{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "florida", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Florida", "description": "Florida enforces non-competes by statute and is among the most employer-friendly states, requiring a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a separate 2025 CHOICE Act track for high earners.", "state": "Florida", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Among the most employer-friendly states — enforceable with a legitimate business interest and reasonable terms, with a 2025 CHOICE Act high-earner track.", "keyLaw": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "exceptions": "Specialist-physician ban in monopolized counties (§ 542.336)", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "yes", "extendedForBreach": "Not addressed by statute", "maxLength": "No hard cap; over 2 years presumed unreasonable for employees", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "3 years presumed reasonable; over 7 years presumed unreasonable", "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies", "employeeNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies", "employerPayToEnforce": "optionalPaidTrack" }, "about": [ "Florida non-compete agreements", "Florida restrictive covenants", "Florida Statutes section 542.335", "Florida CHOICE Act", "Florida garden leave agreements", "Florida physician non-compete carve-out", "Florida non-compete blue-pencil reformation", "Florida non-compete consideration" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-florida" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Florida?", "answerText": "Yes. Florida is one of the most employer-friendly non-compete states in the country. Every restraint of trade is unlawful as a baseline, but section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes creates a broad statutory exception: a restrictive covenant is enforceable when it is in a signed writing, justified by a legitimate business interest, and reasonably necessary to protect that interest in time, area, and line of business.", "sources": [ { "id": "q1-542018-baseline", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.18", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.18 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.18", "proposition": "Section 542.18 sets Florida's baseline that every contract in restraint of trade is unlawful, the rule section 542.335 carves out for valid restrictive covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-542018-baseline" }, { "id": "q1-542335-intro", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Section 542.335 makes restrictive covenants enforceable when reasonable in time, area, and line of business, notwithstanding the general bar on restraints of trade.", "verbatimQuote": "enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-542335-intro" }, { "id": "q1-542335-writing", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A Florida restrictive covenant is unenforceable unless it is in a signed writing.", "verbatimQuote": "A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-542335-writing" }, { "id": "q1-542335-necessary", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "The enforcing party must also plead and prove that the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest.", "verbatimQuote": "A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-542335-necessary" }, { "id": "q1-henao-framework", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Henao v. Professional Shoe Repair, Inc.", "citation": "Henao v. Prof'l Shoe Repair, Inc., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1825627/henao-v-professional-shoe-repair-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1825627/henao-v-professional-shoe-repair-inc/#:~:text=Section%20542.335%20contains%20a%20comprehensive,on%20an%20%22unfair%20competition%22%20analysis.", "proposition": "Henao describes section 542.335 as a comprehensive statutory framework for enforcing restrictive covenants based on an unfair-competition approach.", "verbatimQuote": "Section 542.335 contains a comprehensive framework for analyzing, evaluating and enforcing restrictive covenants in Florida based on an \"unfair competition\" analysis.", "date": "2006-05-26", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-henao-framework" }, { "id": "q1-choice-fallback", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(e) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "A covenant that does not meet the CHOICE Act definitions is governed by the traditional section 542.335 standard, confirming the two-track structure.", "verbatimQuote": "Any action regarding a restrictive covenant that does not meet the definition of a covered garden leave agreement or a covered noncompete agreement as provided in this part is governed by s. 542.335.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q1-choice-fallback" } ] }, { "slug": "legitimate-business-interest", "label": "What interests are protectable?", "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a Florida non-compete?", "answerText": "The enforcing party must plead and prove a legitimate business interest, and a covenant supported by none is void. The statute lists trade secrets, other valuable confidential information, substantial relationships with specific customers or patients, customer goodwill, and extraordinary or specialized training — but the list is illustrative, not exhaustive.", "sources": [ { "id": "q2-542335-lbi-list", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "The enforcing party must plead and prove one or more legitimate business interests justifying the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q2-542335-lbi-list" }, { "id": "q2-542335-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)5 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is void and unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "Any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q2-542335-void" }, { "id": "q2-white-referral", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC", "citation": "White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4426106/sc16-400-elizabeth-white-v-mederi-caretenders-visiting-services-of/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4426106/sc16-400-elizabeth-white-v-mederi-caretenders-visiting-services-of/#:~:text=In%20light%20of%20the%20foregoing%2C,the%20context%20and%20proof%20adduced.", "proposition": "White holds the statutory list of legitimate business interests is non-exhaustive and that referral sources can qualify, depending on context and proof.", "verbatimQuote": "In light of the foregoing, we conclude that home health service referral sources may be a protected legitimate business interest within the meaning of section 542.335, depending