# Non-Competes in New Hampshire[^about] New Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a common-law test, but RSA 275:70 creates a pre-acceptance notice rule, RSA 275:70-a voids low-wage employee noncompetes, healthcare statutes void certain geographic practice restrictions, and RSA chapter 350-B preserves trade-secret alternatives. ## Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in New Hampshire? {#employee-noncompetes} **Short answer.** Yes, if the restraint is reasonable and no statute makes it unenforceable. New Hampshire uses a three-part reasonableness test: the restriction must protect a legitimate employer interest, avoid undue hardship on the employee, and avoid injury to the public interest [^foster-three-part-test][^hobert-reasonable-enforceable]. The practical starting point is common law plus statutory gates. Even a reasonable covenant can fail if it was not disclosed before the employee accepted the offer, if the employee is covered by the low-wage ban, or if a profession-specific healthcare statute voids the restriction. New Hampshire also construes restraints narrowly. The court starts with the employer interest being protected, then asks whether the chosen time, geography, customer, and activity limits are broader than that interest requires [^foster-three-part-test]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement, the [New Hampshire non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/new-hampshire) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not summarize New Hampshire as either a total-ban state or a free-enforcement state. It is a reasonableness-test state with statutory traps layered on top [^foster-three-part-test][^hobert-reasonable-enforceable]. ## Is continued employment enough consideration for a New Hampshire non-compete? {#consideration-after-hire} **Short answer.** Yes. New Hampshire recognizes continued employment after signing as consideration for a covenant not to compete [^foster-continued-employment]. That consideration rule does not cure statutory notice problems. If the worker is a new employee covered by RSA 275:70, the employer still must provide the noncompete before the employee accepts the offer, regardless of common-law consideration [^rsa-275-70-notice-gate]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Separate consideration from timing. Continued employment may support the covenant, but late delivery can still make the noncompete unenforceable under RSA 275:70 [^foster-continued-employment][^rsa-275-70-notice-gate]. ## What is a legitimate protectable interest for a New Hampshire non-compete? {#legitimate-interests} **Short answer.** Protectable interests include trade secrets, confidential information, special customer influence, employment-developed contacts, goodwill, and a positive business image. Ordinary recruiting and hiring costs are not enough [^hobert-legitimate-interests][^olsten-recruiting-costs]. Goodwill is often the practical center of the analysis. New Hampshire cases allow protection against a former employee appropriating customer or patient goodwill developed through the job, but they do not allow a covenant to block ordinary competition unrelated to that employer asset [^forbes-patient-goodwill]. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Before enforcing, identify the employer asset at risk. A covenant based only on the cost of hiring or training workers is unlikely to satisfy the first prong of the New Hampshire test [^olsten-recruiting-costs]. ## How narrow must a New Hampshire non-compete's duration, geography, and customer scope be? {#scope-duration-geography} **Short answer.** Narrow enough to match the protected interest. Customer and geography limits generally should track the employee's actual sphere of customer influence, and duration should last no longer than needed to protect the employer's goodwill or confidential information [^near-customer-sphere][^forbes-duration-geography]. New Hampshire courts are especially skeptical of all-customer restrictions. In *Near*, a covenant covering customers beyond the salesperson's contacts was too broad because the employee had no special claim on most of the employer's customer base [^near-customer-sphere]. The same principle applies to geography. A territory is not reasonable merely because it is named. It should correspond to the market where the employee had customer or patient contact, or to another concrete employer interest. ## Will a New Hampshire court reform an overbroad non-compete? {#court-reformation} **Short answer.** Yes, but only if the employer proves good faith in the execution of the agreement. New Hampshire courts have power to reform overbroad covenants, but bad-faith presentation can defeat that remedy [^near-good-faith-reformation][^syncom-bad-faith-reformation]. The good-faith issue is practical, not cosmetic. Courts have treated lack of advance discussion, post-start presentation, first-day pressure, and lack of a meaningful opportunity to understand the restriction as facts relevant to denying reformation. Reformation is a narrowing remedy. It is not a license to draft an overbroad all-customer covenant and ask the court to rescue it later. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Draft for enforceability at signing. If the agreement is presented late, under pressure, or without a fair chance to understand it, New Hampshire courts may refuse to reform even if a narrower covenant might have been valid [^near-good-faith-reformation][^syncom-bad-faith-reformation]. ## What is New Hampshire's RSA 275:70 pre-acceptance notice requirement? {#pre-acceptance-notice} **Short answer.