{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "alaska", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Alaska", "description": "Alaska uses a common-law reasonableness test for non-competes, led by Alaska Supreme Court cases and AUTSA trade-secret remedies, with no general statutory non-compete ban as of 2026.", "state": "Alaska", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-01", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Alaska has no non-compete statute; employee covenants are enforceable under common law if reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and no broader than needed.", "keyLaw": "common law (Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62 (Alaska 1988))", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Silent — no Alaska authority", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Reasonableness test applies", "customerNonSolicit": "Customer-list restraint allowed as a narrower alternative to a non-compete (Metcalfe)", "employeeNonSolicit": "Same Data Management reasonableness factors; no Alaska case squarely on point in our review" }, "about": [ "Alaska non-compete agreements", "Alaska restrictive covenants", "Alaska reasonable-alteration", "Alaska physician non-competes", "Alaska sale-of-business non-competes", "AS 45.50.910", "AUTSA" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-alaska" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable in Alaska?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Alaska?", "answerText": "Yes, if they are reasonable, but Alaska courts start from a skeptical posture: employee non-competes are strictly construed.", "sources": [ { "id": "decristofaro-disfavored-strictly-construed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "DeCristofaro v. Security Nat. Bank", "citation": "DeCristofaro v. Sec. Nat'l Bank, 664 P.2d 167, 168-69 (Alaska 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1234367/decristofaro-v-security-national-bank/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1234367/decristofaro-v-security-national-bank/#:~:text=They%20are%2C%20therefore%2C%20strictly%20construed.", "proposition": "DeCristofaro supports the baseline Alaska rule that non-competition agreements are strictly construed.", "verbatimQuote": "They are, therefore, strictly construed.", "date": "1983-05-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-decristofaro-disfavored-strictly-construed" }, { "id": "data-management-reasonableness-factors", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=Among%20the%20factors%20properly%20to,incidental%20to%20the%20main%20employment.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Data Management supports Alaska's reasonableness inquiry for employee non-competes, including duration, geography, customer contact, confidential information, unfair competition, hardship, and sole means of support.", "verbatimQuote": "Among the factors properly to be considered are: “[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support; whether the employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-reasonableness-factors" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness-test", "label": "What makes an Alaska covenant reasonable?", "heading": "What makes an Alaska non-compete covenant reasonable?", "answerText": "Alaska weighs whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and no broader than needed, considering duration, geography, customer contact, confidential information, and the hardship to the employee.", "sources": [ { "id": "decristofaro-strict-construction-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "DeCristofaro v. Security Nat. Bank", "citation": "DeCristofaro v. Sec. Nat'l Bank, 664 P.2d 167, 168-69 (Alaska 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1234367/decristofaro-v-security-national-bank/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1234367/decristofaro-v-security-national-bank/#:~:text=They%20are%2C%20therefore%2C%20strictly%20construed.", "proposition": "DeCristofaro supports the baseline Alaska rule that non-competition agreements are strictly construed.", "verbatimQuote": "They are, therefore, strictly construed.", "date": "1983-05-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-decristofaro-strict-construction-practice" }, { "id": "data-management-reasonableness-factors-reasonable", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=Among%20the%20factors%20properly%20to,incidental%20to%20the%20main%20employment.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Data Management supports the core Alaska employment-covenant reasonableness factors.", "verbatimQuote": "Among the factors properly to be considered are: “[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support; whether the employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-reasonableness-factors-reasonable" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will Alaska courts rewrite an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will Alaska courts rewrite an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Often yes, through reasonable alteration, but only if the covenant can be made enforceable and the employer proves it was drafted in good faith.", "sources": [ { "id": "data-management-reasonable-alteration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 64 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=The%20third%20approach%2C%20and%20the,faith%20is%20on%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Data Management supports Alaska's reasonable-alteration rule and the employer's burden to prove good-faith drafting.", "verbatimQuote": "The third approach, and the one we adopt, is to hold that if an overbroad covenant not to compete can be reasonably altered to render it enforceable, then the court shall do so unless it determines the covenant was not drafted in good faith. The burden of proving that the covenant was drafted in good faith is on the employer.", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-reasonable-alteration" }, { "id": "data-management-overreach-good-faith", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20must%20determine,refuse%20to%20alter%20the%20covenant.", "proposition": "Data Management supports refusing alteration where the employer willfully overreached.", "verbatimQuote": "The trial court must determine whether an employer has overreached willfully and, if so, the court should refuse to alter the covenant.", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-overreach-good-faith" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "Must an Alaska covenant include geographic and time limits?", "heading": "Must an Alaska non-compete include geographic and time limits?", "answerText": "Not always. A customer-focused activity restraint can survive without stated geography or