Non-compete and non-solicitation agreements can look deceptively simple. A few paragraphs near the back of an offer letter or employment contract may shape where someone can work next, who they can call, what information they can use, and how expensive a job change could become.
That is part of what makes these agreements so risky. The document may be short, but the impact can be long-lasting.
In this post, you’ll learn which clauses tend to matter most, why they often become the center of disputes, and where state law can sharply change the analysis. If you want a broader foundation first, this overview of how restrictive covenants work and where enforceability gets complicated can help frame the bigger picture.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
Non-competes and non-solicitation provisions sit in a legal landscape that has been changing quickly. At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission adopted a nationwide noncompete rule in 2024, but the FTC now states that the rule is not in effect and not enforceable after a federal court order stopped it; the agency later moved to dismiss its appeal in September 2025. At the same time, the FTC and DOJ issued 2025 labor antitrust guidelines identifying noncompetes as one of several business practices that may raise antitrust concerns. The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel has also taken the position that overbroad non-compete agreements can chill protected employee activity, and an NLRB administrative law judge ruled in June 2024 that non-compete and non-solicitation provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act in that case. FTC rule status, FTC/DOJ labor guidelines, and NLRB guidance
That federal uncertainty has pushed even more attention onto contract wording and state law. California continues to treat employee noncompetes as generally unenforceable, and the state attorney general has described them as unenforceable under California law. Other states take narrower but still highly structured approaches, often focusing on compensation thresholds, notice rules, duration limits, or whether the restriction protects a legitimate business interest. California guidance, Oregon guidance, Washington guidance