** RSA 275:70 is the marquee New Hampshire drafting trap. If an employer requires an employee who has not previously worked for the employer to sign a noncompete as a condition of employment, the employer must provide a copy before the employee accepts the offer, and an undisclosed noncompete is not enforceable against the employee [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance]. The statute preserves other provisions in the same agreement. A notice failure defeats the noncompete, but confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade-secret, intellectual-property assignment, and other employment provisions can remain in force [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Give the actual noncompete with the offer materials, not during onboarding. The statutory consequence is unenforceability of the noncompete itself, even though other agreement provisions may survive [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance]. ## What is New Hampshire's low-wage employee non-compete ban? {#low-wage-employees} **Short answer.** RSA 275:70-a prohibits employers from requiring low-wage employees to enter into noncompete agreements. A noncompete with a covered low-wage employee is void and unenforceable [^rsa-275-70-a-ban][^rsa-275-70-a-void]. The statute defines a low-wage employee by hourly rate, not job title. The threshold is less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage, currently $14.50 per hour while the federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour [^rsa-275-70-a-threshold]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Check wage coverage before drafting any New Hampshire noncompete for hourly or lower-paid roles. If RSA 275:70-a applies, narrower wording does not save a noncompete agreement with that low-wage employee [^rsa-275-70-a-ban][^rsa-275-70-a-void]. ## What special non-compete rules apply to New Hampshire healthcare practitioners? {#healthcare-practitioners} **Short answer.** New Hampshire statutes void certain post-termination geographic practice restrictions for physicians, nurses, advanced practice registered nurses, and podiatrists. The APRN statute is effective August 23, 2025 [^rsa-329-31-a-physicians][^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses][^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns][^rsa-315-18-podiatrists]. These statutes target geographic practice restrictions in professional relationship contracts. They do not automatically answer every separate issue, such as confidentiality, patient records, trade secrets, or non-geographic solicitation wording. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > Do not use a geographic practice ban for covered New Hampshire clinicians. Draft separate confidentiality and trade-secret provisions if the real concern is information protection rather than practice location [^rsa-329-31-a-physicians][^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses][^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns][^rsa-315-18-podiatrists]. ## Are sale-of-business non-competes enforceable in New Hampshire? {#sale-of-business} **Short answer.** Yes, when the restraint is reasonable and tied to the goodwill or business assets being sold. New Hampshire enforced a sale-of-business covenant that barred motel, restaurant, and resort competition for five years within a 15-mile radius [^gosselin-sale-covenant]. Asset-purchase standing can also matter. In *Atronix*, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the buyer received the employee noncompete under the asset purchase agreement's transfer language, reversing dismissal for lack of standing [^atronix-assigned-covenant]. That does not make sale covenants unlimited. The agreement still should tie the restraint to the goodwill or business assets being sold, and the written duration still matters. ## Can New Hampshire independent contractors be bound by non-competes? {#independent-contractors} **Short answer.** New Hampshire appellate law in this source set does not supply a settled independent-contractor rule. Treat contractor noncompetes as high-risk restraints that still must satisfy the same concrete-interest and narrow-tailoring principles that govern employee covenants [^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors][^hcc-persuasive-limits]. The available non-binding material points in a cautious direction. A federal District of New Hampshire decision applying New Hampshire law is persuasive only, not controlling state appellate law, and it declined to enjoin the noncompete for lack of irreparable injury and a favorable balance of equities while still issuing the narrower nondisclosure injunction [^hcc-persuasive-limits][^hcc-nondisclosure-granted]. Because the available appellate source set does not squarely address independent contractors, use the employee-covenant cases by analogy: the safer analysis is whether the contractor actually received trade secrets, confidential information, customer influence, or goodwill capable of appropriation. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume the contractor label expands enforceability. If the worker was engaged as an independent business and lacked concrete access to protectable goodwill or confidential information, the restraint may look like ordinary competition control rather than protection of an employer asset [^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors]. ## What trade-secret alternatives remain when a New Hampshire non-compete fails? {#trade-secrets} **Short answer.** RSA chapter 350-B remains an important alternative. New Hampshire's trade-secret statute defines trade secrets by independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts, authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation, and preserves contractual remedies [^rsa-350-b-1-definition][^rsa-350-b-2-injunction][^rsa-350-b-7-contracts]. Trade-secret relief is not a substitute for an overbroad noncompete. It protects information that qualifies under the statute and can support narrower orders against misuse or disclosure, including affirmative acts in appropriate circumstances. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > If the business concern is information misuse, build the record for trade-secret protection: identify the information, document economic value from secrecy, and maintain reasonable secrecy measures. RSA chapter 350-B is strongest when the facts support secrecy, not merely competition [^rsa-350-b-1-definition][^rsa-350-b-2-injunction]. ## Does a New Hampshire non-compete period pause or extend during breach or litigation? {#tolling-during-breach} **Short answer.** This is unsettled for employment noncompetes. New Hampshire appellate law in this source set does not squarely decide whether a restricted period pauses during breach, extends while litigation is pending, or whether a contractual extension-during-breach clause is enforceable [^gosselin-no-extension]. The remedial pattern points to caution. New Hampshire cases recognize reformation as a scope-narrowing remedy for overbroad covenants when the employer proves good faith, but those cases do not create a general rule extending the duration of a covenant after breach [^near-reformation-narrowing][^syncom-reformation-open]. In the sale-of-business setting, *Gosselin* rejected a court-ordered extension of the written five-year covenant because there was no ambiguity or evidence of party intent to extend it. That holding does not answer every employment tolling clause question, but it is a strong reason not to assert a New Hampshire tolling rule [^gosselin-no-extension]. > [!CAUTION] > **Drafting note.** > > A tolling or extension-during-breach clause is a drafting choice of uncertain enforceability in New Hampshire. If you include one, tie it to the protected interest and the covenant's overall duration, and do not assume a court will extend the period beyond the contract's fair and natural meaning [^gosselin-no-extension][^near-reformation-narrowing]. [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not New Hampshire. This article synthesizes New Hampshire primary law and is not legal advice from a New Hampshire-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. [^foster-three-part-test]: **Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster** — "In scrutinizing restrictive covenants, this court employs the following three-pronged test: ‘[a] restraint on employment is reasonable only if it is no greater than necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate interest, does not impose undue hardship on the employee and is not injurious to the public interest.’" *Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979).* [^hobert-reasonable-enforceable]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant’s non-competition covenant was reasonable and enforceable." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* [^foster-continued-employment]: **Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster** — "Continued employment after signing an employment contract constitutes consideration for a covenant not to compete contained therein." *Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679 (1979).* [^rsa-275-70-notice-gate]: **RSA 275:70** — "A noncompete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee as required by this section shall not be enforceable against the employee, but all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect." *RSA 275:70.* [^hobert-legitimate-interests]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "Legitimate interests of an employer that may be protected from competition include: the employer’s trade secrets that have been communicated to the employee during the course of employment; confidential information other than trade secrets communicated by the employer to the employee, such as information regarding a unique business method; an employee’s special influence over the employer’s customers, obtained during the course of employment; contacts developed during the employment; and the employer’s development of goodwill and a positive image." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* [^olsten-recruiting-costs]: **National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc.** — "Thus, we hold that although there may be valid reasons for restrictive covenants, the mere cost associated with recruiting and hiring employees is not a legitimate interest protectable by a restrictive covenant in an employment contract." *National Employment Service Corp. v. Olsten Staffing Service, Inc., 145 N.H. 158 (2000).* [^forbes-patient-goodwill]: **Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes** — "COPA has a legitimate interest in preventing Forbes from appropriating the goodwill of its business, developed in part by Forbes’ contact with patients in his capacity as a COPA physician." *Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440 (1997).* [^near-customer-sphere]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Thus, the restrictive covenant goes far beyond the defendant’s sphere of customer goodwill, and was more restrictive than necessary to protect the plaintiffs’ legitimate interests." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* [^forbes-duration-geography]: **Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes** — "A restraint on competition must be narrowly tailored in both geography and duration to protect COPA’s legitimate interest in its goodwill." *Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440 (1997).* [^near-good-faith-reformation]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* [^syncom-bad-faith-reformation]: **Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood** — "If the trial court were to determine that the restrictive covenants could not be reformed due to Syncom’s bad faith, then there would be no need to further address their enforceability." *Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007).