upon the context and proof adduced.", "date": "2017-09-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q2-white-referral" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "How long can a non-compete last?", "heading": "How long can a Florida non-compete last?", "answerText": "Under section 542.335, duration is governed by rebuttable presumptions that vary by context. Against a former employee, a restraint of six months or less is presumed reasonable and one longer than two years is presumed unreasonable. The window widens for the sale of a business and for covenants predicated on trade secrets, where five years or less is presumed reasonable.", "sources": [ { "id": "q3-542335-employee-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)1 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Against a former employee, a restraint of six months or less is presumed reasonable and one over two years is presumed unreasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q3-542335-employee-presumption" }, { "id": "q3-542335-distributor-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)2 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Against a former distributor, dealer, franchisee, or licensee of a trademark or service mark, a restraint of one year or less is presumed reasonable and one over three years presumed unreasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 1 year or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 3 years in duration.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q3-542335-distributor-presumption" }, { "id": "q3-542335-sale-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)3 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Against the seller of a business or equity interest, a restraint of three years or less is presumed reasonable and one over seven years presumed unreasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 3 years or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 7 years in duration.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q3-542335-sale-presumption" }, { "id": "q3-542335-tradesecret-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(e) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A covenant predicated on trade-secret protection is presumed reasonable up to five years and unreasonable beyond ten years.", "verbatimQuote": "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint of 5 years or less and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint of more than 10 years.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q3-542335-tradesecret-presumption" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will a court rewrite an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will a Florida court rewrite an overbroad non-compete instead of voiding it?", "answerText": "Yes — reformation is mandatory. If a restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise broader than necessary, section 542.335 directs the court to modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest, rather than strike the covenant entirely.", "sources": [ { "id": "q4-542335-modify", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Florida courts must modify an overbroad restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary, rather than voiding the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "If a contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q4-542335-modify" } ] }, { "slug": "economic-hardship", "label": "Does employee hardship matter?", "heading": "Can a Florida court refuse to enforce a non-compete because of hardship to the employee?", "answerText": "No. Section 542.335 expressly forbids a court from weighing the individualized economic or other hardship enforcement might cause the restrained person. The same subsection directs courts to construe covenants in favor of protecting the employer's interests, not narrowly against the drafter.", "sources": [ { "id": "q5-542335-hardship", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(g)1 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A court determining enforceability may not consider individualized economic or other hardship to the person against whom enforcement is sought.", "verbatimQuote": "Shall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q5-542335-hardship" }, { "id": "q5-542335-construe", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(h) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Courts must construe restrictive covenants in favor of protecting the enforcing party's legitimate business interests, not narrowly against the drafter.", "verbatimQuote": "A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q5-542335-construe" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-act-high-earners", "label": "What did the 2025 CHOICE Act change?", "heading": "What did the 2025 CHOICE Act change for high earners?", "answerText": "The CHOICE Act, effective July 1, 2025, created a second, even more employer-favorable track for high-earning covered employees — those earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county. It authorizes covered non-competes of up to four years and garden leave agreements of up to four years, and it makes a preliminary injunction mandatory on an employer's application.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-choice-effective", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.41", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.41 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.41", "proposition": "Sections 542.41-542.45 are the CHOICE Act, Florida's high-earner restrictive-covenant statute.", "verbatimQuote": "This part may be cited as the “Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act.”", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-choice-effective" }, { "id": "q6-543-covered-employee", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43(3) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.43", "proposition": "A covered employee under the CHOICE Act earns more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county.", "verbatimQuote": "earns or is reasonably expected to earn a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the county in this state in which the covered employer has its principal place of business", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-543-covered-employee" }, { "id": "q6-543-covered-noncompete", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43(6) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.43", "proposition": "A covered non-compete under the CHOICE Act may last up to four years within a defined geographic area.", "verbatimQuote": "for a period not to exceed 4 years and within the geographic area defined in the agreement, the covered employee agrees