OpenAgreements
HomeSurveysNon-CompeteWorldwide

Worldwide Law Survey

Worldwide Non-Compete Laws

A side-by-side comparison of how each covered jurisdiction treats employee non-compete agreements. Use country, search, and enforceability filters to narrow the full worldwide table.

← Non-Compete Laws by State

Filter by country

Filter by enforceability

68 worldwide jurisdictions shown.

JurisdictionAre non-competes enforceable?SummaryMain law or caseLast reviewed
Allowed if reasonableAlabama voids non-competes by default but enforces an employee covenant that fits the Restrictive Covenant Act's narrow safe harbor, protects a statutory interest, and is properly signed.
Allowed if reasonableAlaska has no non-compete statute; employee covenants are enforceable under common law if reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and no broader than needed.
UnsettledNo non-compete statute and no on-point case law found in our review; a court would likely apply the Restatement reasonableness test, with local public policy disfavoring broad restraints.
Allowed if reasonableArizona has no general non-compete statute; an employee covenant is enforceable under common law only if reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Allowed if reasonableArkansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, protects a statutory business interest, and is no broader in time and scope than necessary, with overbroad covenants reformed by the court.
BannedEmployee non-competes and customer non-solicits are void by statute, and since 2024 entering or enforcing one is a civil violation with a private right of action.
Income-based limitsColorado voids most employee non-competes and customer non-solicits, allowing a non-compete only against a highly compensated worker ($130,014 in 2026) to protect trade secrets — and no compensation level rescues a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry.
Allowed if reasonableConnecticut enforces employee non-competes only if reasonable under common law, but several occupation-specific statutes cap or void covenants for covered workers.
Allowed if reasonableDelaware enforces reasonable non-competes under Chancery/Supreme Court case law but increasingly refuses to blue-pencil overbroad ones, and physician practice-restricting covenants are void by statute.
Income-based limitsThe District bans non-competes for most employees and permits them only for highly compensated employees (at or above an annually adjusted pay floor) whose covenant meets strict scope, duration, and advance-notice requirements.
Allowed if reasonableAmong the most employer-friendly states — enforceable with a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a 2025 CHOICE Act high-earner track.
Allowed if reasonableGeorgia enforces non-competes that are reasonable in time, area, and scope under the Restrictive Covenants Act, but only against employees who perform covered higher-level job functions.
BannedGuam voids employee non-competes by statute — 18 GCA § 88105, a transplant of California's restraint-of-trade rule that the Supreme Court of Guam reads as a per-se ban — leaving only narrow sale-of-business and partnership-dissolution exceptions.
Allowed if reasonableHawaii treats non-competes as restraints of trade under its antitrust statute, enforcing only covenants ancillary to a legitimate purpose, and flatly banning non-compete/non-solicit clauses for technology-business employees.
Allowed if reasonableIdaho enforces non-competes only against key employees or key independent contractors and only if reasonable, with an 18-month duration safe harbor and mandatory judicial modification of overbroad terms.
Income-based limitsIllinois enforces employee non-competes only above a $75,000 earnings floor and only if they clear the Freedom to Work Act's consideration and 14-day-notice gates and the Reliable Fire reasonableness test.
Allowed if reasonableIndiana enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, activity, and geography and protects a legitimate interest; courts disfavor them and use a strict eraser blue pencil.
Allowed if reasonableIowa enforces an employee non-compete only if it satisfies a three-prong reasonableness test, with the employer bearing the burden; courts may reform an overbroad covenant rather than void it.
Allowed if reasonableKansas enforces an employee non-compete that is ancillary, reasonable under the four-factor Weber test, and not adverse to the public welfare, and is one of the more employer-friendly states; courts will narrow an overbroad restraint.
Allowed if reasonableKentucky enforces a non-compete only if it is supported by valid consideration and reasonable in scope; existing employees must get new consideration, and courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms.
Allowed if reasonableLouisiana voids every non-compete by default and enforces one only if it fits a narrow statutory exception with named parishes and a two-year cap, so most out-of-state templates fail.
Income-based limitsMaine treats non-competes as contrary to public policy and enforces them only when reasonable. It bars them for employees earning at or below 400% of the federal poverty level and non-owner veterinarians; the non-owner employee health-care-practitioner ban applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 29, 2026.
Allowed if reasonableMaryland enforces an ordinary employee non-compete only if it is reasonable under the Becker common-law test, but a statute voids covenants outright for low-wage, veterinary, and many health care workers.