* [^rsa-275-70-preacceptance]: **RSA 275:70** — "Any employer who requires an employee who has not previously been employed by the employer to execute a noncompete agreement as a condition of employment shall provide a copy of such agreement to the potential employee prior to the employee's acceptance of an offer of employment. A noncompete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee as required by this section shall not be enforceable against the employee, but all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect." *RSA 275:70.* [^rsa-275-70-a-ban]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "No employer shall require a low-wage employee to enter into a noncompete agreement." *RSA 275:70-a, II(a).* [^rsa-275-70-a-void]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "A noncompete agreement entered into between an employer and a low-wage employee shall be void and unenforceable." *RSA 275:70-a, II(b).* [^rsa-275-70-a-threshold]: **RSA 275:70-a** — "(b) ‘Low-wage employee’ means an employee who earns an hourly rate less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal minimum wage." *RSA 275:70-a, I(b).* [^rsa-329-31-a-physicians]: **RSA 329:31-a** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a physician licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such physician to also practice medicine in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 329:31-a.* [^rsa-326-b-45-a-nurses]: **RSA 326-B:45-a** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a nurse licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such nurse to also practice in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 326-B:45-a.* [^rsa-326-b-45-b-aprns]: **RSA 326-B:45-b** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or establishes the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with an advanced practice registered nurse licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such advanced practice registered nurse to also practice in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provisions of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 326-B:45-b.* [^rsa-315-18-podiatrists]: **RSA 315:18** — "Any contract or agreement which creates or established the terms of a partnership, employment, or any other form of professional relationship with a podiatrist licensed by the board to practice in this state, which includes any restriction to the right of such podiatrist to also practice podiatry in any geographic area for any period of time after the termination of such partnership, employment, or professional relationship shall be void and unenforceable with respect to said restriction; provided however, that nothing herein shall render void or unenforceable the remaining provision of any such contract or agreement." *RSA 315:18.* [^gosselin-sale-covenant]: **Gosselin v. Archibald** — "The terms of the agreement, as set forth in the purchase and sale contract, are reasonable and enforceable." *Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016 (1981).* [^atronix-assigned-covenant]: **Atronix, Inc. v. Morris** — "Because we conclude that Morris’s non-compete agreement was conveyed to the plaintiff under the plain language of section 2.02(a)(xii), we need not address either the plaintiff’s additional arguments or the defendants’ argument" *Atronix, Inc. v. Morris, 197 A.3d 79 (N.H. 2018).* [^hobert-legitimate-interests-contractors]: **ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert** — "The first step in determining the reasonableness of a given restraint is to determine whether the restraint was narrowly tailored to protect the employer’s legitimate interests." *ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381 (2007).* [^hcc-persuasive-limits]: **HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury** — "However, with respect to Woodbury's breach of the noncompete provisions, HCC has not demonstrated irreparable injury or a favorable balance of the equities." *HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury, 289 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D.N.H. 2018).* [^hcc-nondisclosure-granted]: **HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury** — "Therefore, the court issues a preliminary injunction requiring Woodbury to abide by the nondisclosure provisions of the 1996 Agreement." *HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc. v. Woodbury, 289 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D.N.H. 2018).* [^rsa-350-b-1-definition]: **RSA 350-B:1** — "IV. ‘Trade secret’ means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, 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." *RSA 350-B:1.* [^rsa-350-b-2-injunction]: **RSA 350-B:2** — "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined." *RSA 350-B:2.* [^rsa-350-b-7-contracts]: **RSA 350-B:7** — "II. This chapter shall not affect: (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret." *RSA 350-B:7, II.* [^gosselin-no-extension]: **Gosselin v. Archibald** — "We cannot agree with the master’s extension of the time limitation of the covenant not to compete." *Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016 (1981).* [^near-reformation-narrowing]: **Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near** — "Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract." *Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192 (2005).* [^syncom-reformation-open]: **Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood** — "Finally, as the defendants have challenged both the geographic and temporal scope of the restrictive covenants, and have properly preserved those challenges, both aspects of the covenants are open to possible reformation." *Syncom Industries, Inc. v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007).*