{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "american-samoa",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in American Samoa",
      "description": "American Samoa has no non-compete statute and no on-point case law found in our review; its High Court would gap-fill through the imported common law of A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 and the Restatement reasonableness test, while local public policy and a tiny island economy make aggressive covenants hard to enforce.",
      "state": "American Samoa",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "unsettled",
        "bottomLine": "No non-compete statute and no on-point case law found in our review; a court would likely apply the Restatement reasonableness test, with local public policy disfavoring broad restraints.",
        "keyLaw": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 (imported common law); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188",
        "courtNarrowing": "unsettled",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Silent — no statute or case law",
        "maxLength": "No statutory limit",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Likely enforced more readily than employee restraints under § 188",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Customer non-solicit acting as a non-compete gets § 188 reasonableness review",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Employee non-solicit acting as a non-compete gets § 188 reasonableness review"
      },
      "about": [
        "American Samoa non-compete agreements",
        "American Samoa restrictive covenants",
        "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 reception of common law",
        "High Court of American Samoa contract law",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 reasonableness",
        "American Samoa non-compete consideration",
        "American Samoa non-compete tolling",
        "American Samoa injunction standard"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ]
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in American Samoa?",
        "answerText": "Probably sometimes, but the law is genuinely unsettled. American Samoa has no statute that governs employee non-competes and no High Court decision that has squarely enforced or struck one down. A covenant would be judged under the common law the High Court imports through A.S.C.A. § 1.0201, which in practice means the Restatement reasonableness framework.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asca-1-0201",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 — Laws applicable in American Samoa",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/1-0201-laws-applicable-in-american-samoa/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 receives the common law of England, as suitable to local conditions, as law in American Samoa — the gap-filling hinge the High Court uses when no territorial statute governs.",
            "verbatimQuote": "so much of the common law of England as is suitable to conditions in American Samoa and not inconsistent with this section.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-1-0201"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "governing-test",
        "label": "What test would the High Court apply?",
        "heading": "What test would the High Court of American Samoa apply to a non-compete?",
        "answerText": "The High Court would most likely apply the reasonableness framework of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188, imported through A.S.C.A. § 1.0201. It has said it should ordinarily follow the Restatement when it construes the common law, and that the common law of contracts applies in American Samoa unless a territorial statute or local conditions displace it.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tung-restatement",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tung v. Ah Sam",
            "citation": "Tung v. Ah Sam, 4 A.S.R. 764 (Trial Div. 1971).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/ah-sam-tung-v/",
            "proposition": "Tung v. Ah Sam holds that, where not bound by prior decision, the High Court should ordinarily follow the Restatement of the Law in construing the common law — the general gap-filling route by which the Restatement reasonableness framework would reach an American Samoa non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In defining the common law, and where not bound otherwise by prior decision of this Court, it is ordinarily appropriate that the Restatement of the Law be followed in order to more nearly effect uniformity of decision.",
            "date": "1971-04-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-tung-restatement"
          },
          {
            "id": "ilalio-common-law",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio",
            "citation": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 1 (Trial Div. 1987).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/development-bank-v-ilalio/",
            "proposition": "Development Bank v. Ilalio confirms that the common law of contracts applies in American Samoa unless a territorial statute conflicts or local conditions make it unsuitable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The common law of contracts applies in American Samoa unless it conflicts with a territorial statute or is unsuitable to local conditions.",
            "date": "1987-07-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-ilalio-common-law"
          },
          {
            "id": "lindgren-covenant",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindgren v. Betham",
            "citation": "Lindgren v. Betham, 20 A.S.R.2d 98 (App. Div. 1992).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/lindgren-v-betham/",
            "proposition": "Lindgren v. Betham enforces a restrictive covenant in a lease and frames the rule as a duty to enforce unless enforcement would be inequitable or contrary to public policy — the nearest local statement of how the High Court treats restrictive covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "When presented with a violation of a restrictive covenant, courts are obligated to enforce the covenant unless the complaining party can show that enforcement would be inequitable or contrary to public policy.",
            "date": "1992-03-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-lindgren-covenant"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "statutory-silence",
        "label": "Does any statute govern non-competes?",
        "heading": "Does any American Samoa statute address non-competes?",
