Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 OCTOBER 2026

The Noncompete Map Is Splintering

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

Noncompete agreements face a fractured legal landscape as states diverge sharply on enforcement rules following the collapse of the FTC's federal ban. From mobility-first prohibitions to pro-enforcement regimes with four-year terms, employers must now navigate compensation thresholds, industry-specific carve-outs, and functional definitions that treat forfeiture clauses as de facto noncompetes. What does this patchwork mean for multistate workforce strategies?

United StatesEmployment and HR

For a brief moment, noncompete law was headed toward a single national rule. Then the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule was set aside, the agency abandoned its appeals, and the map splintered. While the federal rule is gone, the policy fight is not—it has simply relocated to state capitols and courtrooms.

The FTC proceedings gave state lawmakers a policy record and a menu of competing priorities: worker mobility and wage growth on one side; freedom of contract, confidential information, and business investment on the other. States have gone in divergent directions.

States are answering five distinct questions differently: Who may be restrained? What interests justify restraint? Which economic devices count as noncompetes? What procedures must precede execution or enforcement? And who bears the risk of error once litigation begins?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from