Non-Compete Enforceability by State

Read before relying on this

This is a general reference, current as of 2026, not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant state. Thresholds adjust annually, new state laws take effect on rolling dates throughout the year, and enforceability also depends on the specific worker's role, income, and the agreement's drafting. There is no federal non-compete rule — the FTC's 2024 rule was struck down in court and formally withdrawn in February 2026, so this is governed entirely by state law.

Near-total bans

These states void virtually all employee/contractor non-competes, with narrow exceptions typically limited to the sale of a business or dissolution of a partnership/LLC.

State	Status	Note
California	Void	Bus. & Prof. Code §16600; applies even to agreements signed outside the state
Minnesota	Void	Minn. Stat. §181.988, agreements after July 1, 2023
North Dakota	Void	Century Code §9-08-06
Oklahoma	Void	Customer non-solicitation still generally permitted
Montana	Void	Mont. Code §28-2-703; sale-of-business exception
Wyoming	Void (2025 statute)	Narrow executive/equity-holder carve-outs
Washington	Transitioning	Near-total ban effective June 30, 2027 — currently income-threshold based (see below)

Income-threshold restrictions

Non-competes are void below the listed income level; thresholds adjust for inflation and change year to year.

State	2026 threshold (approx.)	Note
Colorado	~$127,091	14-day separate written notice required; $5,000 statutory penalty per violation
District of Columbia	~$162,000	Highest threshold nationally; written disclosure required before signing
Illinois	$75,000	14-day review period required (Illinois Freedom to Work Act)
Massachusetts	FLSA-exempt status	Requires garden-leave pay or other consideration; 12-month cap
Oregon	~$116,427	12-month cap; 2-week advance notice required before employment begins
Tennessee	$70,000	New via HB 1034, effective July 1, 2026
Virginia	Tied to avg. weekly wage of overtime-eligible workers	Voids for low-wage/overtime-eligible workers
Washington (current)	~$126,858 employees / ~$317,147 contractors	2-week notice required; transitions to near-total ban June 2027

Other significant restrictions

Healthcare-specific bans (expanding): Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire and others void non-competes for physicians, PAs, nurse practitioners, dentists, and related clinicians in at least some circumstances.
Procedural requirements: Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington all require specific advance notice and/or a review period — a non-compete that's otherwise valid can still be voided for a paperwork failure.
Narrower carve-outs: Hawaii (tech workers), Arizona (broadcast industry), Utah (12-month cap), Nebraska (no judicial "blue-pencil" rewriting — an overreaching clause is void entirely, not narrowed), South Carolina (same "red pencil" rule).

Broadly enforceable, few restrictions

These states apply a general reasonableness test (duration, geography, scope, legitimate business interest) and, in most cases, will judicially narrow ("blue-pencil") an overbroad clause rather than void it outright. Most employer-friendly: Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina. Also generally enforceable under a reasonableness standard: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Practical takeaway

Given how much of this map is either void, income-gated, or procedurally fragile, a standalone non-compete is a weak default tool for most counterparties. The Non-Solicitation & Non-Interference Agreement covers the same underlying concern — protecting client and personnel relationships — with terms that hold up in nearly every state.