duration when it is narrowly drawn to protect customer-list interests.", "sources": [ { "id": "metcalfe-no-time-geography-required", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison", "citation": "Metcalfe Invs., Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356, 1361-62 (Alaska 1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/#:~:text=We%20conclude%20that%20the%20noncompetition,a%20geographical%20or%20durational%20limitation.", "proposition": "Metcalfe supports the rule that a narrow customer-list activity restraint is not unenforceable merely because it lacks geographic or durational limits.", "verbatimQuote": "We conclude that the noncompetition agreement is not rendered unenforceable by the lack of a geographical or durational limitation.", "date": "1996-06-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-metcalfe-no-time-geography-required" }, { "id": "metcalfe-specialty-bar", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison", "citation": "Metcalfe Invs., Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356, 1362 n.5 (Alaska 1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/#:~:text=For%20instance%2C%20if%20a%20business,to%20be%20drafted%20more%20narrowly.", "proposition": "Metcalfe supports narrowing customer restraints that would effectively bar the employee from practicing a specialty.", "verbatimQuote": "For instance, if a business is so large that a restraint on contacting former clients would amount to a bar prohibiting the employee from practicing his or her specialty, the court will require the restraint to be drafted more narrowly.", "date": "1996-06-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-metcalfe-specialty-bar" }, { "id": "metcalfe-confidential-info", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison", "citation": "Metcalfe Invs., Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356, 1362 n.5 (Alaska 1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20not%20to%20contact,have%20access%20to%20confidential%20information.", "proposition": "Metcalfe supports the rule that a customer-contact restraint can be unreasonable when the employee lacked access to confidential information.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to contact former customers will also be unreasonable if the former employee did not have access to confidential information.", "date": "1996-06-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-metcalfe-confidential-info" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-healthcare-covenants", "label": "How are sale-of-business and healthcare covenants treated in Alaska?", "heading": "How are sale-of-business and healthcare covenants treated in Alaska?", "answerText": "Sale-of-business covenants are treated differently from ordinary employment covenants, but Alaska still weighs goodwill, seller hardship, and likely public injury.", "sources": [ { "id": "wenzell-sale-business-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim", "citation": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim, 228 P.3d 103, 111 (Alaska 2010).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/#:~:text=Under%20the%20second%20prong%2C%20the,likely%20injury%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Wenzell supports Alaska's sale-of-business non-compete test based on purchased goodwill, seller hardship, and likely injury to the public.", "verbatimQuote": "Under the second prong, the superior court must balance Wen-zell's need to protect the goodwill he purchased with the hardship to Ingrim from enforcing the covenant and the likely injury to the public.", "date": "2010-04-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-wenzell-sale-business-test" }, { "id": "wenzell-low-cost-competition-proof", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim", "citation": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim, 228 P.3d 103, 109 (Alaska 2010).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/#:~:text=In%20such%20a%20case%2C%20competition,presumed%20and%20must%20be%20proven.", "proposition": "Wenzell supports requiring proof of competition where a sale-of-practice covenant is asserted against work for a federally funded nonprofit low-cost healthcare provider.", "verbatimQuote": "In such a case, competition will not be presumed and must be proven.", "date": "2010-04-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-wenzell-low-cost-competition-proof" }, { "id": "wenzell-public-interest-low-cost", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim", "citation": "Dominic Wenzell, DMD PC v. Ingrim, 228 P.3d 103, 111 (Alaska 2010).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2601652/dominic-wenzell-dmd-pc-v-ingrim/#:~:text=It%20appears%20from%20the%20record,in%20need%20of%20such%20care.", "proposition": "Wenzell supports close public-policy scrutiny where enforcement would affect important low-cost healthcare services.", "verbatimQuote": "It appears from the record that Ingrim is employed by an organization providing an important, low-cost service to a population in need of such care.", "date": "2010-04-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-wenzell-public-interest-low-cost" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "How are employee non-solicits treated?", "heading": "How does Alaska treat employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Alaska has no decision in our review squarely on employee anti-raiding, so such a covenant would be judged under the same multi-factor Data Management reasonableness analysis applied to non-competes.", "sources": [ { "id": "ak-ens-factors", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=Among%20the%20factors%20properly%20to,incidental%20to%20the%20main%20employment.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Data Management supports the core Alaska employment-covenant reasonableness factors.", "verbatimQuote": "Among the factors properly to be considered are: “[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support; whether the employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-ak-ens-factors" }, { "id": "ak-ens-goodfaith", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20must%20determine,refuse%20to%20alter%20the%20covenant.", "proposition": "Data Management supports refusing alteration where the employer willfully overreached.", "verbatimQuote": "The trial court must determine whether an employer has overreached willfully and, if so, the court should refuse to alter the covenant.", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-ak-ens-goodfaith" } ] }, { "slug": "autsa-trade-secrets", "label": "What role does AUTSA play in Alaska restrictive covenant disputes?", "heading": "What role does AUTSA play in Alaska restrictive covenant disputes?", "answerText": "AUTSA gives Alaska employers trade-secret remedies