not to assume a role", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-543-covered-noncompete" }, { "id": "q6-544-garden-leave", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.44", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.44(2)(c)1 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.44", "proposition": "Under a covered garden leave agreement, after the first 90 days of the notice period the employee need not provide services to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "After the first 90 days of the notice period, the covered employee does not have to provide services to the covered employer", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-544-garden-leave" }, { "id": "q6-544-outside-work", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.44", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.44(2)(c)3 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.44", "proposition": "During garden leave the employee may work for another employer only with the covered employer's permission.", "verbatimQuote": "The covered employee may, with the permission of the covered employer, work for another employer while still employed by the covered employer during the remainder of the notice period", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-544-outside-work" }, { "id": "q6-545-fully-enforceable", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "A compliant covered non-compete is fully enforceable according to its terms and does not violate public policy.", "verbatimQuote": "is fully enforceable according to its terms", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-545-fully-enforceable" }, { "id": "q6-545-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(3)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "A covered employer must give a prospective covered employee the proposed non-compete at least seven days before the offer expires.", "verbatimQuote": "A prospective covered employee at least 7 days before an offer of employment expires", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-545-notice" }, { "id": "q6-545-counsel", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "A covered non-compete is enforceable only if the employee was advised in writing of the right to seek counsel before execution and given the required notice.", "verbatimQuote": "A covered employee was advised, in writing, of the right to seek counsel before execution of the covered noncompete agreement and was provided notice as described in subsection (3)", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-545-counsel" }, { "id": "q6-545-offset", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(2)(c) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "A covered non-compete must reduce its noncompete period day-for-day by any nonworking portion of a garden-leave notice period, so the two do not stack.", "verbatimQuote": "A covered noncompete agreement provides that the noncompete period is reduced day-for-day by any nonworking portion of the notice period", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-545-offset" }, { "id": "q6-545-injunction", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "On a covered employer's application, the court must preliminarily enjoin the covered employee during the noncompete period.", "verbatimQuote": "a court must preliminarily enjoin a covered employee from providing services to any business, entity, or individual other than the covered employer during the noncompete period.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-545-injunction" }, { "id": "q6-effective-law", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ch. 2025-213, Laws of Fla. (Florida CHOICE Act)", "citation": "Ch. 2025-213, Laws of Fla., § 22.", "url": "https://laws.flrules.org/2025/213", "proposition": "The CHOICE Act took effect July 1, 2025.", "verbatimQuote": "This act shall take effect July 1, 2025.", "date": "2025-07-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q6-effective-law" } ] }, { "slug": "physician-healthcare", "label": "Are physician non-competes different?", "heading": "Are physician and health care non-competes treated differently in Florida?", "answerText": "Yes, in two ways. Section 542.336 voids a specialist physician's non-compete in any county where a single entity employs or contracts with all physicians in that specialty, and keeps it void for three years after a second entity enters the market. Separately, the CHOICE Act's high-earner track excludes health care practitioners entirely, so their covenants stay under the ordinary section 542.335 standard.", "sources": [ { "id": "q7-542336-trigger", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.336", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.336 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.336", "proposition": "Section 542.336 voids a specialist physician's covenant where one entity employs or contracts with all physicians in that specialty in the county, as unsupported by a legitimate business interest.", "verbatimQuote": "A restrictive covenant entered into with a physician who is licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 and who practices a medical specialty in a county wherein one entity employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, all physicians who practice such specialty in that county is not supported by a legitimate business interest.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q7-542336-trigger" }, { "id": "q7-542336-physician", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.336", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.336 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.336", "proposition": "Section 542.336 voids a specialist physician's non-compete in a county where one entity employs all physicians in that specialty, and for three years after a second entity enters.", "verbatimQuote": "Such restrictive covenants shall remain void and unenforceable for 3 years after the date on which a second entity that employs or contracts with, either directly or through related or affiliated entities, one or more physicians who practice such specialty begins offering such specialty services in that county.