The Changing Landscape of Trade Secrets Laws and Noncompete Laws Around the Country
Updated July 25, 2026.
Context for Noncompete and Trade Secret Legislation and Regulation
For over two hundred years, trade secret laws and noncompete laws have been the product of state law. Since May 11, 2016, we have also had a federal private right of action for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. And, if some federal legislators have their way, there will be a federal noncompete law (see below).
These laws — especially noncompete laws — are in a constant state of flux, particularly in the past several years. As such, no surprise, we have 50 variations of each (really 52, when you factor in DC and federal law).
On the noncompete side, although there is constant talk of banning noncompetes (and many states have had bills to do precisely that), only four states prohibit employee noncompetes altogether. They are California, Minnesota (only since July 1, 2023), North Dakota, and Oklahoma, though soon Washington will as well (effective June 30, 2027). Also, Nebraska basically does, though they don’t admit it. And no, Montana does not ban noncompetes (but, as a practical matter, don’t expect to enforce one there).
Charts reflecting the differences among how each of the 50 states (plus D.C.) handle noncompetes and trade secrets are available here (noncompetes) and here (trade secrets). Note that these charts are updated as new developments arise.
Given how hard it can be to stay on top of the recent developments in each state (as well as at the federal level, not to mention international changes) and the absence of any aggregation of this information elsewhere, we have dedicated a separate page to the current status of developments in trade secrets laws and noncompete laws around the country.
While updates will continue regularly in our blog posts, this page is intended to serve as an ongoing resource for people to easily find all of the important developments in one place. Although the focus will be on the United States, important international developments will sometimes be included as well.
The summaries are (sort-of) color coded for the nature of the bill (ban, modification or establishment of standards, reversal of prior changes) and the groups for whom it creates exceptions or specific limitations (medical personnel, low-wage workers, others).
Please consider this page to be a work-in-progress, as the laws are ever-changing. So, please check back regularly. And, a huge thank you to Erika Hahn for all of her extraordinary help in tracking the state and federal bills and developments.
Federal [Trade Secrets and Noncompetes]
Current status
Despite many efforts, there has been no legislation of employee noncompetes at the federal level.
However, federal regulation has begun. Starting in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission required some noncompetes to be eliminated as a condition of approving mergers, sued to prohibit the use of noncompetes by certain companies, and issued a rule to ban noncompetes, which was immediately challenged, enjoined, and ultimately set aside in the courts. The FTC will likely proceed with individual enforcement actions.
Also starting in 2023, the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel issued memos stating that the use of noncompetes and other restrictive covenants constitutes an unfair labor practice, and started testing her ability to vacate noncompetes. Ultimately, those memos were vacated in 2025.
Background (not comprehensive)
On the trade secret side, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (commonly referred to as the “DTSA”), a bill to create a federal private right of action for the protection of trade secrets, was – with some amendments, including in connection with the inevitable disclosure doctrine – reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of January 2016. Bloomberg BNA has a terrific summary here: Senate Judiciary Committee OKs Federal Trade Secret Bill.
Testimony was taken back in December 2015, and is available here. Persons appearing to testify were: Karen Cochran, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Tom Beall Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at Corning Incorporated, James Pooley, a leading trade secrets expert, and Sharon Sandeen, Professor of Law at Hamline University School of Law. In addition, a letter was submitted in lieu of live testimony by a number of trade secrets practitioners (myself included) around the country. That letter is available here.
On March 7, 2016, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably on the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 bill (S. 1890) and issued a report detailing its reasons.
On April 4, 2016, the Senate voted unanimously to approve the DTSA.
On April 20, the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve the DTSA without amendment. As Reuters has reported, “The House version of the bill has more than 120 sponsors, but the House Judiciary Committee has not yet considered it and it was not clear whether it would act in coming months.”
On April 27, 2016, the United States House of Representatives joined the Senate in voting in favor of the DTSA. Not quite unanimous like the Senate, but almost, the House voted 410-2 to approve.
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the DTSA into law. The DTSA “has been described as the ‘most significant expansion of federal law in intellectual property since the Lanham Act in 1946.’” See Congress May Be About to Shake Up Trade Secret Law: Is That a Good Thing? Given that so much has been written about it, I will not repeat the details. However, the House Judiciary Committee has a detailed report (here), my post (Defend Trade Secrets Act and What it Means) is here, Ben Fink’s summary of the amendments is in Federal Trade Secrets Law Takes Another Step Toward Reality, and Dennis Crouch’s What you need to know the Amended Defend Trade Secrets Act on PatentlyO.