Allowed if reasonableMassachusetts enforces an employee non-compete only if it meets the 2018 Noncompetition Agreement Act — paid garden leave or agreed consideration, a 12-month cap, and strict notice — and voids them entirely for physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and most broadcasters.
Allowed if reasonableMichigan enforces an employee non-compete if it protects a reasonable competitive business interest and is reasonable in duration, geography, and type of employment, with no categorical worker or profession ban.
BannedMost employee and independent-contractor non-competes signed on or after July 1, 2023 are void and unenforceable, with only sale-of-business and business-dissolution exceptions surviving.
Allowed if reasonableMississippi enforces a non-compete only if the employer proves it is reasonable in time, territory, and activity to protect a legitimate interest, and it will not be enforced after a bad-faith firing.
Allowed if reasonableMissouri enforces a non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable and protects the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition, with the employer bearing the burden.
Allowed if reasonableMontana's restraint-of-trade statute voids absolute restraints, but reasonable partial restraints survive under the Dobbins rule of reason, and covered health-care provider non-competes are now banned.
Allowed if reasonableNebraska enforces only narrowly tailored covenants limited to customers the employee personally served, refuses to rewrite overbroad ones, and has no general statutory ban as of 2026.
Allowed if reasonableNevada enforces employee non-competes that meet a four-part statutory reasonableness test, but bans them for solely hourly-wage workers and requires courts to revise overbroad covenants.
Income-based limitsNew Hampshire enforces reasonable non-competes under a three-part common-law test, but voids them for low-wage employees (at or below 200% of the federal minimum wage) and requires pre-acceptance notice to new hires.
Allowed if reasonableNew Jersey enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Solari/Whitmyer three-part reasonableness test and readily blue-pencils overbroad covenants, though a pending bill would ban most of them.
Allowed if reasonableNew Mexico enforces ordinary employee non-competes only when reasonable and supported by valid consideration, but a statute makes covered health-care practitioner non-competes unenforceable.
Allowed if reasonableNew York has no general non-compete statute; employee non-competes are enforceable only to the extent reasonable under the common-law BDO Seidman three-part test, with a statutory ban only for broadcast-industry employees.
Allowed if reasonableNorth Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only if it is in writing, supported by consideration, reasonable in time and territory, and protects a legitimate business interest.
BannedNorth Dakota voids employee non-competes by statute, with exceptions only for sale-of-goodwill and owner dissolution or dissociation covenants.
Allowed if reasonableThe CNMI has no non-compete statute; a post-employment covenant is enforceable only if reasonable under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188, which 7 CMC § 3401 imports as Commonwealth law, and the one on-point federal order denied an injunction in a small-island healthcare context.
Allowed if reasonableOhio enforces an employee non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable under the Raimonde test — no broader than needed to protect the employer, not unduly harsh on the employee, and not injurious to the public.
BannedOklahoma voids employee non-competes by statute, permitting only narrow carve-outs for direct customer non-solicitation, employee anti-raiding, and sale-of-business or partnership-dissolution covenants.
Income-based limitsAn Oregon employee non-compete is void by default. The employer must meet ORS 653.295's notice, protectable-interest, signed-copy, and duration rules; ordinarily the worker must also be exempt and earn above $119,541 in 2026, but a written restriction-period payment can replace only those two worker-eligibility conditions.
Allowed if reasonablePennsylvania enforces an employee non-compete only if it is ancillary to employment, supported by adequate consideration, reasonably limited in time and territory, and tied to a legitimate business interest, with a 2024 statute sharply restricting health care covenants.
Allowed if reasonablePuerto Rico has no non-compete statute; a covenant is enforceable only if it satisfies the strict three-part Arthur Young reasonableness test — capped at twelve months, supported by real consideration, and in writing — and courts void rather than rewrite any covenant that falls short.
Income-based limitsRhode Island applies common-law reasonableness to most workers but bans non-competes for low-wage and several other worker categories (FLSA-nonexempt, student interns, age 18 or younger) and for physicians and APRNs.
Allowed if reasonableSouth Carolina has no non-compete statute and enforces a covenant only if it meets all five common-law reasonableness factors, strictly construes it against the employer, and will not blue-pencil or reform an overbroad covenant.
Allowed if reasonableSouth Dakota voids restraints on a lawful profession, trade, or business unless they fit a narrowly construed statutory exception, and SDCL 53-9-11 permits an employee non-compete only within its two-year, geographic, existing-customer, and like-business limits.
Allowed if reasonableTennessee enforces a non-compete that is reasonable and protects a legitimate business interest; a 2026 statute effective July 1, 2026 will void covenants against employees earning under $70,000 and add rebuttable time-reasonableness presumptions.
