supports the highest-paid-five-percent rebuttable presumption for key employees and key independent contractors.
(5) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that an employee or independent contractor who is among the highest paid five percent (5%) of the employer’s employees or independent contractors is a "key employee" or a "key independent contractor."
See Idaho Code § 44-2704.
Case law · 2020-04-16
B.3 State ex rel. Industrial Commission v. Sky Down Skydiving, LLCSky Down Skydiving supports the point that Idaho Code § 44-2701 permits non-competition clauses for independent contractors, while cautioning that such clauses may also show employment-like control.
Although non-competition clauses are permitted for independent contractors under Idaho Code section 44-2701, such a provision is more indicative of the type of control an employer typically exercises over an employee.
See Indus. Comm'n v. Sky Down Skydiving, LLC, 166 Idaho 564, 462 P.3d 92 (2020).
What counts as a legitimate business interest for an Idaho non-compete?
Idaho defines legitimate business interests broadly. The statutory list includes goodwill, technologies, intellectual property, business plans, business processes, customers, customer lists and contacts, referral sources, vendors, financial and marketing information, and trade secrets .
The list is not exclusive. The phrase includes, but is not limited to, gives employers room to prove other protectable interests that fit the same business-protection logic .
That broad definition does not eliminate tailoring. Idaho Code § 44-2701 still requires the restraint not to exceed what is reasonably necessary to protect those interests .
Name the protected interest and connect it to the worker. A generic competition ban is weaker than a covenant tied to the actual customer contacts, referral sources, confidential processes, technologies, or similar interests the worker can use against the employer.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
C.1 Idaho Code § 44-2702Idaho Code § 44-2702 supports the broad statutory definition of legitimate business interests.
(2) "Legitimate business interests" shall include, but not be limited to, an employer’s goodwill, technologies, intellectual property, business plans, business processes and methods of operation, customers, customer lists, customer contacts and referral sources, vendors and vendor contacts, financial and marketing information, and trade secrets as that term is defined by chapter 8, title 48, Idaho Code.
See Idaho Code § 44-2702.
Primary law
C.2 Idaho Code § 44-2701Idaho Code § 44-2701 supports the tailoring requirement that a covenant not impose more restraint than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests.
A key employee or key independent contractor may enter into a written agreement or covenant that protects the employer’s legitimate business interests and prohibits the key employee or key independent contractor from engaging in employment or a line of business that is in direct competition with the employer’s business after termination of employment, and the same shall be enforceable, if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, type of employment or line of business, and does not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
See Idaho Code § 44-2701.
How long can an Idaho non-compete last, and what consideration is required?
Eighteen months or less is the statutory safe-harbor term. Idaho Code § 44-2704 presumes an eighteen-month-or-shorter postemployment term reasonable, and a restriction longer than eighteen months requires consideration beyond employment or continued employment.
The statute is unusually specific about consideration. It says a direct-competition restriction cannot exceed eighteen months unless the employer gives additional consideration beyond employment or continued employment .
That means continued at-will employment can support an eighteen-month-or-shorter covenant, but it is not enough by itself for a longer restriction. The older Insurance Associates litigation involved an at-will insurance salesperson who had to sign or be fired, and the Court of Appeals held that agreement supported by consideration; the Supreme Court later repeated that procedural holding while resolving damages and related claims .
If the business needs more than eighteen months, document independent consideration and expect to lose the duration presumption. Without that additional consideration, section 44-2704 makes the over-eighteen-month term vulnerable at the threshold .
Sources for this answer
Primary law
D.1 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that a covenant with a postemployment term of eighteen months or less is reasonable as to duration.
(2) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that an agreement or covenant with a postemployment term of eighteen (18) months or less is reasonable as to duration.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704(2).
Primary law
D.2 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704(1) bars a direct-competition restriction longer than eighteen months unless consideration in addition to employment or continued employment is given.
