State laws in North Dakota and Oklahoma prohibit the enforcement of the contracts—and California doesn't recognize them at all.
In Massachusetts, a non-compete is only enforceable to protect a legitimate business interest.
Scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024, the Non-Compete Rule banned non-compete agreements, including any agreements that “function or prevent” a worker from seeking or accepting work or operating a business; made it unlawful to enter into, enforce, or attempt to enter into or enforce, a non-compete agreement ...
FTC issues final rule banning most noncompete clauses in employer agreements. Published April 23, 2024.
The MNAA does not apply retroactively. That really should not come as a surprise to anyone. “Reaffirmation” of an existing noncompete may be considered a new agreement subject to the MNAA. But don't worry too much.
Now that the FTC is permanently enjoined from enforcing the rule, (unless and until a successful FTC appeal), non-competes return to the status quo and are legal and enforceable on the same terms as they were before the FTC passed the non-compete rule.
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued its long-awaited Final Non-Compete Clause Rule, which operates to ban most post-employment non-compete agreements between employers and their workers.
The case is noteworthy because the Supreme Court has now decisively shut the legal door on non-competition agreements that do not fit within specific statutory exceptions. The federal courts interpreting California law had permitted some non-compete agreements under a narrow-restraint exception.
The rule defines a prohibited “non-compete clause” to include any contract term, workplace policy or term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from seeking work, accepting work or operating a business after the conclusion of the employment ...