        "answerText": "No. The American Samoa Code Annotated has no chapter on restrictive covenants, employee mobility, or trade secrets, and the restraint-of-trade language that does appear in the code sits in sector-specific statutes, not in any employment provision. The nearest labor provision is a right-to-work rule about union membership, not competition.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asca-20-0401",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 20.0401 — Illegal trade restraints",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 20.0401.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/20-0401-illegal-trade-restraints/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 20.0401, the statute titled Illegal trade restraints, is limited to the transportation by water of passengers or freight — it is sector-specific maritime regulation that does not reach employment covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No person may directly or indirectly, in respect to the transportation by water of passengers or freight between a port or landing of American Samoa or between islands of American Samoa or between a port of American Samoa and a port of another country:",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-20-0401"
          },
          {
            "id": "asca-32-0104",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 32.0104 — Unlawful acts of employer",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 32.0104.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/32-0104-unlawful-acts-of-employer/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 32.0104, American Samoa's right-to-work provision, regulates compelled union membership and dues — not post-employment competition — confirming there is no statutory non-compete rule.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It is unlawful for any employer to: (1) require an employee, as a condition or employment or of continuance of employment, to be or become or remain a member or affiliate of a labor organization;",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-32-0104"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "consideration",
        "label": "What consideration is required?",
        "heading": "What consideration supports a non-compete, and what is the employment baseline?",
        "answerText": "There is no American Samoa authority on what consideration supports a non-compete or on whether continued employment alone suffices. The baseline is at-will employment, and a covenant extracted through an unfair bargaining process is exposed to the High Court's unconscionability doctrine.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "palelei-atwill",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Palelei v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc.",
            "citation": "Palelei v. Star-Kist Samoa, Inc., 5 A.S.R.2d 162 (Trial Div. 1987).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/5asr2d162/",
            "proposition": "Palelei v. Star-Kist establishes American Samoa's at-will baseline: absent a fixed term or contractual restriction on discharge, employment is at will.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the parties to an employment contract have neither fixed a definite term of employment nor created any contractual obstacle to the right of discretionary discharge, then the contract is for employment at will and the employer may discharge the employee without incurring liability.",
            "date": "1987-09-23",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-palelei-atwill"
          },
          {
            "id": "velega-atwill",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Velega v. Legislature of American Samoa",
            "citation": "Velega v. Legislature of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.3d 145 (Trial Div. 2000).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/4asr3d145/",
            "proposition": "Velega v. Legislature confirms the at-will presumption yields only to an express or implied contractual provision restricting the employer's right to terminate.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In American Samoa, employment is presumed to be at will, and the employee can be fired without just or good cause, unless there exists an express or implied contractual provision restricting the employer's rights to terminate the employee.",
            "date": "2000-04-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-velega-atwill"
          },
          {
            "id": "ilalio-unconscionability",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio",
            "citation": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 1 (Trial Div. 1987).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/development-bank-v-ilalio/",
            "proposition": "Development Bank v. Ilalio applies Restatement § 208 and holds a contract unenforceable for unconscionability only when both its substance and the bargaining process are unconscionable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A contract is ordinarily rendered unenforceable on the ground of unconscionability only when both its substance and the bargaining process leading up to it are unconscionable.",
            "date": "1987-07-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-ilalio-unconscionability"
          },
          {
            "id": "atofau-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Atofau v. Tuufuli",
            "citation": "Atofau v. Tuufuli, 2 A.S.R. 414 (1948).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/atofau-v-tuufuli/",
            "proposition": "Atofau v. Tuufuli holds that a gratuity cannot be turned into consideration by a subsequent promise to pay — the nearest local authority on what does not count as consideration.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Gratuity cannot be turned into consideration by subsequent promise to pay therefor so as to make valid contract, and promise to give land after receipt of gratuity is not enforceable.",
            "date": "1948-11-22",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-atofau-consideration"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will courts narrow an overbroad covenant?",
        "heading": "Will the High Court narrow an overbroad covenant, or void it?",
        "answerText": "The High Court may be open to narrowing it, but no American Samoa case has narrowed an employment covenant. On reconsideration of a defective-lease dispute, the court held that a court can excise illegal portions of a contract and enforce the remainder, or modify an illegal term to conform to law — citing a non-compete case as its authority.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "samoa-aviation-excise",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "American Samoa Gov't v. Samoa Aviation, Inc.",
            "citation": "American Samoa Gov't v. Samoa Aviation, Inc., 13 A.S.R.2d 65 (Trial Div. 1989) (on motions for new trial and modification).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/american-samoa-govt-v-samoa-aviation-inc-d96/",
            "proposition": "On reconsideration, American Samoa Gov't v. Samoa Aviation holds that a court can excise illegal portions of a contract and enforce the remainder, or modify an illegal term to conform to law — citing a covenant-not-to-compete case (Alston Studios) as authority.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Finally, it is well settled that a court can excise the illegal portions of a contract and enforce the remainder, with or without other compensating adjustments in the contractual obligations of the parties; or may modify an illegal term to make it conform to the law.",