(1) Under no circumstances shall a provision of such agreement or covenant, as set forth herein, establish a postemployment restriction of direct competition that exceeds a period of eighteen (18) months from the time of the key employee’s or key independent contractor’s termination unless consideration, in addition to employment or continued employment, is given to a key employee or key independent contractor.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704(1).
Case law · 1989-11-15
D.3 Insurance Associates Corp. v. HansenInsurance Associates supports the historical Idaho treatment that the at-will employee agreement at issue had been held supported by consideration.
The Court of Appeals further (1) “conclude[d] that the findings of fact made by the district court are supported by the evidence, are not clearly erroneous and should not be set aside,” id. at 206-207 , 723 P.2d at 194-195 ; (2) “[held] the agreement was supported by consideration,” id. at 207-208 , 723 P.2d at 195-196 ; and (3) declined to award attorney fees on appeal to either party.
See Ins. Assocs. Corp. v. Hansen, 116 Idaho 948, 782 P.2d 1230 (1989).
What geographic and line-of-business limits apply to Idaho non-competes?
Idaho presumes geography reasonable when it is limited to areas where the worker provided services or had significant presence or influence. It also presumes work scope reasonable when limited to the type of employment or line of business the worker actually conducted for the employer.
The geographic rule is tied to the worker's footprint, not simply to everywhere the employer does business . The line-of-business rule is tied to the worker's actual work, not every possible role in the employer's industry .
Those presumptions matter in practice because a court may still ask whether the covenant imposes more restraint than reasonably necessary. Blaskiewicz noted that a physician restriction could potentially be modified to cover only the medicine performed for the former employer, rather than all medicine the physician could perform .
Avoid statewide or all-industry language unless the facts justify it. Idaho's presumptions are strongest when the territory tracks the worker's actual service area or influence and the restricted business tracks the worker's actual work for the employer.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
E.1 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704(3) presumes a geographic restriction reasonable if confined to areas where the key worker provided services or had a significant presence or influence.
(3) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that an agreement or covenant is reasonable as to geographic area if it is restricted to the geographic areas in which the key employee or key independent contractor provided services or had a significant presence or influence.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704(3).
Primary law
E.2 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704(4) presumes a covenant reasonable as to type of employment or line of business if limited to the work the key worker conducted for the employer.
(4) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that an agreement or covenant is reasonable as to type of employment or line of business if it is limited to the type of employment or line of business conducted by the key employee or key independent contractor, as defined in section 44-2702, Idaho Code, while working for the employer.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704(4).
Case law · 2022-10-31
E.3 Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho, P.A.Blaskiewicz supports tailoring a physician non-compete to the type of medicine performed for the former employer when the facts support modification.
For example, it is possible that, under the proper factual findings, the district court could have modified the agreement to preclude Blaskiewicz from practicing only the type of medicine he did for the Spine Institute, i.e., complex spinal deformity surgery, yet allow him to perform other surgeries he is otherwise qualified to perform.
See Blaskiewicz v. Spine Inst. of Idaho, P.A., 171 Idaho 70, 518 P.3d 386 (2022).
Will an Idaho court modify an overbroad non-compete?
Usually yes, because Idaho's statute uses mandatory modification language. Idaho Code § 44-2703 says a court shall limit or modify an unreasonable covenant and enforce it as limited or modified.
That blue-pencil rule is strong, but it is not a license to omit essential terms. Idaho courts have long treated employment restraints as strictly construed against the employer, and Intermountain Eye cautioned that a court may blue-pencil only if it can be done simply and accurately .
Blaskiewicz applied the statute's modification power after chapter 44-27 was enacted. It faulted the district court for declaring the covenant void without considering statutory modification .
In practice, Brand Makers Promotional Products, LLC v. Archibald refused to rewrite a covenant that lacked geographic and line-of-business limits, while Timberline Drilling v. American Drilling reduced a five-year period to eighteen months. Those cases are useful drafting context, but the source corpus here does not include quote-verified text for them.
