Beyond 'non-competes are void in California', what actually governs this restraint?
For employees: noncompetition agreements are invalid under Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 even if narrowly drawn, unless they fall within the statutory exceptions of §§ 16601, 16602 or 16602.5: the court rejected the Ninth Circuit's 'narrow-restraint' exception (Edwards). Section 16600.1 makes it UNLAWFUL to include a noncompete clause in an employment contract, or to require an employee to enter a noncompete agreement, that does not satisfy an exception; employers had to notify current employees and former employees employed after January 1, 2022 by February 14, 2024 that the clause is void; and a violation is an act of unfair competition (§ 16600.1). For restraints BETWEEN BUSINESSES, § 16600 is not a per se rule: in context it is best read not to render void per se all contractual restraints on business dealings, but rather to subject such restraints to a rule of reason (Ixchel). The principal exception remains the sale of goodwill or of an owner's entire ownership interest, which may support a covenant not to carry on a similar business within a specified geographic area so long as the buyer carries on the business there (§ 16601). Since 2024 Edwards is in the statute itself: § 16600(b)(1) directs that the section "be read broadly, in accordance with Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter", declared to be existing law, and § 16600(c) reaches a restraint on a person who is not a party to the contract. Section 16600.5 then makes the void contract unenforceable "regardless of where and when the contract was signed", forbids an employer to attempt to enforce it "regardless of whether the contract was signed and the employment was maintained outside of California", and gives the employee a private action for injunctive relief or actual damages with fees and costs to a prevailing employee (§ 16600.5(a), (b), (e)).
The trap
The California rule most out-of-state drafters carry is half right in both directions. Narrowing the restraint does not save an EMPLOYEE covenant. That is the exact argument Edwards rejected. But assuming everything is void is wrong where the restraint runs between two businesses: Ixchel holds that a rule of reason applies to determine the validity of 'a contractual provision by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business' with another business, and it held the exclusivity provision before it to be such a restraint while expressing no view on the validity of the agreement at issue. And § 16600.1 turned the clause itself into a violation: including a noncompete clause in an employment contract that satisfies no exception is unlawful and an act of unfair competition within the meaning of § 17200, not merely an unenforceable term. For the out-of-state drafter the sharpest edge is § 16600.5(a)-(b): a covenant signed in another state, under that state's law, by an employee who then worked there, is still unenforceable in California and the employer's attempt to enforce it is itself the violation: the choice-of-law clause does not travel.
10 authorities
The words that state the rule
We hold that the noncompetition agreement here is invalid under section 16600, and we reject the narrow-restraint exception urged by Andersen. Noncompetition agreements are invalid under section 16600 in California, even if narrowly drawn, unless they fall within the applicable statutory exceptions of section 16601, 16602, or 16602.5. In addition, we conclude that the TONC at issue in this case did not purport to release Andersen from any nonwaivable statutory claims and therefore is not unlawful under Labor Code sections 2802 and 2804. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Appeal judgment, and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with the views expressed above.
The words that state the rule
In context, section 16600 is best read not to render void per se all contractual restraints on business dealings, but rather to subject such restraints to a rule of reason.
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.1enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
(a) It shall be unlawful to include a noncompete clause in an employment contract, or to require an employee to enter a noncompete agreement, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter. (b) (1) For current employees, and for former employees who were employed after January 1, 2022, whose contracts include a noncompete clause, or who were required to enter a noncompete agreement, that does not satisfy an exception to this chapter, the employer shall, by February 14, 2024, notify the employee that the noncompete clause or noncompete agreement is void. (2) Notice made under this subdivision shall be in the form of a written individualized communication to the employee or former employee, and shall be delivered to the last known address and the email address of the employee or former employee. (c) A violation of this section constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200).
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16601enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
Any person who sells the goodwill of a business, or any owner of a business entity selling or otherwise disposing of all of his or her ownership interest in the business entity, or any owner of a business entity that sells (a) all or substantially all of its operating assets together with the goodwill of the business entity, (b) all or substantially all of the operating assets of a division or a subsidiary of the business entity together with the goodwill of that division or subsidiary, or (c) all of the ownership interest of any subsidiary, may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified geographic area in which the business so sold, or that of the business entity, division, or subsidiary has been carried on, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill or ownership interest from the buyer, carries on a like business therein. For the purposes of this section, “business entity” means any partnership (including a limited partnership or a limited liability partnership), limited liability company (including a series of a limited liability company formed under the laws of a jurisdiction that recognizes such a series), or corporation. For the purposes of this section, “owner of a business entity” means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership (including a limited partnership or a limited liability partnership), or any member, in the case of a business entity that is a limited liability company (including a series of a limited liability company formed under the laws of a jurisdiction that recognizes such a series), or any owner of capital stock, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation. For the purposes of this section, “ownership interest” means a partnership interest, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership (including a limited partnership a limited liability partnership), a membership interest, in the case of a business entity that is a limited liability company (including a series of a limited liability company formed under the laws of a jurisdiction that recognizes such a series), or a capital stockholder, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation. For the purposes of this section, “subsidiary” means any business entity over which the selling business entity has voting control or from which the selling business entity has a right to receive a majority share of distributions upon dissolution or other liquidation of the business entity (or has both voting control and a right to receive these distributions.)
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
(a) Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. (b) (1) This section shall be read broadly, in accordance with Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter. (2) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. (c) This section shall not be limited to contracts where the person being restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is a party to the contract.
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.5enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
(a) Any contract that is void under this chapter is unenforceable regardless of where and when the contract was signed. (b) An employer or former employer shall not attempt to enforce a contract that is void under this chapter regardless of whether the contract was signed and the employment was maintained outside of California. (c) An employer shall not enter into a contract with an employee or prospective employee that includes a provision that is void under this chapter. (d) An employer that enters into a contract that is void under this chapter or attempts to enforce a contract that is void under this chapter commits a civil violation. (e) (1) An employee, former employee, or prospective employee may bring a private action to enforce this chapter for injunctive relief or the recovery of actual damages, or both. (2) In addition to the remedies described in paragraph (1), a prevailing employee, former employee, or prospective employee in an action based on a violation of this chapter shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16602enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
(a) Any partner may, upon or in anticipation of any of the circumstances described in subdivision (b), agree that he or she will not carry on a similar business within a specified geographic area where the partnership business has been transacted, so long as any other member of the partnership, or any person deriving title to the business or its goodwill from any such other member of the partnership, carries on a like business therein. (b) Subdivision (a) applies to either of the following circumstances: (1) A dissolution of the partnership. (2) Dissociation of the partner from the partnership.
- statuteCal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16602.5enactment date not established
The words that state the rule
Any member may, upon or in anticipation of a dissolution of, or the termination of his or her interest in, a limited liability company (including a series of a limited liability company formed under the laws of a jurisdiction recognizing such a series), agree that he or she or it will not carry on a similar business within a specified geographic area where the limited liability company business has been transacted, so long as any other member of the limited liability company, or any person deriving title to the business or its goodwill from any such other member of the limited liability company, carries on a like business therein.
The words that state the rule
Contrary to Andersen’s belief, however, California courts have not embraced the Ninth Circuit’s narrow-restraint exception.
The words that state the rule
We also hold that a rule of reason applies to determine the validity of a contractual provision by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with 40 IXCHEL PHARMA, LLC v. BIOGEN, INC. Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. another business. Section 2.13 of the Biogen-Forward Agreement is such a restraint because it prevents Forward from collaborating with Ixchel or any other partner in the development of treatments containing the active ingredient DMF. Its validity under section 16600 must therefore be evaluated based on a rule of reason. We express no view on the validity of the agreement at issue.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.