Is your non-compete enforceable?
Most explainers stop at “it depends on your state.” That is not enough when you are negotiating an exit or weighing a job offer. NonCompeteState applies the actual 6-input test — state of execution, current state, salary, industry, duration, garden leave — and returns a statute-cited verdict.
Fully client-side. Your salary, industry, and contract specifics never leave your browser. Updated June 22, 2026.
- Statute-cited verdicts
- Inputs never logged
- Informational, not advice
Sample verdict
As of June 22, 2026Three first-class outcomes — including honest uncertainty.
Likely unenforceable
Void by statute, or below the state's salary threshold.
Likely enforceable
Generally enforceable with limits — reasonableness still applies.
Indeterminate
Genuinely ambiguous — the decoder says so and routes you to counsel.
- 50-state framework & DC
- Primary-source statute citations
- Post-Ryan federal landscape
- Inputs never stored
- Industry carve-outs surfaced
- Choice-of-law traps flagged
Jurisdictions mapped
With verified statute records
Void or near-total ban
Inputs to a verdict
The map
The geography of American non-compete law
From statutory voids on the coasts to reasonableness regimes across the South — coded by what the law does, never by good or bad. Hover or tap a state for its verdict; open any verified state for the controlling statute.
- Void by statute
- Income threshold
- Industry carve-out
- Enforceable, with limits
- Research pending
The decoder
Run the 6-input enforceability test
Six fields against the canonical 50-state matrix. Indeterminate is a first-class outcome — when the law is genuinely ambiguous, the decoder says so and routes you to an attorney rather than fabricate a verdict.
Read the substance
The detail behind the verdict
A verdict is the start, not the end. These pages explain the regimes, the doctrines, and the traps the decoder watches for.
Void by statute
California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma void most non-competes outright. See the controlling statute for each.
Income-threshold states
Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington only enforce above a salary floor.
Industry carve-outs
Healthcare, broadcast, banking, and tech often face their own rules — even where the general regime is enforceable.
Choice-of-law traps
Some states disregard an out-of-state choice-of-law clause for their own residents. The decoder flags it.
Post-Ryan federal status
The FTC's 2024 rule was vacated and removed from the CFR. The full timeline, with primary citations.
How we verify
Every entry carries a verification tier and an as-of date. We flag research-tier vs primary-verified, never inventing certainty.
How it works
From six fields to a statute-cited read
No account, no upsell to see your result. The whole flow takes about a minute.
Set your facts
State of execution, current state, salary, industry, duration, garden leave — the six inputs that move the verdict.
Run the test
The decoder applies the 6-input decision tree against the canonical 50-state matrix.
Read the verdict
Likely enforceable, likely unenforceable, or indeterminate — each with the primary statute and doctrine.
Take the next step
Open your state's page, read the federal status, or match with an employment-law attorney.
Federal landscape
What happened to the FTC's 2024 non-compete rule?
In April 2024 the FTC banned most non-competes. Four months later a Texas federal court set the rule aside nationwide. In September 2025 the FTC abandoned its appeal. In February 2026 the rule was formally removed from federal regulations. The field is back to a 50-state patchwork.
2024-04-23
FTC issues Final Rule banning most non-competes
FTC voted 3-2 to adopt a rule prohibiting most post-employment non-competes. Existing senior-executive (>$151,164 + policy-making) covenants grandfathered; all others void on effective date. Federal Register publication May 7, 2024.
2024-08-20
Ryan, LLC v. FTC — N.D. Tex. sets aside the rule nationwide
Judge Ada E. Brown set the rule aside nationwide under APA § 706. The court held the FTC lacked statutory rulemaking authority under § 6(g) of the FTC Act, and that the rule was 'unreasonably overbroad' and arbitrary-and-capricious. Quoted: 'the question to be answered is not what the Commission thinks it should do but what Congress has said it can do.' (Note: case is in the Northern District of Texas, not the Eastern District as some early coverage stated.)
2025-09-05
FTC votes 3-1 to abandon Ryan and Properties of the Villages appeals
FTC voted 3-1 (Ferguson, Holyoak, Meador in majority; Slaughter dissent) to drop appeals to the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit. Slaughter dissent argued the FTC was 'throw[ing] in the towel' and that vacatur required APA notice-and-comment. Chairman Ferguson stated the FTC 'will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against non-compete agreements' under Section 5.
2026-02-12
FTC removes 16 C.F.R. Part 910 from the Code of Federal Regulations
Administrative delisting of the rule from the CFR — the formal end of the federal regulatory ban. Field reverts entirely to state law, plus FTC retained Section 5 case-by-case authority.
You have more room than you think
Most non-competes are narrower than they look.
Enforceability turns on your state, your pay, and how the clause is drafted — not on whatever the contract claims. Four states void most of them outright, several only enforce above an income floor, and courts routinely trim or strike the rest. Run the six-input test to see where yours actually stands.
One test, no account
See where your non-compete stands.
Apply the actual 6-input enforceability test and get a statute-cited verdict — likely enforceable, likely unenforceable, or indeterminate.
Informational, not legal advice. The decoder is fully client-side — your inputs never leave your browser.