Give the court something workable to modify. Section 44-2703 supports narrowing unreasonable terms, but strict construction and the simple-and-accurate limit make absent geography, absent work scope, or a missing protectable-interest theory materially riskier.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
F.1 Idaho Code § 44-2703Idaho Code § 44-2703 supports mandatory judicial modification and enforcement of an unreasonable covenant as modified.
To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court shall limit or modify the agreement or covenant as it shall determine necessary to reflect the intent of the parties and render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement or covenant as limited or modified.
See Idaho Code § 44-2703.
Case law · 2005-12-20
F.2 Intermountain Eye & Laser Centers, P.L.L.C. v. MillerIntermountain Eye supports the limit that a court may blue-pencil only when it can do so simply and accurately and should not substantially rewrite the contract.
While the court may blue-pencil, if it can be done simply and accurately, the court will not do a substantial rewrite of the contract.
See Intermountain Eye & Laser Ctrs., P.L.L.C. v. Miller, 142 Idaho 218, 127 P.3d 121 (2005).
Case law · 2022-10-31
F.3 Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho, P.A.Blaskiewicz supports applying Idaho Code § 44-2703's modification power before declaring an overbroad covenant unenforceable.
However, even if the provision is too broad, the district court had within its power the ability to limit or modify the non-compete provision through blue-penciling.
See Blaskiewicz v. Spine Inst. of Idaho, P.A., 171 Idaho 70, 518 P.3d 386 (2022).
Are customer non-solicitation clauses enforceable in Idaho, and what counts as solicitation?
Yes, customer non-solicitation clauses can be enforced, but solicitation requires affirmative conduct. In 2025, Insure Idaho v. Horn held that solicitation requires an overt act seeking business, and that mere acceptance of business is not solicitation .
This is Idaho's headline recent development for customer restrictions. Horn distinguishes active solicitation from accepting a customer who independently reaches out. The court said the restricted party must take affirmative action that entreats, implores, pleads, or petitions for the business at issue .
That makes no-service or non-dealing clauses a drafting risk. A clause that bars accepting unsolicited business may be broader than a true non-solicit, and Idaho has not yet fully resolved whether that broader alternative is enforceable as a non-compete, a modified non-solicit, or something else.
Draft customer restrictions around affirmative solicitation, not passive acceptance of unsolicited work. If the business wants a no-service or non-dealing restriction, treat it as an unsettled Idaho question and analyze whether it functions as a direct-competition restraint under chapter 44-27.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2025-07-11
G.1 Insure Idaho, LLC v. HornHorn supports the rule that solicitation requires an overt act initiated by one party seeking something in return.
We hold that the plain meaning of solicitation requires some overt act initiated by one party, seeking something in return from a second party.
See Insure Idaho, LLC v. Horn, No. 49936 (Idaho July 11, 2025).
Case law · 2025-07-11
G.2 Insure Idaho, LLC v. HornHorn supports the affirmative-action requirement for a solicitation finding.
Although “the difference between accepting and receiving business, on the one hand, and indirectly soliciting on the other, may be more metaphysical than real,” Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Danahy, 488 N.E.2d 22, 30 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986), one thing is certain: the restricted party needs to take affirmative action that entreats, implores, pleads, or petitions for the business at issue.
See Insure Idaho, LLC v. Horn, No. 49936 (Idaho July 11, 2025).
Case law · 2025-07-11
G.3 Insure Idaho, LLC v. HornHorn supports the rule that merely accepting business and ordinary communication are not solicitation.
To be clear, the mere acceptance of business, without more, does not fall within the plain meaning of solicitation; nor can a court infer solicitation from the simple communication between parties alone.
See Insure Idaho, LLC v. Horn, No. 49936 (Idaho July 11, 2025).
Are non-competes for Idaho healthcare providers enforceable?
Yes, Idaho does not categorically ban physician or healthcare-provider non-competes. But courts weigh the employer's interests against patient access, continuity of care, and the public interest in the physician-patient relationship .