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q7-542336-physician" }, { "id": "q7-543-healthcare-exclusion", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.43(3) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.43", "proposition": "The CHOICE Act's definition of covered employee excludes health care practitioners, so their covenants remain under section 542.335.", "verbatimQuote": "The term does not include a person classified as a health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q7-543-healthcare-exclusion" } ] }, { "slug": "non-solicitation-no-hire", "label": "How are non-solicits and no-hire clauses treated?", "heading": "How are non-solicitation and no-hire clauses treated in Florida?", "answerText": "Section 542.335 governs all restrictive covenants, so customer non-solicitation, non-dealing, and employee no-hire clauses are analyzed under the same legitimate-business-interest and reasonableness framework as non-competes. Florida courts apply that framework both to enforce these covenants and, where the facts require, to narrow or decline to enforce them.", "sources": [ { "id": "q8-balasco-nohire", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc.", "citation": "Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1671732/balasco-v-gulf-auto-holding-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1671732/balasco-v-gulf-auto-holding-inc/#:~:text=We%20agree%20that%20the%20agreement,no%20more%20than%20two%20years.", "proposition": "Balasco enforced an employee anti-piracy (no-hire) covenant but reduced its three-year term to two years under the duration presumption.", "verbatimQuote": "We agree that the agreement is enforceable but remand to shorten the period of restraint to no more than two years.", "date": "1998-03-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q8-balasco-nohire" }, { "id": "q8-carter-nonsolicit", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Environmental Services, Inc. v. Carter", "citation": "Env't Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1645720/environmental-services-inc-v-carter/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1645720/environmental-services-inc-v-carter/#:~:text=While%20the%20court%20ruled%20that,without%20any%20solicitation%20from%20them.", "proposition": "Carter shows a customer non-solicitation covenant can be valid yet go unenforced where the clients sought out the employees without any solicitation.", "verbatimQuote": "While the court ruled that the non-solicitation covenant was valid, it refused to enforce that covenant, finding that ESI’s clients sought out Carter and Hannon without any solicitation from them.", "date": "2009-04-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q8-carter-nonsolicit" }, { "id": "q8-choice-other-agreements", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(e) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "The CHOICE Act addresses covered non-competes and garden leave but leaves other agreements, such as non-solicits, to fall back on section 542.335.", "verbatimQuote": "Any action regarding a restrictive covenant that does not meet the definition of a covered garden leave agreement or a covered noncompete agreement as provided in this part is governed by s. 542.335.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q8-choice-other-agreements" }, { "id": "q8-542335-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)1 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Under section 542.335, an employee restraint over two years is presumed unreasonable, the default that governs non-solicits outside the CHOICE Act.", "verbatimQuote": "a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q8-542335-presumption" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Florida non-compete?", "answerText": "Yes. Florida courts treat continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration, so an employee can be bound by a non-compete signed months or years after the hire date. No separate signing bonus, raise, or promotion is required.", "sources": [ { "id": "q9-omi-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Open Magnetic Imaging, Inc. v. Nieves-Garcia", "citation": "Open Magnetic Imaging, Inc. v. Nieves-Garcia, 826 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1630166/omi-inc-v-nieves-garcia/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1630166/omi-inc-v-nieves-garcia/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20we%20have%20located,it%20after%20employment%20has%20commenced.", "proposition": "Open Magnetic Imaging confirms Florida courts will enforce a non-compete executed after employment began, treating continued employment as sufficient.", "verbatimQuote": "In fact, we have located no Florida decision to date which has declined to enforce a non-compete agreement by virtue of the fact that an employee has been required to execute it after employment has commenced.", "date": "2002-08-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q9-omi-consideration" }, { "id": "q9-545-consideration", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(5)(a)2 (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "Under the CHOICE Act, the employer's failure to pay the agreed consideration after a chance to cure is a ground to dissolve the mandatory injunction.", "verbatimQuote": "The covered employer has failed to pay or provide the consideration provided for in the covered noncompete agreement and has had a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q9-545-consideration" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does the clock pause during a breach?", "heading": "Does a Florida non-compete period pause or extend if the employee breaches or litigates?", "answerText": "Section 542.335 does not expressly address tolling — it neither requires nor forbids extending the restricted period for the time a former employee was in breach. What the statute does provide is a strong enforcement remedy: a violation creates a presumption of irreparable injury, and courts enforce covenants by injunction.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-542335-injunction", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Section 542.335 provides injunctive enforcement and a presumption of irreparable injury on violation, but does not address tolling or extension of the restricted period.", "verbatimQuote": "The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q10-542335-injunction" } ] }, { "slug": "injunctions-fees", "label": "How do courts enforce and award fees?", "heading": "How do Florida courts enforce non-competes, and who pays attorney's fees?", "answerText": "Courts enforce restrictive covenants by injunction, and a violation of an enforceable covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury — a major advantage for employers seeking emergency relief. The prevailing party can recover attorney's fees and costs even without a fee clause, and any contractual provision limiting that authority is unenforceable.", "sources": [ { "id": "q11-542335-injunction", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "Courts enforce restrictive covenants by injunction, and a violation creates a presumption of irreparable injury.", "verbatimQuote": "The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q11-542335-injunction" }, { "id": "q11-542335-fees", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(k) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A