On June 28, 2017 (which was about a year ahead of time), Timothy Lau, on behalf of the Federal Judicial Center, produced the best practices report mandated by the the DTSA: Trade Secret Seizure Best Practices Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Definitely worth a read!
Effective January 5, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022. The law “directs the administration to compile a report identifying foreign individuals and entities who knowingly steal or use stolen U.S. trade secrets and mandates the imposition of sanctions against those violators.”
Other federal trade secret legislation is comparatively limited in scope, and is not included.
On the noncompete side, the first federal legislative efforts to restrict noncompetes trace back to three bills filed in 2015. The first (the “Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees Act” or “MOVE Act“), filed by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and co-sponsored by then-Senator Franken and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), sought to prohibit the use of noncompetes for “low-wage employees,” i.e., employees earning the greater of (subject to inflation) $15 per hour or the applicable state or local minimum wage rate or $31,200 per year, but excluding any salaried employee earning (subject to inflation) more than $5,000/month for 2 consecutive months. The other two were the “Limiting the Ability to Demand Detrimental Employment Restrictions Act” (the “LADDER Act”), which was very similar to the MOVE Act (but limited somewhat the definition of the employees that are considered low-wage employees), and the “Freedom for Workers to Seek Opportunity Act” (“FWSOA”), which although not having quite as catchy an acronym as the MOVE Act or the LADDER Act, won on creativity in that it sought to ban the use of noncompetes for grocery store workers (only). None of these bills passed.
On May 5, 2016, the White House released a report on the overuse and misuse of noncompetes: Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses.
On March 26, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Economic Policy released Non-compete Contracts: Economic Effects and Policy Implications, finding both overuse and misuse of noncompete agreements. In response to the two reports, President Obama convened a small working group to determine how to address the findings of the reports. I was invited to (and did) participate in that small working group.
On October 25, 2016, President Obama released the product of the working group: “Non-Compete Reform: A Policymaker’s Guide to State Policies” and a Call to Action on noncompetes. (For details, see White House Releases Noncompete Call to Action.)
In April 2018, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Workforce Mobility Act of 2018 (S. 2782) to impose a federal ban on the use of employee noncompetes. A companion bill (H.R. 5631) was introduced in the House by Representatives Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and David Cicilline (D-RI), who were later joined by Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA). The two bills were largely the same, although they differed in some respects, including that the Senate version instructed the Secretary of Labor to enforce the law and provided for civil penalties, while the House bill added that such contracts violate antitrust laws absent a showing by the employer to the contrary. That legislative session ended without action on either bill.
In January 2019, Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “Freedom to Compete Act” to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.) to ban noncompetes for most nonexempt workers. And, in October 2019, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Senator Todd Young (R-IN) filed the Workforce Mobility Act to ban the use of virtually all employee noncompete agreements. Neither of these bills passed.
On October 29, 2019, the United States House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, held a hearing on “Antitrust and Economic Opportunity: Competition in Labor Markets” that seemed to be looking to the FTC for action. (A summary is available here.)
On November 19, 2019, the United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on “Noncompete Agreements and American Workers.” (A summary is available here along with written testimony that I with the help of Erika Hahn submitted in response.)
On January 9, 2020, the FTC held a full-day workshop on noncompetes and related issues. In response to a request for submissions to address a series of questions, I and 22 others promptly submitted a letter to provide answers. Shortly after, COVID hit and the investigation (seemingly) paused.
On July 22, 2020, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy sent a letter to the FTC asking the FTC what actions it has taken to regulate noncompetes, and requesting a response by August 4, 2020. No public response was provided.
In December 2020, President Biden identified noncompete reform as part of his platform. The details were uncertain, but the stated policy was that, “[a]s president, Biden will work with Congress to eliminate all non-compete agreements, except the very few that are absolutely necessary to protect a narrowly defined category of trade secrets . . . . ”
On February 25, 2021, another version of the Workforce Mobility Act (S.843) was introduced. This time it was Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Simultaneously, Congressman Scott Peters (D-CA-52) filed an analogue bill (H.R.1367) in the House. (For a detailed history, see Federal Noncompete Initiatives: When you can’t convince the states, ask the feds.) The act proposed a complete ban on all employee noncompetes.
On May 20, 2021, The VA Hiring Enhancement Act ((H.R.3401) was introduced to the House to void noncompetes for physicians going to work at VA hospitals.