Intermountain Eye rejected an outright ban but treated physician covenants as different from ordinary commercial restraints. The court held that the employer's interest in patients is limited by patient continuity and choice .
Dick v. Geist reached a similar public-interest result in a Twin Falls physician dispute. Even assuming the covenant was otherwise valid, the court refused an injunction because enforcing it would seriously impair public welfare in the affected community .
Healthcare enforcement needs evidence about actual services, patient access, referral sources, continuity of care, and community need. A reasonable time and radius may still fail as an injunction if the public-interest showing favors patient access to the provider.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2005-12-20
H.1 Intermountain Eye & Laser Centers, P.L.L.C. v. MillerIntermountain Eye supports weighing a physician employer's protectable interests against patients' interests in continuity of care and choice of provider.
The extent of Intermountain Eye’s interest in those patients Dr. Miller inherited when he joined the firm and those patients it provided him thereafter is limited by those patients’ interests in continuity of care and access to the health care provider of their choice.
See Intermountain Eye & Laser Ctrs., P.L.L.C. v. Miller, 142 Idaho 218, 127 P.3d 121 (2005).
Case law · 1985-01-09
H.2 Dick v. GeistDick supports denying injunctive enforcement of a physician restrictive covenant where public welfare in the affected community would be seriously impaired.
It has been shown, in this case, by sufficient competent, though disputed, evidence that the welfare of the public in the Twin Falls area would have been seriously impaired by enjoining Geist and Miles from practicing their specialty.
See Dick v. Geist, 107 Idaho 931, 693 P.2d 1133 (Ct. App. 1985).
Does an Idaho non-compete period toll or extend during a breach or litigation?
Idaho law is unsettled. No Idaho statute or Idaho appellate decision in the staged source corpus squarely addresses whether a non-compete term tolls during breach or litigation, so the safer answer is that the issue remains open.
The statutory tension is real. Section 44-2704 presumes terms of eighteen months or less reasonable and requires additional consideration for a direct-competition restriction that exceeds eighteen months . Section 44-2703 tells courts to modify unreasonable covenants and enforce them as modified .
That leaves an unresolved question: if a tolling or extension-on-breach clause pushes the effective restraint beyond eighteen months, an Idaho court may treat the extension as outside the duration presumption and may require independent consideration. No Idaho court has resolved that issue.
Treat tolling and extension-on-breach language as an open Idaho drafting question, not a settled remedy. A clause that extends the effective restraint past eighteen months risks losing the statutory duration presumption and triggering the additional-consideration requirement, even though section 44-2703 may let a court modify unreasonable terms.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
I.1 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704 supports the eighteen-month presumption and additional-consideration tension for tolling or extension clauses that exceed eighteen months.
(2) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that an agreement or covenant with a postemployment term of eighteen (18) months or less is reasonable as to duration.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704.
Primary law
I.2 Idaho Code § 44-2703Idaho Code § 44-2703 supports the related point that an unreasonable covenant may be limited or modified by the court.
To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court shall limit or modify the agreement or covenant as it shall determine necessary to reflect the intent of the parties and render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement or covenant as limited or modified.
See Idaho Code § 44-2703.
Will Idaho enforce an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum-selection clause?
Often no for clauses that keep an Idaho party from enforcing contract rights in Idaho tribunals or require out-of-state arbitration. Idaho Code § 29-110 voids those restrictions as Idaho public policy, and Off-Spec Solutions applied that policy to require Idaho arbitration .
Section 29-110 is not a non-compete statute, but it matters in Idaho restrictive-covenant disputes because employers sometimes pair a non-compete with another state's law or forum. The statute protects access to Idaho tribunals and says out-of-state arbitration is not protected by the arbitration carveout .
Off-Spec Solutions held that Idaho Code § 29-110 is a strong public policy sufficient to invalidate forum-selection clauses in the agreements before the court .
