Updated bill numbers and South Dakota as of July 25, 2026.
I am finally catching up on all the noncompete bills flooding the legislatures this year.
Quick summary of what I’ve covered already…
As of now, there have been 110 noncompete bills in 34 states this year. 19 of the bills passed, creating 17 new laws.
The ten new laws (encompassed in 12 separate bills) that I have already discussed in previous posts are as follows:
- South Dakota: passed a law allowing for noncompetes in the sale of a business to the extent that it is “in the same or similar type of business conducted by the entity during the owner’s period of ownership, within the specified geographic area in which the entity conducts business, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of transfer” (effective June 28, 2026).
- Tennessee: created a new noncompete statute protecting low-wage employees while simultaneously providing employers with presumptions yielding additional certainty about the enforceability of restrictive covenants (effective July 1, 2026).
- Utah: passed three new laws. The first removes limitations on the use by healthcare platforms of noncompetes for advanced registered practice nurses, physician assistants, midwives, physicians, and osteopaths (effective May 6, 2026). The second bans the use by employers of noncompetes and certain nonsolicitation agreements for doctors and certain other healthcare providers (effective May 6, 2026) and otherwise clarifies or limits existing law (effective May 10, 2026). The third bans noncompetes, nonsolicits, and certain confidentiality agreements for veterinarians who do not own a five percent or greater ownership interest in their employer (effective May 6, 2026) and otherwise clarifies or limits existing law (effective May 10, 2026).
- Virginia: passed three new laws (via five separate bills), one requiring severance for employees who are discharged without cause, one limiting the use of noncompetes and certain other restrictive covenants for healthcare providers, and one limiting restrictive covenants for franchisees (all effective July 1, 2026).
- Washington: passed two new laws, one of which (the big one) bans (broadly defined) noncompetes (effective June 30, 2027); the other or which prohibits the use of noncompetes for domestic workers, which seems unnecessary in light of the broad ban (effective July 1, 2027).
Today I address the remaining seven new laws, which fall into two buckets:
- Healthcare-related regulations; and
- Particular jobs (architects and interns/apprentices)
Healthcare continues to be ground zero
If there is one consistent theme in restrictive covenant legislation over the past several years, it is healthcare. 48 of the 110 bills this year related to some aspect of the healthcare industry. Last year it was 46 of 104 bills. In 2024, it was 29 of 73. And in 2023, it was 32 of 98. You get the point.
This year, healthcare-related laws account for nearly half of all new noncompete laws enacted this year. Three are mentioned above (two in Utah and one in Virginia). The five remaining are in as follows…
New Hampshire bans noncompetes for physician associates
Effective July 7, 2026, New Hampshire expanded its existing healthcare-provider restrictions by prohibiting noncompetes for physician associates (formerly called physician assistants).
The statute uses language substantially similar to that in New Hampshire’s existing healthcare noncompete statutes (and in some other states’ statutes too):
Any contract or agreement that creates or establishes terms of a partnership, employment, or other form of professional relationship with a physician associate licensed by the board of medicine to practice medicine in this state, including any restriction on the right of a physician associate to 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.
The law applies prospectively, only affecting “new contracts or renewals of contracts entered into on or after the effective date . . . .” Given that the bill was signed into law on May 8, 2026 and takes effect 60 days after passage, it will become effective on July 7, 2026.
Maine expands physician noncompete restrictions to all healthcare providers
Maine took a different approach.
Effective July 29, 2026, rather than banning noncompetes for one type of provider at a time, Maine expanded its existing protections (which were applicable only to certain physicians) to all healthcare practitioners with a few new twists.1
In so doing, the new law introduces three major changes:
- Complete Ban for Non-Owners: It bans noncompetes for healthcare practitioners who are not owners of the entity that employs them.
- Immediate Effectiveness for Owners: For healthcare practitioners who are owners, it extends the existing rule that physician noncompetes become effective immediately, rather than being subject to Maine’s general requirement that noncompetes cannot take effect “until after one year of the employee’s employment with the employer or a period of 6 months from the date the agreement was signed, whichever is later.”