On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an “Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy” in which he “encouraged [FTC Chair Lina Khan] to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” In response, I and 58 others promptly submitted a letter to the White House and FTC. (See Ask 59 Trade Secret Lawyers and Paralegals About Noncompetes and Get One Opinion.)
On July 15, 2021, Freedom To Compete Act (S.2375) was reintroduced to ban noncompetes for workers who are not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On November 3, 2021, the “Employment Freedom for All Act” (H.B.5851) was introduced in the House by U.S. Congresswoman Claudia Tenney to “void existing non-compete agreements for any employee who is fired for not complying with an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and for other purposes.”
On November 12, 2021, the FTC posted a draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal years 2022-2026. That plan contained two express references to noncompetes and some other language that seems aligned with President Biden’s Executive Order. (For more information, see The FTC’s Draft Strategic Plan: What it says about noncompetes and other restrictive covenants.)
On November 30, 2021, the FTC Whistleblower Act of 2021 (H.R.6093) was introduced to void noncompetes for whistleblowers to the FTC.
Next, on December 6 and 7, 2021, the FTC and DOJ held a virtual workshop, “Making Competition Work: Promoting Competition in Labor Markets.” During the workshop, they considered, among other things, possible regulation of noncompetes, no-poach agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and training repayment agreements, among other things. (See New Vigor at the FTC and DOJ to Ban Noncompetes for a summary of the Workshop.) The FTC and DOJ encouraged the submission of public comments following the workshop. I, along with 69 other lawyers and paralegals, submitted a supplemental letter in response.
On August 30, 2022, Representative Mike Garcia introduced the Restoring Workers’ Rights Act of 2022. The bill would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938(29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.) to essentially ban noncompetes — both retroactively and prospectively — for workers who are not exempt (under the FLSA).
On January 4, 2023, the FTC announced three enforcement actions concerning noncompetes, all of which had been settled before filed.
On January 5, 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule to ban all employee noncompetes, all “de facto” noncompetes, and most sale-of-business noncompetes.
On January 7, 2023, President Biden said that in his State of the Union that his Administration is banning noncompetes. (He specifically mentioned fast-food workers, suggesting that he is focused on low-wage workers.)
On January 25, 2023, Representative Claudia Tenney was the first in the new Congressional Session to introduce noncompete legislation, reintroducing the Ensure Vaccine Mandates Eliminate Non-Competes Act (the “EVEN Act”) “[t]o void existing non-compete agreements for any employee who is fired for not complying with an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and for other purposes.”
On February 1, 2023, Senators Young and Murphy (along with the support of two other co-sponsors) again proposed a ban on all employee noncompetes (i.e., permitting sale of business noncompetes) and Representative Scott Peters (along with the support of two other co-sponsors) filed a House version of the same re-proposed ban.
On February 9, 2023, Senators Marco Rubio and Maggie Hansen reintroduced the Freedom to Compete Act. Like the prior versions, the bill would ban noncompetes for anyone not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act — the approach taken first by Massachusetts and later by Rhode Island.
On March 6, 2023, Senators Klobuchar, Collins, Rosen, Tillis, King, Thune, Merkley, Capito, Coons, Paul, Durbin, Moran, Shaheen, Wicker, Smith, Marshall, Blumenthal, Cramer, and Boozman introduced the Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Reauthorization Act, which primarily addresses immigration issues for physicians in underserved communities, but would also ban the use of noncompetes for those covered by the Act.
On March 15, 2023, the FTC announced another enforcement action.
On May 30, 2023, the General Counsel of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a memo outlining why she believes that noncompetes (and other restrictions) violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On September 1, 2023, the NLRB (Division 9 in Cincinnati) issued a complaint challenging a noncompete, no-recruit, no-hire, and other provisions as unfair labor practices. Since then, the NLRB has engaged in various efforts to invalidate existing noncompetes at certain companies.
On April 23, 2024, the FTC voted on and issued its final rule purporting to ban noncompetes. The Rule was published on the Federal Register on May 1 and, subject to multiple legal challenges, was scheduled to become effective on September 4, 2024. On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated (“set aside”) the rule. Following various challenges, rulings prohibiting enforcement of the Rule are, as of January 11, 2025, on appeal in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, those the appeals are stayed through mid-July 2025.
On October 7, 2024, NLRB GC Jennifer Aburzzo doubled down on her attack on restrictive covenants and other agreements (training repayment agreements, in particular) with a second memorandum, “Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and ‘Stay-or-Pay’ Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act.” Ms. Abruzzo explained that she intended “to urge the Board not only to find certain non-compete provisions unlawful but also, as fully as possible, to remedy the harmful effects on employees when employers use and apply them.”
