# Non-Competes in Florida[^about] Florida enforces non-competes by statute and is among the most employer-friendly states, requiring a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a separate 2025 CHOICE Act track for high earners. ## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Florida? {#employee-noncompetes} **Short answer.** Yes. Florida is one of the most employer-friendly non-compete states in the country. Every restraint of trade is unlawful as a baseline, but section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes creates a broad statutory exception: a restrictive covenant is enforceable when it is in a signed writing, justified by a legitimate business interest, and reasonably necessary to protect that interest in time, area, and line of business [^q1-542018-baseline][^q1-542335-intro][^q1-542335-writing][^q1-542335-necessary]. Florida courts treat section 542.335 as a comprehensive statutory framework for restrictive covenants. As the Fifth District put it, the statute is built on an unfair-competition approach, rather than the older common-law hostility to restraints [^q1-henao-framework]. Since July 2025, Florida has run two parallel tracks. Most agreements are governed by the traditional section 542.335 standard described throughout this note. A second, even more employer-favorable track — the CHOICE Act, sections 542.41 through 542.45 — applies only to defined high-earning *covered employees*; covenants that do not fit the CHOICE Act definitions fall back to section 542.335 [^q1-choice-fallback]. Reviewers working through a specific draft can apply this framework clause by clause with the [Florida non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/florida). > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume an agreement is *unenforceable* just because it looks broad. Florida starts from the opposite presumption of most states: tie the restraint to a pleaded legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, and a court is directed to enforce it [^q1-542335-intro][^q1-henao-framework]. ## What legitimate business interests can support a Florida non-compete? {#legitimate-business-interest} **Short answer.** The enforcing party must plead and prove a legitimate business interest, and a covenant supported by none is void. The statute lists trade secrets, other valuable confidential information, substantial relationships with specific customers or patients, customer goodwill, and extraordinary or specialized training — but the list is illustrative, not exhaustive [^q2-542335-lbi-list][^q2-white-referral]. The Florida Supreme Court confirmed in *White v. Mederi Caretenders* that the statutory list is open-ended. It held that home health service referral sources can qualify as a protected interest depending on the context and proof, because the statute says *includes, but is not limited to* [^q2-white-referral]. "In light of the foregoing, we conclude that home health service referral sources may be a protected legitimate business interest within the meaning of section 542.335, depending upon the context and proof adduced."[^q2-white-referral] > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > A naked interest in avoiding ordinary competition is not protectable. Plead and prove a specific interest from the statutory categories — or an analogous one supported by evidence — because a restraint not tied to a legitimate business interest is void and unenforceable [^q2-542335-void]. ## How long can a Florida non-compete last? {#duration-reasonableness} **Short answer.** Under section 542.335, duration is governed by rebuttable presumptions that vary by context. Against a former employee, a restraint of six months or less is presumed reasonable and one longer than two years is presumed unreasonable. The window widens for the sale of a business and for covenants predicated on trade secrets, where five years or less is presumed reasonable [^q3-542335-employee-presumption][^q3-542335-tradesecret-presumption]. These are presumptions, not caps — either side can rebut them with evidence. For sale-of-business covenants the statute presumes three years or less reasonable and more than seven years unreasonable, reflecting the stronger interest a buyer has in the goodwill it paid for [^q3-542335-sale-presumption]. Geography and line-of-business scope are judged by the same reasonableness standard, and an overbroad term is narrowed rather than voided (see below) [^q3-542335-employee-presumption]. The presumptions vary by the relationship between the parties; for distributors, dealers, franchisees, or licensees of a mark, a restraint of one year or less is presumed reasonable [^q3-542335-distributor-presumption]. ## Will a Florida court rewrite an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it? {#blue-pencil-reformation} **Short answer.** Yes — reformation is mandatory. If a restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise broader than necessary, section 542.335 directs the court to *modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary* to protect the legitimate business interest, rather than strike the covenant entirely [^q4-542335-modify]. This is one of Florida's most consequential rules for employees. In many states, proving a covenant is too broad defeats it; in Florida, the usual result is a narrowed, court-rewritten restriction that is then enforced. The burden also shifts: once the employer shows the restraint is prima facie reasonably necessary, the employee must prove it is overbroad [^q4-542335-modify]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Because Florida blue-pencils rather than voids, an overbroad covenant is not a *free pass* for the worker — but neither should employers draft for the moon expecting a court to fix it. Tailor duration, geography, and scope to the proven interest so the enforced version matches the drafted version [^q4-542335-modify]. ## Can a Florida court refuse to enforce a non-compete because of hardship to the employee? {#economic-hardship} **Short answer.