Do not assume a foreign law or out-of-state forum clause will move an Idaho resident's restrictive-covenant dispute out of Idaho. At minimum, separate forum, arbitration location, and choice-of-law analysis and account for Idaho Code § 29-110.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
J.1 Idaho Code § 29-110Idaho Code § 29-110 supports voiding contract provisions that restrict enforcement of contract rights in Idaho tribunals or require arbitration outside Idaho.
(1) Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract in Idaho tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void as it is against the public policy of Idaho.
See Idaho Code § 29-110.
Case law · 2021-05-19
J.2 Off-Spec Solutions, LLC v. Transportation Investors, LLCOff-Spec Solutions supports treating Idaho Code § 29-110 as a strong Idaho public policy that can invalidate out-of-state forum-selection clauses.
Therefore, we hold that Idaho Code section 29-110(1) constitutes a strong public policy that is sufficient to invalidate the forum selection clauses in the purchase agreement and the LLC agreement.
See Off-Spec Sols., LLC v. Transp. Invs., LLC, No. 47940 (Idaho May 19, 2021).
Are sale-of-business non-competes treated differently in Idaho?
Yes. Idaho gives more deference to non-competes ancillary to the sale of a business than to ordinary employment non-competes, because the buyer is usually purchasing goodwill and is entitled to reasonable protection from seller competition .
Bybee v. Isaac involved a crop-dusting business sale. The Idaho Supreme Court emphasized that employment non-competes are disfavored, but sale-of-business covenants are not construed as strictly because they protect purchased goodwill .
Sale covenants still must be reasonable in time, scope, and territory. In Bybee, the five-year, fifty-mile covenant was not facially overbroad as a matter of law in the sale context .
Tie the restraint to the sold business and its goodwill. Sale-of-business status helps, but it does not eliminate the reasonableness requirement for duration, geography, and scope.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2008-01-30
K.1 Bybee v. IsaacBybee supports giving sale-of-business covenants more deference than employment non-competes because they protect purchased goodwill.
When the covenant not to compete is ancillary to the sale of a business, any decision on the reasonableness of the covenants must recognize “that the vendee is usually purchasing the good will of the business and thus is entitled to reasonable protection from competition by the seller.”
See Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251, 178 P.3d 616 (2008).
Case law · 2008-01-30
K.2 Bybee v. IsaacBybee supports the conclusion that a five-year, fifty-mile business-sale covenant was not facially overbroad as a matter of law.
However, when viewing the non-compete covenant in this case in the context of the sale of a business, it is not so over-broad and vague as to be unenforceable as a matter of law.
See Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251, 178 P.3d 616 (2008).
What trade-secret protection remains if an Idaho non-compete fails?
Trade-secret protection remains available independently. Idaho Code § 44-2704 says chapter 44-27 does not limit protection for trade secrets or proprietary and confidential information, and the Idaho Trade Secrets Act authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation.
The Idaho Trade Secrets Act defines trade secrets by economic value from secrecy and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. That can protect confidential formulas, compilations, programs, methods, techniques, processes, and similar information even when a non-compete is unavailable or narrowed .
The remedy is also different. A trade-secret injunction targets actual or threatened misappropriation, not ordinary competition by a former worker .
Separate confidentiality, trade-secret, and non-compete obligations. If the real risk is misuse of secret information, an Idaho Trade Secrets Act claim may be better tailored than a broad work ban, but the employer still needs secrecy efforts and misappropriation evidence.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
L.1 Idaho Code § 44-2704Idaho Code § 44-2704 supports preserving trade-secret and proprietary-information protection apart from chapter 44-27 non-compete limits.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit a party’s ability to otherwise protect trade secrets or other information deemed proprietary or confidential.
See Idaho Code § 44-2704.
Primary law
L.3 Idaho Code § 48-801Idaho Code § 48-801 supports the Idaho Trade Secrets Act definition of trade secret.
(5) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, computer program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
See Idaho Code § 48-801.
Primary law
L.2 Idaho Code § 48-802Idaho Code § 48-802 supports injunctive relief for actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.
(1) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.
See Idaho Code § 48-802.