On February 14 (Valentine’s Day), 2025, NLRB Acting General Counsel, William B. Cowen, issued a memorandum rescinding both of Ms. Abruzzo’s memoranda (among others). The rescission was no surprise and (especially coupled with Ms. Abruzzo’s termination) seemed to eliminate the risk created by Ms. Abruzzo’s anti-business, expansive Section 7-rights approach.
On February 26, 2025, FTC Chair Ferguson issued a memo indicating that the FTC would be pursuing enforcement against the use of B2B no-poach agreements (by whatever name), as opposed to reasonable B2E (business-to-employee) nonsolicitation agreements, companies using noncompetes for employees who clearly should not have them, and companies using truly unfair training repayment agreements (pejoratively called “TRAPs”), and similar agreements.
On June 20, 2025, the same four Senators who have been pushing for a federal noncompete ban for years — Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — introduced another one: “A bill to prohibit certain noncompete agreements, and for other purposes.”
On August 13, 2025, President Trump revoked President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order on noncompetes.
On September 4, 2025, the FTC announced its first Ferguson-led, Trump-era noncompete enforcement action. Shortly later in the day that same day, the FTC announced that it is seeking public input about companies overusing and abusing noncompetes.
On September 5, 2025, the FTC announced that it was dismissing its appeals in the Ryan and Properties of the Villages cases and acceding to the vacatur of its Noncompete Rule.
On September 17, 2025, the FTC announced that it will be holding a half-day workshop on noncompetes on October 8, 2025.
On December 2, 2025, NLRB ALJ Kimberly Sorg-Graves issued a 13-page decision in Amazon.com Services LLC and Skeete and Committee of Correspondence of Amazon Workers finding that certain broad language doomed various restrictive covenants — including nonsolicitation covenants — even for exempt workers.
On January 27, 2026, the FTC held its noncompete workshop. It was very one-sided and was a clear warning that the FTC believes it has jurisdiction and will be pursuing individual actions against companies it believes are abusing noncompetes.
In 2026, the FTC continued individualized enforcement actions.
Related to noncompetes (not comprehensive):
Though not technically a noncompete, other federal legislation has been proposed to addresses other restrictive covenants (no-poach agreements — also typically the province of the states): In March 2018, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced the End Employer Collusion Act (S.2480), which would have made it unlawful for two or more employers to enter an agreement prohibiting one of them from soliciting or hiring the other’s employees or former employees. The bill allowed aggrieved individuals to bring a civil action for actual and punitive damages and attorney’s fees against an entity that enters into, or threatens to enforce, an agreement that violates the act. The bill also would have granted the Federal Trade Commission the power to enforce. The bill was immediately referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. A companion bill (HB 5632) was introduced in April 2018, by Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), Representative Joseph Crowley (D-NY), and Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) and was immediately referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. In May 2018, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law. Both bills ultimately died. In 2023, the Department of Justice experienced continued failures prosecuting companies and individuals for using B2B no-poach agreements and two new bills were introduced in Congress (one in the Senate and one in the House) aimed at broadly banning B2B no-poach agreements.
State Changes
Since 2011, 35 states (plus Washington, D.C.) have changed their noncompete laws. They are set out below in alphabetical order by state, along with their effective date and links to more details.
For a visual, these are the states with changes:
Alabama adopted a new noncompete statute that included a presumption that a two-year noncompete is reasonable and requires mandatory judicial reformation (January 1, 2016).
Arkansas made sweeping changes to its noncompete statute (August 6, 2015); and banned certain physician noncompetes (August 3, 2025).
California adopted choice of forum and choice of law requirements (January 1, 2017); officially opened the door to employees fleeing to California to void their noncompetes (and nonsolicitation agreements, no-recruit agreements, and overly broad confidentiality agreements) (January 1, 2024); and expanded the scope of its ban, required companies to notify employees that their restrictions are void, and added penalties for failing to comply (January 1, 2024).
Colorado updated its misdemeanor law, impacting noncompetes (March 1, 2022); made sweeping changes to its noncompete law (August 10, 2022); limited training repayment agreements and worker recovery where the attorney general brings an action to enforce noncompete laws (August 7, 2024); expanded the prohibition on the use of noncompetes and nonsolicitation covenants for physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, certified midwives, and dentists (August 6, 2025).