** No. Section 542.335 expressly forbids a court from weighing the individualized economic or other hardship enforcement might cause the restrained person. The same subsection directs courts to construe covenants in favor of protecting the employer's interests, not narrowly against the drafter [^q5-542335-hardship][^q5-542335-construe]. This makes Florida unusually predictable for employers. The familiar argument that a non-compete will cost the worker a livelihood — often decisive elsewhere — is statutorily off the table in Florida, though courts still consider other equitable defenses and the effect of enforcement on public health, safety, and welfare [^q5-542335-hardship]. "A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement."[^q5-542335-construe] ## What did the 2025 CHOICE Act change for high earners? {#choice-act-high-earners} **Short answer.** The CHOICE Act, effective July 1, 2025, created a second, even more employer-favorable track for high-earning *covered employees* — those earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county. It authorizes covered non-competes of up to four years and *garden leave* agreements of up to four years, and it makes a preliminary injunction mandatory on an employer's application [^q6-choice-effective][^q6-543-covered-employee][^q6-545-injunction]. To qualify, the employer must advise the worker of the right to counsel, give at least seven days' written notice, and obtain a written acknowledgment of access to confidential information or customer relationships; a compliant covered non-compete is then *fully enforceable according to its terms* [^q6-545-fully-enforceable][^q6-545-counsel][^q6-545-notice]. A covered non-compete may run up to four years and reach work *similar* to the prior role or work likely to use the employer's confidential information [^q6-543-covered-noncompete]. Garden leave is new to Florida statutory law: the employee stays on payroll during a notice period of up to four years, but after the first 90 days need not perform services and may engage in nonwork activities — and may work for another employer only with the covered employer's permission [^q6-544-garden-leave][^q6-544-outside-work]. The two tools do not simply stack: a covered non-compete must reduce its noncompete period day-for-day by any nonworking portion of a garden-leave notice period [^q6-545-offset]. Once an employer applies to enforce a covered non-compete, the court must enjoin the employee and may dissolve the injunction only if the employee shows, by *clear and convincing evidence*, one of the narrow statutory grounds [^q6-545-injunction]. "This act shall take effect July 1, 2025."[^q6-effective-law] > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > The CHOICE Act is new and largely untested in court. Treat the four-year duration and mandatory-injunction mechanics as the statute's design, not yet as settled judicial practice, and confirm the current threshold before relying on coverage — it is measured by the statutory *salary* definition and the annual mean wage of the employer's principal-place-of-business county (or the employee's residence county if the employer is out of state) [^q6-543-covered-employee][^q6-effective-law]. ## Are physician and health care non-competes treated differently in Florida? {#physician-healthcare} **Short answer.** Yes, in two ways. Section 542.336 voids a specialist physician's non-compete in any county where a single entity employs or contracts with *all* physicians in that specialty, and keeps it void for three years after a second entity enters the market. Separately, the CHOICE Act's high-earner track excludes health care practitioners entirely, so their covenants stay under the ordinary section 542.335 standard [^q7-542336-trigger][^q7-542336-physician][^q7-543-healthcare-exclusion]. The physician carve-out is narrow and fact-specific: it targets local specialty monopolies that the Legislature found restrict patient access and raise costs. It is not a general ban on physician non-competes [^q7-542336-physician]. The CHOICE Act exclusion is categorical — a health care practitioner, as defined in section 456.001, is excluded from the *covered employee* definition no matter how much they earn [^q7-543-healthcare-exclusion]. "Such restrictive covenants shall remain void and unenforceable for 3 years after the date on which a second entity that employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, one or more physicians who practice such specialty begins offering such specialty services in that county."[^q7-542336-physician] ## How are non-solicitation and no-hire clauses treated in Florida? {#non-solicitation-no-hire} **Short answer.** Section 542.335 governs *all* restrictive covenants, so customer non-solicitation, non-dealing, and employee no-hire clauses are analyzed under the same legitimate-business-interest and reasonableness framework as non-competes. Florida courts apply that framework both to enforce these covenants and, where the facts require, to narrow or decline to enforce them [^q8-balasco-nohire][^q8-carter-nonsolicit]. In *Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding*, the Second District enforced an anti-piracy clause barring a former manager from soliciting the dealership's other employees, but blue-penciled its three-year term down to two years under the duration presumption [^q8-balasco-nohire]. *Environmental Services v. Carter* shows the limits: a customer non-solicitation covenant can be valid yet still go unenforced where the clients sought out the employee without any solicitation [^q8-carter-nonsolicit]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > The CHOICE Act defines *covered noncompete* and *covered garden leave* agreements but does not mention non-solicitation clauses. A four-year CHOICE Act non-compete may sit beside a non-solicit that still defaults to section 542.335's two-year presumption, so draft and analyze the two clauses separately rather than assuming the four-year term carries over [^q8-choice-other-agreements][^q8-542335-presumption]. ## Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Florida non-compete? {#consideration} **Short answer.