- Patient Choice Mandate: It adds a new requirement that any enforceable noncompete involving a healthcare practitioner must recognize a patient’s right to choose the patient’s own healthcare provider. (I’m not quite sure how helpful this will be as a practical matter, if the noncompete is enforced.)
This new law applies to all noncompete agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 29, 2026.
Nebraska targets healthcare staffing agencies
Nebraska’s new law is different from the others insofar as it shifts focus away from healthcare providers and targets healthcare staffing agencies instead (similar to what we have seen in other states like Kentucky and Tennessee.)
Effective July 1, 2026, Nebraska will prohibit healthcare staffing agencies from including noncompete clauses “restricting in any manner the employment opportunities of a worker” in contracts with workers or healthcare entities. The statute also places tight limitations on the use of disintermediation payments.
Instructively, the statute includes stiff penalties to ensure compliance: $500 for the first violation, $5,000 for subsequent violations, and the potential loss of the license to operate in the state for up to a year.
Iowa bans noncompetes for University of Iowa healthcare employees
Iowa enacted perhaps the narrowest healthcare bill of the group. The new law does not prohibit noncompetes generally. Nor does it apply to all hospitals and clinics.
Instead, it requires only hospitals and clinics affiliated with the University of Iowa to adopt a policy prohibiting noncompete clauses in employment contracts with advanced registered nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses, pharmacists, physicians, physician assistants, and registered nurses.
Why did the legislature choose to limit the restriction to University of Iowa hospitals and clinics employees rather than healthcare workers generally? No idea. If someone knows the political backstory, I would love to hear it.
Regardless, the law took effect immediately upon enactment on June 2, 2026.
South Dakota
In addition to the new law previously discussed, effective July 1, 2026, South Dakota passed a law making noncompetes for community services providers (providers assisting people with mental health conditions) voidable. The law expressly excludes qualifying nonsolicits from its scope.
Professions and low-level employees are also a focus
The other trend of focusing on specific professions (outside of healthcare) and low-wage/low-level employees shows no signs of slowing down.
Maryland’s curious architect amendment
Maryland’s legislation may be the most unusual of the group.
Effective October 1, 2026, the new law does not prohibit noncompetes for architects generally.
Instead, Maryland amended its existing statute to protect employees of licensed architects in a highly specific circumstance: when the employer had a substantial Maryland workforce at the outset of employment (at least 30 employees) but, by the time of enforcement of the noncompete, shifted the majority of its workforce outside Maryland or no longer maintains its principal place of business in Maryland.
In those circumstances (which seem like easy things for a company to address through the use of localized subsidiaries), Maryland’s existing prohibition on certain noncompete and conflict-of-interest provisions will apply.
Why architects? And why only when the employer effectively leaves Maryland?
Who knows? And do you really care? (I am actually somewhat curious.)
Louisiana protects interns and apprentices
Louisiana’s new law focuses on workers at the very beginning of their careers.
Effective August 1, 2026, Louisiana prohibits noncompetes for interns and apprentices.
The statute states, “there shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or apprentice and his employer restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer.” The statute then adds, “The contract or agreement or provision shall not restrict an intern or apprentice from pursuing employment, educational, or professional opportunities following the completion of the internship or apprenticeship.”
Notably, the new law expressly preserves obligations under “confidentiality, intellectual property, and data protection agreements.”
Takeaways
Viewed individually, each of these laws is relatively narrow. Viewed collectively, however, they reflect a continuing legislative trend.
Healthcare remains the primary focus of restrictive covenant reform. But legislatures are also regulating restrictive covenants one profession, one industry, and one worker category at a time.
For multistate employers, that trend exacerbates a growing compliance challenge. Even where a state’s general noncompete law remains unchanged, profession-specific and industry-specific legislation may create unexpected compliance traps that apply to only a small subset of a company’s workforce.
* * *
*A huge thank you to Erika Hahn for all of her extraordinary help in tracking and monitoring all of the recent noncompete and trade secret legislative and caselaw developments.
_____
[1] Because of the way Maine enacted the new law (the bill just states what the changes will be without providing the language of the existing law), I thought it might be helpful to put the text of Maine’s statute (as it will be starting July 29, 2026) here (without fixing the punctuation or grammatical issues, which I assume they will fix):