Check if your non-compete agreement is enforceable in your state with factor analysis.
This tool provides general legal information only and is NOT legal advice. Non-compete law is complex, rapidly changing, and varies significantly by jurisdiction. Always consult a qualified employment attorney in your state before making legal decisions.
Non-compete enforceability is governed by state law. The FTC's 2024 nationwide ban was vacated by a federal court in August 2024 (Ryan LLC v. FTC) and the agency formally dropped its appeal in September 2025, so no federal rule is in effect in 2026 — where you live and work still decides. Some states void nearly all non-competes (California, North Dakota, Oklahoma), while most apply a reasonableness test that weighs duration, geographic scope, role scope, whether the employee received separate consideration or paid garden leave, and whether genuine trade secrets are at stake. This calculator scores those factors to estimate whether a court would likely enforce your agreement.
Left: the factors courts weigh, with the pro-worker column in green. Right: the 2026 state-law landscape — a handful of states ban non-competes outright, most restrict or blue-pencil them, and a few enforce them freely if the restriction is reasonable.
Carlos, a sales manager in Austin, is reviewing an 18-month non-compete that bars him from regional competitors in the same role. He handles client relationships (trade secrets) and received no separate consideration. Texas law governs.
Usage: fill in the fields and read the answer immediately — check if your non-compete is enforceable in your state. Everything runs locally; nothing is uploaded.
FreeToolHub Non-Compete Checker is a free browser-based tool — check if your non-compete is enforceable in your state. No signup, no upload; everything runs locally in your browser.
Is your non-compete enforceable? Check your state’s rules. All 50 states, free.
The Non-Compete Checker estimates how enforceable a non-compete clause is likely to be under the law of the state you select. It combines a state-law database sourced from the National Conference of State Legislatures and refreshed annually with a factor-scoring model you feed with your contract's actual terms. You enter the restriction duration in months, whether the scope covers your current role or something broader, and whether the geography is a city, a region, or nationwide, then toggle executive status, trade secrets, garden leave, and paid consideration. The output is an enforceability verdict from Banned through Likely Enforceable, a 0-100 score, a risk level, a plain-English summary of your state's rule, and a factor-by-factor breakdown. It is legal information, not legal advice.
Employees and job candidates weighing an offer that contains a non-compete: the tool flags whether the clause is worth negotiating before signing. Founders and hiring managers use it to sanity-check restrictive covenants they are about to issue, since courts in many states refuse to enforce agreements that overreach. Freelancers and contractors can test whether a "non-compete" in a client agreement is even valid in states that ban restrictions on independent contractors, such as Minnesota. Sellers of a business should note that sale-of-business exceptions (recognized even in ban states like California and Oklahoma) fall outside what this scorer models, so treat those results as a floor, not a ceiling. For disputes already in motion, an employment attorney remains the right call.
(1) Select your state; the checker displays that state's enforceability posture, its statutory duration cap if present, and any wage threshold that applies. (2) Describe the clause: restriction duration in months, role scope (same role, broader, or narrower), geographic scope (narrow, regional, or nationwide), plus switches for executive status, trade secrets, garden leave and its length, and whether separate consideration was paid. (3) The engine starts each case at a neutral 50 and adjusts it factor by factor: durations over 24 months are flagged as rarely enforced, nationwide reach pushes the score toward enforceability, and missing consideration or garden leave pulls it back. It then maps the final 0-100 score to a verdict of Banned, Likely Unenforceable, Partially Enforceable, or Likely Enforceable, with a risk level and recommendations attached.
In the checker's dataset, California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma treat non-competes as void: California's Business and Professions Code §16600 nullifies nearly all of them outside sale-of-business and partnership-dissolution contexts. A larger group enforces them only within statutory guardrails: Washington caps restrictions at 18 months for employees earning over $100,000, Colorado's HB 23-1089 shields workers earning under $100,580, Nevada limits covenants to 12 months for executives and key employees, Maryland refuses enforcement for workers earning under $31,200 a year, and Massachusetts presumes 12 months reasonable. Illinois requires at least two years of employment as consideration, and Minnesota bars restrictions on independent contractors. Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania remain enforcement-friendly. Selecting a state loads its exact rule into the result panel.
No. The FTC's 2024 rule banning most non-competes was set aside by a Texas federal court in August 2024 before it ever took effect, and the agency's appeal has since been dropped. There is no federal ban today. What actually governs your agreement is state law — which is exactly what this checker evaluates: enforceability by your state, your role, and the scope written into your clause.
California is the strongest example: non-competes are void there, and since 2023 (SB 699 and AB 1076) employers can even be sued for trying to enforce one against a California worker — even if the agreement was signed elsewhere. North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Minnesota ban them broadly; Colorado, Illinois, and others void them below income thresholds. The checker scores your state's posture rather than pretending a federal rule exists.
Courts weigh three axes: duration (12 months is commonly accepted, 24+ invites scrutiny), geography (a metro area is defensible; 'anywhere the company operates' usually is not), and role scope (blocking a salesperson from the same accounts is defensible; blocking an entire industry often is not). Extra factors help you: paid garden leave, consideration like a signing bonus, and whether you actually had trade secrets all push enforceability up or down — the checker scores each of these.
Often yes — this is the blue pencil doctrine. Many state courts strike the unreasonable words and enforce what remains, while others refuse to touch a clause and void it whole. That difference matters strategically: a clause that is merely overbroad may come back enforced in a blue-pencil state, which is why the checker shows your state's rewrite posture instead of a binary valid/void verdict.
Enforceability varies dramatically: California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban non-competes entirely. The FTC's 2024 rule attempted a nationwide ban but was blocked by federal courts. Most states enforce "reasonable" restrictions (12-24 months, limited geography). Answer 6 questions about your state, role, and terms to assess your agreement.
Courts typically evaluate three factors: duration (12 months is standard; 3+ years is often struck down), geographic scope (must match your actual work territory), and legitimate business interest (protecting trade secrets, not merely preventing competition). A 5-year, nationwide ban for a junior developer would likely be unenforceable in most jurisdictions.
Why did the fish get bad grades?
No signups, no data sold. The core of every tool is free forever — the optional Pro plan adds batch processing, unlimited downloads, white-label exports and an ad-free experience.
☕Support me on Ko-fi— keep tools free100% of proceeds go towards hosting & building more free tools.