Our 50-state (plus DC) chart of noncompete laws has been updated for the new year.
In case you were wondering which states changed their noncompete laws in the past decade or so, we updated our list with links to detailed information about each of the changes.
Episode 23 of Fairly Competing is out! Join us for a discussion of California’s updated anti-restrictive covenant laws, what the laws purport to do them, and what companies can do to limit the impact of the new laws.
The sky is not falling on noncompetes. Here is everything you need to know about key developments in the states, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts in 2023.
The recording of a roundtable brainstorming session among more than 40 restrictive covenant / trade secret / employee mobility lawyers from around the country discussing the nationwide impact of California’s new, expanded anti-restrictive covenant laws is now available. The conclusion? Houston, we have a problem.
Our 50-state (plus DC) chart of noncompete laws has been updated to reflect a Nevada Supreme Court decision and is available here.
Two new California laws will fundamentally alter the national noncompete landscape, effectively voiding other states’ laws and contracts, and adversely impacting companies’ ability to protect their trade secrets, confidential business information, customer goodwill, and other legitimate business interests. Join us and over 40 other lawyers for a roundtable brainstorming session.
California passed another anti-noncompete, anti-nonsolicit law. The law says that California’s prohibition on restrictive covenants is to be read broadly and requires companies to notify employees subject to a covenant that violates that law that their restrictions are void and unenforceable. It operates retroactively and, not surprisingly, there are penalties.
Another anti-noncompete, anti-nonsolicit bill in California is now on the Governor’s desk. The bill says that California’s prohibition on restrictive covenants is to be read broadly and requires companies to notify employees subject to a covenant that violates that law that their restrictions are void and unenforceable. It operates retroactively and, not surprisingly, there are penalties.
Noncompetes are under attack by legislatures, federal agencies, Congress and others. But the sky is not falling. Noncompetes are not dead.
Our 50-state (plus D.C.) noncompete law chart has been updated to reflect various state law changes, and is available here.
With the increasing hostility toward noncompetes over the past decade or so, Delaware had seemed like a safe option for choice of law and forum selection clauses. That may no longer be true.
California has decided that its public policy on noncompetes trumps the public policy of other states. Employees can now flee to California to escape their restrictive covenants.
The noncompetes bill frenzy continues: 33 states with 84 noncompete bills so far, and 5 more in Congress, 11 dead, 7 passed, 2 about to.
Our 50-state (plus DC) chart of noncompete laws has been updated for Kentucky (healthcare exemptions), Maryland (low-wage), and Minnesota (total noncompete ban), and is available here.
The ramp-up to legislatively limit noncompetes continues: there have been 25 states with 74 noncompete bills so far this year, and 4 more are pending in Congress; 2 dead, 1 passed, 1 about to.
The ramp-up to legislatively limit noncompetes continues: there are currently 24 states with 65 noncompete bills so far this year, and 4 more are pending in Congress.
Our 50-state (plus DC) chart of noncompete laws has been updated and is available here.
While most people reading this blog will know that California has a statute that bans noncompetes, it may come as a surprise that employers have dealt with that prohibition by turning to trade secret law for protection as far back as 1913 — even for low-level employees.
No one ever points to North Dakota’s or Oklahoma’s ban on noncompete as producing a thriving tech sector, because they haven’t. Yet, somehow think that the same ban in California is why we have Silicon Valley. This assumption is wrong for multiple reasons. Worse, it leads to poor policy.
Episode 12 of Fairly Competing is out! In this episode, Ben Fink, John Marsh, and I explore Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc., an extremely well-reasoned decision offering an object lesson about preliminary injunctions in trade secret cases, highlighting that it’s no longer safe to assume you will get a preliminary injunction simply because a former employee downloaded 5,000 documents — even if he invokes the 5th Amendment.
Misconceptions about noncompetes abound. And, as noncompete agreements are increasingly in the cross-hairs of the media and legislators, it has become increasingly clear that some of the most vocal de...
With all of the changes at the state level (45 bills in 21 states, plus D.C.’s near-total ban, which is, as of yesterday, now officially adopted and pending funding, likely in the fall, it seems), the federal efforts — spearheaded by Senator Chris Murphy — continue to inch forward. During the Senate the confirmation hearing of Julie Su (currently the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency) for the position the Deputy Labor Secretary, Senator Chris Murphy reminds us that his bill to ban noncompetes is still in the works — and that, ultimately, he expects the FTC to regulate noncompetes.
As many of you know, I am very involved with the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Trade Secret Law Committee. And, as you may also know, each year, we hold a multi-day, in-depth pro...