** Yes. Florida courts treat continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration, so an employee can be bound by a non-compete signed months or years after the hire date. No separate signing bonus, raise, or promotion is required [^q9-omi-consideration]. In *Open Magnetic Imaging v. Nieves-Garcia*, the Third District found no Florida decision refusing to enforce a non-compete merely because the employee signed it after employment began [^q9-omi-consideration]. That rule governs the traditional section 542.335 track; under the CHOICE Act, by contrast, an employer's failure to pay the consideration the agreement promised — after a reasonable chance to cure — is itself a statutory ground to dissolve the mandatory injunction [^q9-545-consideration]. "In fact, we have located no Florida decision to date which has declined to enforce a non-compete agreement by virtue of the fact that an employee has been required to execute it after employment has commenced."[^q9-omi-consideration] ## Does a Florida non-compete period pause or extend if the employee breaches or litigates? {#tolling-extension} **Short answer.** Section 542.335 does not expressly address tolling — it neither requires nor forbids extending the restricted period for the time a former employee was in breach. What the statute does provide is a strong enforcement remedy: a violation creates a presumption of irreparable injury, and courts enforce covenants by injunction [^q10-542335-injunction]. Because the statute is silent, whether a court will extend a covenant by the period of breach — or honor a contractual *tolling* clause that does so — is not settled by section 542.335 itself. Employers who want the clock to pause during a violation should say so expressly in the agreement and be prepared to argue for it as equitable relief, rather than assume Florida law supplies it automatically [^q10-542335-injunction]. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume the non-compete period automatically tolls while an employee competes in breach. Section 542.335 does not provide for it, so build any extension-on-breach mechanism into the contract and treat its enforceability as an open question under Florida law [^q10-542335-injunction]. ## How do Florida courts enforce non-competes, and who pays attorney's fees? {#injunctions-fees} **Short answer.** Courts enforce restrictive covenants by injunction, and a violation of an enforceable covenant *creates a presumption of irreparable injury* — a major advantage for employers seeking emergency relief. The prevailing party can recover attorney's fees and costs even without a fee clause, and any contractual provision limiting that authority is unenforceable [^q11-542335-injunction][^q11-542335-fees]. The irreparable-injury presumption does real work. In *DePuy Orthopaedics v. Waxman*, the First District reversed a trial court that had denied an injunction for lack of irreparable injury, applying the statutory presumption [^q11-depuy-injunction]. The statute also requires a proper injunction bond and bars any contractual waiver of the bond requirement [^q11-542335-bond]. ## Will a Florida non-compete be enforced across state lines? {#choice-of-law-multistate} **Short answer.** Florida law strongly favors its own enforcement standard — the CHOICE Act even applies to a covered employee whose primary place of work is Florida *regardless of any applicable choice of law provisions*. But another state can refuse to apply Florida law where it conflicts with that state's public policy [^q12-545-applicability][^q12-brown-publicpolicy]. In *Brown & Brown v. Johnson*, New York's highest court declined to apply Florida law to a customer non-solicit, holding that doing so would violate New York public policy [^q12-brown-publicpolicy]. The practical lesson: a Florida choice-of-law clause is powerful inside Florida but not a guarantee of enforcement against a worker centered in a more employee-protective state. "On this appeal, we hold that applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state."[^q12-brown-publicpolicy] ## How do trade secrets and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act interact with non-competes? {#trade-secrets} **Short answer.** Trade secrets are both a listed legitimate business interest under section 542.335 and independently protectable under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (FUTSA). FUTSA defines a trade secret, authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation, and — importantly — preserves contractual remedies even though it displaces conflicting tort law [^q13-688002-def][^q13-688003-injunction][^q13-688008-contract]. Because FUTSA expressly does not affect contractual remedies, employers commonly pursue parallel claims — breach of a non-compete or non-disclosure agreement and statutory misappropriation — for the same conduct [^q13-688008-contract]. FUTSA allows an injunction against *threatened* misappropriation [^q13-688003-injunction], but whether that reaches the *inevitable disclosure* doctrine — enjoining a worker from a new job on the theory they will inevitably use trade secrets, with no written non-compete — is unsettled in Florida, so do not rely on it in place of a properly drafted covenant. ## Does the FTC non-compete ban affect Florida? {#federal-ftc-overlay} **Short answer.