            "date": "1989-12-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-samoa-aviation-excise"
          },
          {
            "id": "ilalio-partial",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio",
            "citation": "Development Bank of American Samoa v. Ilalio, 5 A.S.R.2d 1 (Trial Div. 1987).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/development-bank-v-ilalio/",
            "proposition": "Development Bank v. Ilalio applies Restatement § 208, which permits a court to enforce the remainder of a contract or limit an unconscionable term rather than void the whole agreement — support for partial enforcement of an overbroad covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A contract is ordinarily rendered unenforceable on the ground of unconscionability only when both its substance and the bargaining process leading up to it are unconscionable.",
            "date": "1987-07-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-ilalio-partial"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does the period toll during breach?",
        "heading": "Does the restricted period toll or extend if the employee breaches?",
        "answerText": "American Samoa law is silent. No statute or High Court decision addresses whether a non-compete clock pauses during a breach, during litigation, or during an injunction application — and the deep-research record finds no local authority on either contractual or equitable tolling. The prudent assumption is that a court will not pause the clock unless the contract says so, so any extension-on-breach must be drafted expressly.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asca-1-0201-tolling",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 — Laws applicable in American Samoa",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/1-0201-laws-applicable-in-american-samoa/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 imports the suitable common law of England, the channel through which a contractual tolling clause would be evaluated; there is no American Samoa authority recognizing judicial or equitable tolling of a covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "so much of the common law of England as is suitable to conditions in American Samoa and not inconsistent with this section.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-1-0201-tolling"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "remedies",
        "label": "What remedies can an employer get?",
        "heading": "What remedies can an employer obtain for a breach?",
        "answerText": "Injunctive relief is available but hard-won. American Samoa's injunction statutes require a substantial likelihood of success plus great or irreparable injury for a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction issues only after trial and only where money damages are inadequate.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asca-43-1301",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1301 — Injunctions: Definitions",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/43-1301-definitions/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1301(j) defines sufficient grounds for a preliminary injunction as a substantial likelihood of success plus great or irreparable injury before a full trial.",
            "verbatimQuote": "there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail at trial on the merits and that a permanent injunction will be issued against the opposing party; and (2) great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before a full and final trial can be fairly held on whether a permanent injunction should issue.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-43-1301"
          },
          {
            "id": "asca-43-1302",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1302 — Issuance of permanent injunction",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1302.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/43-1302-issuance-of-permanent-injunction/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 43.1302 allows a permanent injunction only after a full trial and only where a judgment for money damages would inadequately remedy the wrong.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A permanent injunction may be issued by a court having subject matter jurisdiction of the case and personal jurisdiction of the opposing party only after a full and final trial on the merits of the applicant's claim and determination that a judgment for money damages will inadequately remedy the complained of wrong.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-43-1302"
          },
          {
            "id": "drabble-standard",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Drabble v. Mikaele",
            "citation": "Drabble v. Mikaele (Land & Titles Div. 2004).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/drabble-v-mikaele/",
            "proposition": "Drabble v. Mikaele restates the preliminary-injunction test: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits plus great or irreparable harm before a full and final trial.",
            "verbatimQuote": "For a preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must show a substantial likelihood that he will prevail at trial on the merits and obtain a permanent injunction, and that he will suffer great or irreparable harm before a full and final trial can be fairly held on the requested permanent injunction.",
            "date": "2004-03-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-drabble-standard"
          },
          {
            "id": "leaana-punishment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Leaana v. Laban",
            "citation": "Leaana v. Laban, 12 A.S.R.2d 93 (Land & Titles Div. 1989).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/laban-leaana-v/",
            "proposition": "Leaana v. Laban holds that punishment is not the purpose of injunctive relief and denies an injunction that would serve only to punish a past breach.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Punishment is not the purpose behind injunctive relief.",
            "date": "1989-09-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-leaana-punishment"
          },
          {
            "id": "thompson-inadequacy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Thompson v. Toluao",
            "citation": "Thompson v. Toluao, 24 A.S.R.2d 127 (Land & Titles Div. 1993).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/24asr2d127/",
            "proposition": "Thompson v. Toluao makes the inadequacy of a remedy at law, usually money damages, the most distinguishing prerequisite of permanent injunctive relief.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As an equitable remedy, the most distinguishing prerequisite of permanent injunctive relief is the inadequacy of a remedy at law, usually money damages.",
