Nearly 1 in 5 workers in the U.S. are bound by a noncompete agreement, according to data released Jan. 13 by the Economic Innovation Group.
Noncompete agreements are regulated at the state level, with four states currently banning the use of noncompete agreements altogether.
Here is a breakdown of where noncompete laws and bills stand by state in 2026:
Full ban
California: Noncompete agreements are broadly unenforceable in nearly all employment contexts, including for physicians and other healthcare professionals. Recent legislation strengthened the state’s long-standing ban by voiding out-of-state noncompetes applied to California workers.
Minnesota: Noncompete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2023, are prohibited for most workers, including healthcare employees, with limited statutory exceptions.
Montana: Noncompete agreements are generally prohibited, including in healthcare employment, except in limited circumstances such as the sale of a business.
North Dakota: Noncompete agreements are broadly prohibited, with limited statutory exceptions that generally do not apply to standard healthcare employment relationships.
Oklahoma: Noncompete agreements are prohibited, though employers may restrict former employees, including physicians, from soliciting established customers or patients.
Washington, D.C.: The district broadly prohibits noncompete agreements, including for healthcare workers, with limited exceptions and notice requirements.
Other restrictions (healthcare-focused)
Alabama: Noncompete agreements are permitted in limited circumstances if they protect a legitimate business interest and are reasonable in scope and duration. The statute applies to healthcare professionals, including physicians and physical therapists.
Arizona: Noncompete agreements are generally enforceable if reasonable, though state law restricts their use for certain broadcast employees. Healthcare noncompetes are evaluated under common law reasonableness standards.
Arkansas: Noncompete agreements are permitted if they protect legitimate business interests and are reasonable. The statute expressly applies to physicians and other licensed professionals.
Colorado: Noncompete agreements are significantly restricted and generally unenforceable unless they protect trade secrets or are tied to the sale of a business. Additional statutory limitations apply to physicians and certain healthcare professionals.
Connecticut: Noncompete agreements are permitted but subject to statutory limitations for physicians, including restrictions on duration and geographic scope.
Delaware: Noncompete agreements are enforced if they are reasonable and narrowly tailored. Courts closely scrutinize healthcare-related noncompetes.
Florida: Florida law favors enforcement of noncompete agreements that meet statutory requirements. Physician noncompetes are permitted but subject to additional statutory considerations.
Georgia: Noncompete agreements are permitted if they comply with statutory standards governing duration, geographic scope and legitimate business interests, including in healthcare employment.
Hawaii: Noncompete agreements are restricted by statute, including a ban for technology employees. Healthcare agreements are evaluated under general reasonableness standards.
Idaho: Noncompete agreements are permitted for key employees and independent contractors, including healthcare professionals, if restrictions are reasonable.
Illinois: Noncompete agreements are restricted based on employee earnings and notice requirements. Additional protections apply to healthcare workers.
Indiana: Noncompete agreements are generally enforceable but prohibited for certain physicians, depending on specialty and employment context.
Iowa: Noncompete agreements are permitted if reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests, including in healthcare settings.
Kansas: Noncompete agreements are enforceable if reasonable in scope and duration. Healthcare agreements are evaluated under common law standards.
Kentucky: Noncompete agreements are permitted but must be reasonable and narrowly tailored, including for physicians.
Louisiana: Noncompete agreements are enforceable only if they strictly comply with statutory requirements governing duration and geographic scope, including for healthcare professionals.
Maine: Noncompete agreements are restricted through notice requirements and limitations on enforceability, which may affect healthcare employers.
Maryland: Noncompete agreements are restricted for lower-wage workers and must meet statutory standards. Healthcare agreements are subject to these limitations.
Massachusetts: Noncompete agreements are permitted but subject to strict statutory requirements, including notice, consideration and duration limits that apply to healthcare employment.
Michigan: Noncompete agreements are enforceable if they protect legitimate business interests and are reasonable, including for healthcare professionals.
Mississippi: Noncompete agreements are permitted if reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests.
Missouri: Noncompete agreements are generally enforceable but subject to additional statutory restrictions for physicians.
Nebraska: Noncompete agreements are permitted if reasonable in scope and duration, including in healthcare employment relationships.
Nevada: Noncompete agreements are restricted by statute, including limitations on enforcement following termination without cause, which may affect healthcare employers.
New Hampshire: Noncompete agreements are subject to notice requirements and income-based limitations, which can apply to healthcare workers.
New Jersey: Noncompete agreements are evaluated under common law standards requiring reasonableness and legitimate business justification, including in healthcare settings.
New Mexico: Noncompete agreements are restricted for healthcare practitioners, with statutory limitations on enforceability.
New York: Noncompete agreements are evaluated under common law standards requiring reasonableness and necessity, including for physicians and healthcare executives.
Oregon: Noncompete agreements are restricted through income thresholds, notice requirements and duration limits that may affect healthcare employers.
Pennsylvania: Noncompete agreements are enforceable if reasonable and supported by adequate consideration, including for physicians.
Rhode Island: Noncompete agreements are restricted for certain workers, including low-wage employees, which may affect some healthcare roles.
South Dakota: Noncompete agreements are permitted if reasonable and tied to legitimate business interests, including in healthcare employment.
Tennessee: Noncompete agreements are enforceable if reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests, including physician practices.
Texas: Noncompete agreements are permitted if ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement. Additional statutory requirements apply to physician noncompetes.
Utah: Noncompete agreements are limited to a maximum duration of one year following employment, including for healthcare professionals.
Vermont: Noncompete agreements are restricted through income thresholds and notice requirements that may apply to healthcare workers.
Virginia: Noncompete agreements are prohibited for certain low-wage employees and subject to statutory enforcement standards.
Washington: Noncompete agreements are restricted through income thresholds, notice requirements and duration limits that affect healthcare employment.
Wisconsin: Noncompete agreements are enforceable only if they meet strict statutory standards, including reasonableness in scope and duration.
Wyoming: Noncompete agreements are permitted if reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests, including in healthcare employment.
No statutory restrictions
Alaska: Alaska does not have a statute specifically governing noncompete agreements. Enforceability, including for healthcare professionals, is determined under common law reasonableness standards.