Connecticut banned certain physician noncompetes (July 1, 2016); banned noncompetes for individuals providing homemaker, companion, or home health services (June 19, 2019); and placed additional limitations on physician noncompetes and imposed limitations on noncompetes for advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants similar to those applicable to physician (October 1, 2023).
Florida banned noncompetes for specialist physicians in certain underserved communities (June 26, 2019); and allowed garden leave clauses (“true” garden leave clauses) and “covered” noncompetes to continue for four years (July 1, 2025).
Georgia amended its noncompete law — and constitution — to permit courts to modify overly broad noncompete agreements (May 11, 2011).
Hawaii banned noncompetes for technology workers (July 1, 2015).
Idaho added a presumption of irreparable harm if a key employee breached their noncompete (March 30, 2016) and then removed the presumption (March 28, 2018).
Illinois banned noncompetes for low-wage workers (January 1, 2017); made sweeping changes to its noncompete laws (January 1, 2022); imposed limits on noncompetes for nurses and certified nurse aides (July 1, 2022); prohibited enforcement of noncompetes (and nonsolicits) for mental health professionals “with respect to the provision of mental health services to veterans and first responders” if enforcement “is likely to result in an increase in cost or difficulty for any veteran or first responder seeking mental health services” (January 1, 2025); and clarified the exemption for construction workers (January 1, 2025).
Indiana imposed limits on noncompetes for physicians (July 1, 2020); and banned noncompetes for primary care physicians and added limitations on noncompetes for other physicians (July 1, 2023); created a task force on May 4, 2023 to investigate the need for further restrictions on noncompetes for healthcare providers; and banned hospitals from using noncompetes, nonsolicits longer than one year, and no-service agreements with their physicians, and placed certain limitations on the use by hospitals of training repayment agreements (a.k.a. “TRAPs”) and certain other restrictions with their physicians (July 1, 2025).
Iowa imposed limits on noncompetes for healthcare employment agency workers (July 1, 2022); narrowed the scope of the healthcare employment agency worker limitations by removing a restriction on the use of noncompetes for direct care providers and in connection with certain healthcare provider placements (June 1, 2023); and removed the significant penalties (potential loss of registration of the employment agency and fines) for violations of that law (July 1, 2024, with retroactive impact); required University of Iowa hospitals and clinics 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 (June 2, 2026).
Kentucky prohibited professional employer organizations from interfering with noncompetes (March 29, 2022); imposed limits on noncompetes for direct care staff of healthcare service agencies (April 8, 2022); and then limited the restriction of noncompetes for direct care staff to apply only to temporary staff, not “to contracts with permanent direct care staff or with an assisted living community, a long-term care facility, or a hospital for the placement of permanent direct care staff” (March 22, 2023).
Louisiana allowed the use of noncompetes to prohibit shareholders, partners, LLC members, franchisees, and franchise employees from competing, even if they are just employees – i.e., not owners – of the competitor (August 1, 2020); imposed significant limitations on the use of noncompetes for primary care physicians (PCPs) and other physicians (January 1, 2025); restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer”; and prohibited restricting interns and apprentices from “engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer” or “pursuing employment, educational, or professional opportunities following the completion of the internship or apprenticeship” (August 1, 2026).
Maine banned noncompetes for low-wage workers, required advance notice for a noncompete, imposed a six-month minimum period of employment, imposed a $5,000 per violation fine (September 18, 2019); banned noncompetes for veterinarians who do not have an ownership interest in the facility they work in (May 25, 2023); banned noncompetes for non-owner healthcare practitioners and set rules for noncompetes for healthcare practitioners who are owners (July 29, 2026).
Maryland banned noncompetes for low-wage workers (October 1, 2019); updated its low-wage threshold (October 1, 2023), and banned noncompetes for veterinarians and vet techs (June 1, 2024) and restricted noncompetes for physicians and other healthcare providers (July 1, 2025); banned noncompetes for architects only where 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 (October 1, 2026).
Massachusetts made sweeping changes to its noncompete law (October 1, 2018).
Montana banned noncompetes and nonsolicitation agreements for additional healthcare providers, including, naturopathic physicians, registered professional nurses, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants (April 16, 2025); and expanded the healthcare provider noncompete/nonsolicit ban to all physicians and expressly permitted the use of certain repayment obligations (January 1, 2026).
Minnesota banned virtually all noncompetes (July 1, 2023).
Nebraska prohibited healthcare staffing agencies from including noncompete clauses “restricting in any manner the employment opportunities of a worker” in contracts with workers or healthcare entities and places tight limitations on the use of disintermediation payments (July 1, 2026).