court may award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in a restrictive-covenant action even without a contractual fee provision.", "verbatimQuote": "a court may award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action seeking enforcement of, or challenging the enforceability of, a restrictive covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q11-542335-fees" }, { "id": "q11-542335-bond", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335", "proposition": "A temporary injunction requires a proper bond, and a contractual waiver of the bond requirement is unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "No temporary injunction shall be entered unless the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant gives a proper bond", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q11-542335-bond" }, { "id": "q11-depuy-injunction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman", "citation": "DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5061403/depuy-orthopaedics-inc-v-waxman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5061403/depuy-orthopaedics-inc-v-waxman/#:~:text=we%20reverse%20the%20trial%20court%E2%80%99s,a%20temporary%20injunction%20against%20Appellees", "proposition": "DePuy reversed a denial of a temporary injunction, applying section 542.335's presumption of irreparable injury for the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "we reverse the trial court’s order denying DePuy’s motion for temporary injunction and remand with instructions to enter a temporary injunction against Appellees", "date": "2012-08-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q11-depuy-injunction" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-of-law-multistate", "label": "Will Florida non-competes be enforced out of state?", "heading": "Will a Florida non-compete be enforced across state lines?", "answerText": "Florida law strongly favors its own enforcement standard — the CHOICE Act even applies to a covered employee whose primary place of work is Florida regardless of any applicable choice of law provisions. But another state can refuse to apply Florida law where it conflicts with that state's public policy.", "sources": [ { "id": "q12-545-applicability", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.45(1)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.45", "proposition": "The CHOICE Act applies to a covered employee whose primary place of work is Florida regardless of any applicable choice-of-law provision.", "verbatimQuote": "A covered noncompete agreement with a covered employee who maintains a primary place of work in this state, regardless of any applicable choice of law provisions", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q12-545-applicability" }, { "id": "q12-brown-publicpolicy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson", "citation": "Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson, 25 N.Y.3d 364 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2807346/brown-brown-v-theresa-a-johnson/#:~:text=On%20this%20appeal%2C%20we%20hold,public%20policy%20of%20this%20state.", "proposition": "Brown & Brown shows a sister state (New York) may refuse to apply Florida non-compete law where it conflicts with that state's public policy.", "verbatimQuote": "On this appeal, we hold that applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state.", "date": "2015-06-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q12-brown-publicpolicy" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets", "label": "How do trade secrets interact?", "heading": "How do trade secrets and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act interact with non-competes?", "answerText": "Trade secrets are both a listed legitimate business interest under section 542.335 and independently protectable under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (FUTSA). FUTSA defines a trade secret, authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation, and — importantly — preserves contractual remedies even though it displaces conflicting tort law.", "sources": [ { "id": "q13-688002-def", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 688.002", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 688.002(4) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/688.002", "proposition": "FUTSA defines a trade secret as information deriving independent economic value from secrecy and subject to reasonable secrecy efforts.", "verbatimQuote": "“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q13-688002-def" }, { "id": "q13-688003-injunction", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 688.003", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 688.003(1) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/688.003", "proposition": "FUTSA authorizes injunctive relief for actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q13-688003-injunction" }, { "id": "q13-688008-contract", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Fla. Stat. § 688.008", "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 688.008(2)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/688.008", "proposition": "FUTSA preserves contractual remedies even though it displaces conflicting tort and restitutionary trade-secret remedies.", "verbatimQuote": "Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q13-688008-contract" } ] }, { "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay", "label": "Does the FTC non-compete ban apply?", "heading": "Does the FTC non-compete ban affect Florida?", "answerText": "No. The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 Non-Compete Rule never took effect: federal courts set it aside, the FTC acceded to vacatur, and in February 2026 the Commission formally removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Florida's statutes are the operative law.", "sources": [ { "id": "q14-fr-removal", "authorityType": "regulation", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Removal of the Non-Compete Rule (16 CFR Part 910)", "citation": "Removal of the Non-Compete Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026).", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/12/2026-02866/revision-of-the-negative-option-rule-withdrawal-of-the-cars-rule-removal-of-the-non-compete-rule-to", "proposition": "Federal courts set aside the FTC's 2024 Non-Compete Rule, and the FTC removed it from the CFR to conform, leaving state law to govern.", "verbatimQuote": "In the third case, the court held that the Non-Compete Rule was unlawful and set it aside.", "date": "2026-02-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida#src-q14-fr-removal" } ] } ] } }