            "date": "1993-08-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-thompson-inadequacy"
          },
          {
            "id": "moeai-punitive",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Moea'i v. Reid",
            "citation": "Moea'i v. Reid, 9 A.S.R.2d 48 (Trial Div. 1988).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/9asr2d48/",
            "proposition": "Moea'i v. Reid declines to apply a wage statute's punitive-damages provision to a contractual wage claim above the statutory minimum, illustrating that territorial punitive damages are statute-specific rather than generally available for contract breaches.",
            "verbatimQuote": "this provision does not apply to an action for breach of contract where, although the employee has not been paid, his contractual wage was higher than the statutory minimum.",
            "date": "1988-11-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-moeai-punitive"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "other-covenants",
        "label": "How are NDAs, non-solicits, and physician covenants treated?",
        "heading": "How are confidentiality clauses, non-solicits, physician, and sale-of-business covenants treated?",
        "answerText": "There is no American Samoa authority drawing distinct rules for non-solicitation, confidentiality, physician, or sale-of-business covenants. Each would be analyzed under the same imported reasonableness framework, with trade-secret confidentiality recognized in a limited agency-records regulation and sale-of-business covenants likely treated more leniently than employee restraints.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asac-24-0109",
            "authorityType": "regulation",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.A.C. § 24.0109 — Confidentiality of records (trade secrets)",
            "citation": "A.S.A.C. § 24.0109.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/24-0109-confidentiality-of-records-exceptions-in-government-usage/",
            "proposition": "A.S.A.C. § 24.0109 is a narrow agency-records exception: it directs the environmental Commission to keep submitted records confidential where disclosure would reveal trade secrets or adversely affect competitive position. It recognizes the value of trade secrets but is not a general trade-secret statute and does not govern employee confidentiality covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "would otherwise tend to affect adversely the competitive position of such person by revealing trade secrets, the Commission shall consider such record, report, information, or particular portion thereof confidential.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asac-24-0109"
          },
          {
            "id": "lindgren-covenant-2",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Lindgren v. Betham",
            "citation": "Lindgren v. Betham, 20 A.S.R.2d 98 (App. Div. 1992).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/lindgren-v-betham/",
            "proposition": "Lindgren v. Betham's equity-and-public-policy override is the local hook for the injury-to-the-public argument against enforcing a covenant that removes a scarce professional from the island economy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "When presented with a violation of a restrictive covenant, courts are obligated to enforce the covenant unless the complaining party can show that enforcement would be inequitable or contrary to public policy.",
            "date": "1992-03-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-lindgren-covenant-2"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "island-economy-public-policy",
        "label": "Why is enforcement harder in American Samoa?",
        "heading": "Why might enforcement be harder in American Samoa than on the mainland?",
        "answerText": "Two territorial features cut against aggressive covenants: a public policy that prioritizes the Samoan way of life, and a tiny island economy in which a territory-wide restraint can amount to banishment from the worker's profession. A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 imports only common law suitable to conditions in American Samoa, and § 1.0202 preserves Samoan custom.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tavai-policy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Tavai v. Silao",
            "citation": "Tavai v. Silao, 2 A.S.R.2d 1 (Land & Titles Div. 1981).",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/case-law/2asr2d1/",
            "proposition": "Tavai v. Silao describes the protection of the Samoan way of life as the court's primary responsibility, the public-policy lens through which A.S.C.A. § 1.0201's suitability limit is applied.",
            "verbatimQuote": "the protection of the Samoan way of life is the court's primary responsibility.",
            "date": "1981-02-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-tavai-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "asca-1-0202",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0202 — Preservation of Samoan customs",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0202.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/1-0202-preservation-of-samoan-customs/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0202 preserves the customs of the Samoan people where not in conflict with territorial or U.S. law, reinforcing the local-conditions limit on imported common law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The customs of the Samoan people not in conflict with the laws of American Samoa or the laws of the United States concerning American Samoa shall be preserved.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-1-0202"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "recent-developments",
        "label": "What recent changes matter?",
        "heading": "What recent developments should employers monitor?",
        "answerText": "As of June 3, 2026, nothing has displaced the imported-common-law framework. American Samoa's Fono has not enacted a non-compete statute, so A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 gap-filling still controls, and the vacated federal FTC Non-Compete Rule supplies no operative territorial rule.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "asca-1-0201-current",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 — Laws applicable in American Samoa",
            "citation": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201.",
            "url": "https://asbar.org/code-annotated/1-0201-laws-applicable-in-american-samoa/",
            "proposition": "A.S.C.A. § 1.0201 remains the governing framework as of 2026: with no Fono statute and no operative federal rule, American Samoa non-competes are decided under imported common law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "so much of the common law of England as is suitable to conditions in American Samoa and not inconsistent with this section.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/american-samoa#src-asca-1-0201-current"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}