Allowed if reasonableTexas enforces non-competes that are ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and reasonable in time, geography, and scope, with overbroad covenants reformed rather than voided.
Allowed if reasonableThe U.S. Virgin Islands enforces a non-compete only if it is reasonable in duration, area, and scope under a single trial-court decision, and aggressive restraints are hard to enforce in a small-island, non-at-will economy.
Allowed if reasonableUtah enforces employee non-competes only if they satisfy both the common-law Rose Park reasonableness test and a hard one-year statutory cap, and it bans healthcare and veterinarian non-competes entered on or after May 6, 2026.
Allowed if reasonableVermont has no general non-compete statute and enforces most covenants under a common-law reasonableness test, but 21 V.S.A. § 495q voids non-competes in professional agreements about a health care provider's Vermont services entered into on or after July 1, 2026, apart from a narrow nonclinical-support territory exception.
Income-based limitsVirginia bans non-competes outright for statutory low-wage employees, FLSA non-exempt employees, and health care professionals, while other workers remain subject to a strict common-law reasonableness test with no judicial blue-penciling.
Income-based limits*Employee non-competes are void unless earnings exceed an inflation-adjusted threshold ($126,858.83 in 2026); a near-total ban takes effect June 30, 2027.
Allowed if reasonableWest Virginia enforces employee non-competes under the common-law Reddy reasonableness test, but a facially unreasonable covenant is void with no judicial narrowing, and a physician statute caps medical covenants at one year and thirty miles.
Allowed if reasonableWisconsin enforces employee non-competes only if they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest under a demanding five-factor test, and an overbroad covenant is voided in full because courts will not blue-pencil it.
Banned with employee carve-outsFor contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, Wyoming voids employee non-competes restricting compensation for labor but excepts executive and management personnel and their professional staff, alongside sale-of-business and trade-secret covenants; earlier contracts retain the prior common-law test.
Allowed if reasonableAustralian non-competes are presumptively void restraints of trade and bind a former worker only so far as reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, with NSW adding a statutory read-down power.
Allowed if reasonableAn Australian Capital Territory non-compete binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate business interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so an overbroad clause cannot be rewritten — in the Territory's leading case a 24-month restraint on a general manager was upheld, while a parallel restraint failed entirely because an overbroad defined term was embedded in the operative clauses and could not be severed or read down.
Allowed if reasonableA NSW non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only to the extent it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, but the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) lets the Supreme Court enforce an overbroad clause to a reasonable extent instead of voiding it outright.
Allowed if reasonableA Northern Territory non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, and in the leading Supreme Court employment case an eighteen-month restraint failed entirely as longer than necessary even though the court considered fifteen months at most would have been reasonable.
Allowed if reasonableA Queensland non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Allowed if reasonableA South Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Allowed if reasonableA Tasmanian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only sever covenants the parties themselves drafted as genuinely separate, and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Allowed if reasonableA Victorian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out grammatically severable words under the blue-pencil rule, and a carefully drafted multi-limb restraint that severance cannot save fails entirely.
Allowed if reasonableA Western Australian non-compete is presumptively void and binds a former employee only so far as it is reasonable to protect a legitimate interest; there is no statutory read-down power, so a court can only strike out genuinely distinct, severable covenants under the blue-pencil rule and an overbroad clause that severance cannot save fails entirely.
BannedPost-employment non-competes are void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regardless of how reasonable they are, and Indian law offers no reasonableness saving for post-term restraints — leaving only the sale-of-goodwill exception, in-term covenants, confidentiality, non-solicitation, garden leave during the notice period, and cost-based employment bonds.
Allowed if reasonableThe Philippines has no non-compete statute. A post-employment restraint is enforceable only if it is reasonable — limited as to time, trade, and place, tied to a legitimate business interest, and not contrary to public policy — and suing on one is a civil case for the regular courts, not the labor tribunals.
Allowed if reasonableSingapore has no non-compete statute; a post-employment restraint is presumptively void and binds a former employee only if the employer proves a legitimate proprietary interest and shows the clause is reasonable between the parties and in the public interest.