** No. The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 Non-Compete Rule never took effect: federal courts set it aside, the FTC acceded to vacatur, and in February 2026 the Commission formally removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Florida's statutes are the operative law [^q14-fr-removal]. The Federal Register notice records that a federal court held the rule unlawful and set it aside, and that the Commission then removed 16 CFR part 910 to conform to the court decisions [^q14-fr-removal]. The FTC may still pursue case-by-case antitrust enforcement (for example, against naked no-poach agreements between rival employers), but there is no nationwide ban displacing Florida law. "In the third case, the court held that the Non-Compete Rule was unlawful and set it aside."[^q14-fr-removal] [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Florida. This article synthesizes Florida primary law and is not legal advice from a Florida-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. [^q1-542018-baseline]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.18** — "Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful." *Fla. Stat. § 542.18 (2025).* [^q1-542335-intro]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1) (2025).* [^q1-542335-writing]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(a) (2025).* [^q1-542335-necessary]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c) (2025).* [^q1-henao-framework]: **Henao v. Professional Shoe Repair, Inc.** — "Section 542.335 contains a comprehensive framework for analyzing, evaluating and enforcing restrictive covenants in Florida based on an ‘unfair competition’ analysis." *Henao v. Prof'l Shoe Repair, Inc., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).* [^q1-choice-fallback]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "Any action regarding a restrictive covenant that does not meet the definition of a covered garden leave agreement or a covered noncompete agreement as provided in this part is governed by s. 542.335." *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(e) (2025).* [^q2-542335-lbi-list]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) (2025).* [^q2-white-referral]: **White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC** — "In light of the foregoing, we conclude that home health service referral sources may be a protected legitimate business interest within the meaning of section 542.335, depending upon the context and proof adduced." *White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017).* [^q2-542335-void]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "Any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)5 (2025).* [^q3-542335-employee-presumption]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)1 (2025).* [^q3-542335-tradesecret-presumption]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint of 5 years or less and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint of more than 10 years." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(e) (2025).* [^q3-542335-sale-presumption]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 3 years or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 7 years in duration." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)3 (2025).* [^q3-542335-distributor-presumption]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 1 year or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 3 years in duration." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)2 (2025).* [^q4-542335-modify]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "If a contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c) (2025).* [^q5-542335-hardship]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "Shall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(g)1 (2025).* [^q5-542335-construe]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(h) (2025).* [^q6-choice-effective]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.41** — "This part may be cited as the ‘Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act.’" *Fla. Stat. § 542.41 (2025).* [^q6-543-covered-employee]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.43** — "earns or is reasonably expected to earn a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the county in this state in which the covered employer has its principal place of business" *Fla. Stat. § 542.43(3) (2025).* [^q6-545-injunction]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "a court must preliminarily enjoin a covered employee from providing services to any business, entity, or individual other than the covered employer during the noncompete period." *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(a) (2025).* [^q6-545-fully-enforceable]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "is fully enforceable according to its terms" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2) (2025).* [^q6-545-counsel]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "A covered employee was advised, in writing, of the right to seek counsel before execution of the covered noncompete agreement and was provided notice as described in subsection (3)" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2)(a) (2025).* [^q6-545-notice]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "A prospective covered employee at least 7 days before an offer of employment expires" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(3)(a) (2025).* [^q6-543-covered-noncompete]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.43** — "for a period not to exceed 4 years and within the geographic area defined in the agreement, the covered employee agrees not to assume a role" *Fla. Stat. § 542.43(6) (2025).* [^q6-544-garden-leave]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.44** — "After the first 90 days of the notice period, the covered employee does not have to provide services to the covered employer" *Fla. Stat. § 542.44(2)(c)1 (2025).