Nevada adopted a brand new noncompete law (June 3, 2017) and banned noncompetes for hourly workers (October 1, 2021).
New Hampshire banned physician noncompetes (August 5, 2016); banned noncompetes for nurses (June 25, 2018); banned noncompetes for low-wage workers (September 8, 2019); banned noncompetes for advanced practice registered nurses (August 23, 2025); prohibited noncompetes for physician associates (formerly called physician assistants) (July 7, 2026).
New Mexico banned employee noncompetes for dentists, physicians, podiatrists, osteopathic physicians, and certified registered nurses (July 1, 2015).
North Dakota modified its prohibition of employee noncompete to permit noncompetes in connection with the sale of limited liability companies and corporations (March 28, 2019).
Oregon shortened the maximum duration of a noncompete to 18 months (January 1, 2016); banned noncompetes for home care and personal support workers (January 1, 2018); required employers to provide employees with a signed copy of their noncompete within 30 days after termination of employment (January 1, 2020); established a new low-wage threshold, made agreements that violated the statute void (instead of voidable), and shortened the maximum duration to one year (January 1, 2022); and imposed significant limitations on the use of noncompetes, certain nondisclosure agreements, and other agreements for physicians and nurses (June 9, 2025).
Pennsylvania established procedural and substantive limitations on the use of noncompetes for healthcare workers (January 1, 2025).
Rhode Island banned physician noncompetes (July 12, 2016); banned noncompetes for low-wage workers (January 15, 2020); banned noncompetes for advanced practice registered nurses (June 14, 2024).
South Dakota banned noncompetes for physicians, physician assistants, certified nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses (July 1, 2021); expanded the scope of healthcare practitioners covered and scaled back the ban to instead make such noncompetes voidable (July 1, 2023); expanded the ability to use noncompetes in a sale of a business (effective June 28, 2026); and made noncompetes for community services providers (providers assisting people with mental health conditions) voidable.
Tennessee removed a ban on noncompetes for physicians who had been working for the employer for six years of more (January 1, 2012); prohibited temporary healthcare staffing agencies from using noncompetes with direct care staff (May 11, 2023); created a new noncompete statute protecting low-wage employees and establishing presumptions of enforceability of certain restrictive covenants limited to two years (July 1, 2026).
Texas modified its limitations on physician noncompetes and expanded them to dentists, professional and vocational nurses, and physician assistants (September 1, 2025).
Utah limited noncompetes to one year and added attorney’s fees for enforcement of an unenforceable noncompete (May 10, 2016); banned noncompetes for low-wage workers in the broadcast industry (May 8, 2018); changed the maximum term for noncompetes in the broadcasting industry (May 14, 2019); and prohibited healthcare platforms from using noncompetes for the temporary healthcare workers who obtain work through their platforms (May 7, 2025); removed limitations on the use by healthcare platforms of noncompetes for advanced registered practice nurses, physician assistants, midwives, physicians, and osteopaths (effective May 6, 2026); banned the use by employers of noncompetes and certain (limited) nonsolicitation agreements for doctors and certain other healthcare providers (effective May 6, 2026); banned noncompetes, nonsolicits, and certain confidentiality agreements for veterinarians who do not own five percent or more ownership interest in their employer (effective May 6, 2026); and otherwise clarified or limited existing law (effective May 10, 2026).
Virginia banned noncompetes for low-wage workers and required certain notices (July 1, 2020); and expanded the scope of the low-wage worker exemption to cover non-exempt workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (July 1, 2025); required severance for employees who are discharged without cause (July 1, 2026); limited the use of noncompetes and certain other restrictive covenants for healthcare providers (July 1, 2026); and limited restrictive covenants for franchisees (July 1, 2026).
Washington made sweeping changes to its noncompete law (January 1, 2020), which were later expanded and strengthened (June 6, 2024); banned noncompetes (broadly) (June 30, 2027); and prohibited the use of noncompetes for domestic workers, which seems unnecessary in light of the broad ban (July 1, 2027).
Washington, D.C. made sweeping changes to its noncompete law (October 1, 2022).
West Virginia limited physician noncompetes to one year and thirty miles and not enforceable if employment terminated by employer (July 1, 2017).
Wyoming made sweeping changes to its noncompete law, banning physician noncompetes and most other noncompetes, except noncompetes for executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel and noncompetes to protect trade secrets (July 1, 2025).