that can substitute for, or sit beside, a narrower non-compete, including injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation.", "sources": [ { "id": "autsa-injunctive-relief", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.910(a).", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.910 supports injunctive relief for actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.", "verbatimQuote": "A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-injunctive-relief" }, { "id": "autsa-royalty", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.910(b).", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.910 supports conditioning future use on a reasonable royalty when prohibition would be unreasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use of a trade secret, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-royalty" }, { "id": "autsa-damages", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.915.", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.915 is the AUTSA damages section, authorizing recovery for actual loss and unjust enrichment and, for wilful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award.", "verbatimQuote": "If wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice the damages awarded under (a) of this section.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-damages" }, { "id": "autsa-displacement-contracts", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.930(b).", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.930 supports AUTSA displacement of conflicting civil law while preserving contract claims not based on trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "AS 45.50 . 910 - 45.50.945 do not affect (1) contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (2) criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-displacement-contracts" } ] }, { "slug": "writing-requirement", "label": "Must Alaska non-compete obligations be in writing?", "heading": "Must Alaska non-compete obligations be in writing?", "answerText": "Not always. Metcalfe held that an oral customer-list noncompetition agreement was enforceable despite not being in writing.", "sources": [ { "id": "metcalfe-oral-not-writing", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison", "citation": "Metcalfe Invs., Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356, 1362 (Alaska 1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/#:~:text=The%20noncompetition%20agreement%20in%20this,it%20was%20not%20in%20writing.", "proposition": "Metcalfe supports the rule that an oral promise to refrain from using customer lists for an unlimited period is not subject to the statute of frauds.", "verbatimQuote": "The noncompetition agreement in this case is thus enforceable despite the fact that it was not in writing.", "date": "1996-06-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-metcalfe-oral-not-writing" }, { "id": "data-management-reasonableness-factors-writing", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=Among%20the%20factors%20properly%20to,incidental%20to%20the%20main%20employment.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Data Management supports the practical caution that Alaska enforceability depends on fact-intensive reasonableness factors.", "verbatimQuote": "Among the factors properly to be considered are: “[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support; whether the employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-reasonableness-factors-writing" } ] }, { "slug": "alternatives", "label": "What alternatives do Alaska employers have to non-competes?", "heading": "What alternatives do Alaska employers have to non-competes?", "answerText": "Alaska employers usually have better odds with targeted tools: customer non-solicitation, confidentiality, trade-secret protection, and contract terms that match the actual risk.", "sources": [ { "id": "metcalfe-customer-list-alternative", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Metcalfe Investments, Inc. v. Garrison", "citation": "Metcalfe Invs., Inc. v. Garrison, 919 P.2d 1356, 1361 (Alaska 1996).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274957/metcalfe-investments-inc-v-garrison/#:~:text=The%20only%20thing%20she%20was,procured%20at%20its%20own%20expense.", "proposition": "Metcalfe supports customer-list restrictions as a narrower alternative to blanket non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "The only thing she was prohibited from doing was expropriating information and customers that Metcalfe Investments had procured at its own expense.", "date": "1996-06-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-metcalfe-customer-list-alternative" }, { "id": "autsa-injunctive-relief-alternatives", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.910(a).", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.910 supports trade-secret injunctions as a statutory alternative to broad non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-injunctive-relief-alternatives" }, { "id": "autsa-displacement-contracts-alternatives", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "AS 45.50.910 / .915 / .930 (AUTSA)", "citation": "Alaska Stat. § 45.50.930(b).", "url": "https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/SLAs/SLA%201988/CH%20103%20SLA%201988.pdf", "proposition": "AS 45.50.930 supports preserving contract claims that are not based on trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "AS 45.50 . 910 - 45.50.945 do not affect (1) contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (2) criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.", "date": "1988-09-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-autsa-displacement-contracts-alternatives" }, { "id": "data-management-reasonableness-factors-alternatives", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Data Management, Inc. v. Greene", "citation": "Data Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene, 757 P.2d 62, 65 (Alaska 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350283/data-management-inc-v-greene/#:~:text=Among%20the%20factors%20properly%20to,incidental%20to%20the%20main%20employment.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Data Management supports testing alternative restraints against Alaska's reasonableness factors.", "verbatimQuote": "Among the factors properly to be considered are: “[t]he absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the benefit to the employer is disproportional to the detriment to the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee’s sole means of support; whether the employee’s talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”", "date": "1988-07-01", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/alaska#src-data-management-reasonableness-factors-alternatives" } ] } ] } }