* [^q6-544-outside-work]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.44** — "The covered employee may, with the permission of the covered employer, work for another employer while still employed by the covered employer during the remainder of the notice period" *Fla. Stat. § 542.44(2)(c)3 (2025).* [^q6-545-offset]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "A covered noncompete agreement provides that the noncompete period is reduced day-for-day by any nonworking portion of the notice period" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2)(c) (2025).* [^q6-effective-law]: **Ch. 2025-213, Laws of Fla. (Florida CHOICE Act)** — "This act shall take effect July 1, 2025." *Ch. 2025-213, Laws of Fla., § 22.* [^q7-542336-trigger]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.336** — "A restrictive covenant entered into with a physician who is licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 and who practices a medical specialty in a county wherein one entity employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, all physicians who practice such specialty in that county is not supported by a legitimate business interest." *Fla. Stat. § 542.336 (2025).* [^q7-542336-physician]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.336** — "Such restrictive covenants shall remain void and unenforceable for 3 years after the date on which a second entity that employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, one or more physicians who practice such specialty begins offering such specialty services in that county." *Fla. Stat. § 542.336 (2025).* [^q7-543-healthcare-exclusion]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.43** — "The term does not include a person classified as a health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001." *Fla. Stat. § 542.43(3) (2025).* [^q8-balasco-nohire]: **Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc.** — "We agree that the agreement is enforceable but remand to shorten the period of restraint to no more than two years." *Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).* [^q8-carter-nonsolicit]: **Environmental Services, Inc. v. Carter** — "While the court ruled that the non-solicitation covenant was valid, it refused to enforce that covenant, finding that ESI’s clients sought out Carter and Hannon without any solicitation from them." *Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).* [^q8-choice-other-agreements]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "Any action regarding a restrictive covenant that does not meet the definition of a covered garden leave agreement or a covered noncompete agreement as provided in this part is governed by s. 542.335." *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(e) (2025).* [^q8-542335-presumption]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)1 (2025).* [^q9-omi-consideration]: **Open Magnetic Imaging, Inc. v. Nieves-Garcia** — "In fact, we have located no Florida decision to date which has declined to enforce a non-compete agreement by virtue of the fact that an employee has been required to execute it after employment has commenced." *Open Magnetic Imaging, Inc. v. Nieves-Garcia, 826 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).* [^q9-545-consideration]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "The covered employer has failed to pay or provide the consideration provided for in the covered noncompete agreement and has had a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(a)2 (2025).* [^q10-542335-injunction]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).* [^q11-542335-injunction]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).* [^q11-542335-fees]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "a court may award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action seeking enforcement of, or challenging the enforceability of, a restrictive covenant." *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(k) (2025).* [^q11-depuy-injunction]: **DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman** — "we reverse the trial court’s order denying DePuy’s motion for temporary injunction and remand with instructions to enter a temporary injunction against Appellees" *DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).* [^q11-542335-bond]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.335** — "No temporary injunction shall be entered unless the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant gives a proper bond" *Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).* [^q12-545-applicability]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.45** — "A covered noncompete agreement with a covered employee who maintains a primary place of work in this state, regardless of any applicable choice of law provisions" *Fla. Stat. § 542.45(1)(a) (2025).* [^q12-brown-publicpolicy]: **Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson** — "On this appeal, we hold that applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state." *Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015).* [^q13-688002-def]: **Fla. Stat. § 688.002** — "‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process" *Fla. Stat. § 688.002(4) (2025).* [^q13-688003-injunction]: **Fla. Stat. § 688.003** — "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined." *Fla. Stat. § 688.003(1) (2025).* [^q13-688008-contract]: **Fla. Stat. § 688.008** — "Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret" *Fla. Stat. § 688.008(2)(a) (2025).* [^q14-fr-removal]: **Removal of the Non-Compete Rule (16 CFR Part 910)** — "In the third case, the court held that the Non-Compete Rule was unlawful and set it aside." *Removal of the Non-Compete Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026).*