{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "kentucky", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Kentucky", "description": "Kentucky enforces non-competes only when the restraint is reasonable under common law and supported by valid consideration, with a narrow statutory ban for temporary health care staffing.", "state": "Kentucky", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Kentucky enforces a non-compete only if it is supported by valid consideration and reasonable in scope; existing employees must get new consideration, and courts may blue-pencil overbroad terms.", "keyLaw": "common law (Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009); Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014))", "exceptions": "Temporary health-care staffing ban (KRS 216.724)", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Unsettled", "maxLength": "No statutory cap", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Reasonable geography may be supplied", "customerNonSolicit": "Often easier to enforce than trade-secret claim", "employeeNonSolicit": "Same Kegel reasonableness and Creech consideration rules; no on-point Kentucky case in our review" }, "about": [ "Kentucky non-compete agreements", "Kentucky restrictive covenants", "Charles T. Creech Inc. v. Brown consideration rule", "Kentucky non-compete reasonableness test", "Kentucky blue pencil reformation", "Kentucky health care staffing non-compete ban", "Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-kentucky" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Kentucky?", "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. Kentucky is a reasonableness state, not a general ban state. A non-compete is enforceable only if it is supported by valid consideration and is reasonable — affording fair protection to a legitimate employer interest without being so broad as to harm the public or impose undue hardship on the employee.", "sources": [ { "id": "kegel-reasonableness-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=agreements%20on%20restraint%20of%20trade,hardship%20on%20the%20party%20restricted.", "proposition": "Kegel restates Kentucky's common-law rule that a non-compete is reasonable only if it affords fair protection to the employer's interest without being so broad as to harm the public or impose undue hardship on the employee.", "verbatimQuote": "agreements on restraint of trade are reasonable if, “on consideration of the subject, nature of the business, situation of the parties and circumstances of the particular case, the restriction is such only as to afford fair protection to the interests of the covenan-tee and is not so large as to interfere with the public interests or impose undue hardship on the party restricted.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-kegel-reasonableness-test" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a Kentucky non-compete?", "answerText": "No, not by itself, for an existing employee. Since Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, requiring a current employee to sign a non-compete without giving anything new — no raise, promotion, or other benefit — fails for lack of consideration.", "sources": [ { "id": "creech-no-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown", "citation": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/#:~:text=Because%20the%20Agreement%20did%20not,Creech%2C%20there%20was%20no%20consideration.", "proposition": "Creech supports the rule that a non-compete fails for lack of consideration when the employer gives up no legal right and the employee receives nothing of value.", "verbatimQuote": "Because the Agreement did not require Creech to forbear the exercise of some legal right or otherwise result in some detriment to Creech, there was no consideration.", "date": "2014-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-creech-no-consideration" }, { "id": "creech-existing-employee-nothing", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown", "citation": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20Brown%20received%20no,after%20he%20signed%20the%20Agreement.", "proposition": "Creech supports that an existing employee who signs a covenant after hire must receive new consideration; continued employment with nothing more is insufficient.", "verbatimQuote": "In short, Brown received no consideration from Creech in exchange for signing the Agreement or after he signed the Agreement.", "date": "2014-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-creech-existing-employee-nothing" } ] }, { "slug": "protectable-interests", "label": "What interests are protectable?", "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a Kentucky non-compete?", "answerText": "Trade secrets, confidential information, and customer goodwill are the core interests that can justify a tailored Kentucky restraint, and the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act supplies the statutory trade-secret overlay.", "sources": [ { "id": "kutsa-trade-secret-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880", "citation": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(4).", "url": "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=34868", "proposition": "KRS 365.880 supports Kentucky's statutory trade-secret definition that operates alongside contractual restraints.", "verbatimQuote": "“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-kutsa-trade-secret-definition" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "How much time and territory are reasonable?", "heading": "What duration and geographic scope are reasonable for a Kentucky non-compete?", "answerText": "There is no statutory cap. Kentucky courts weigh duration, geography, the employer's protectable interest, the burden on the employee, and the public effect as a whole, rather than applying fixed numbers.", "sources": [ { "id": "creech-six-factor-proposed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown", "citation": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/#:~:text=In%20doing%20so%2C%20the%20Court%20proposed,of%20the%20Agreement%20is%20enforceable.", "proposition": "Creech notes that the Kentucky Court of Appeals proposed a six-factor reasonableness test for non-compete enforceability.", "verbatimQuote": "In doing so, the Court proposed a six factor test that should be applied by the trial court in determining whether the non-compete portion of the Agreement is enforceable.", "date": "2014-06-19", "pullQuoteLocator": "In doing so, the Court proposed|of the Agreement is enforceable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-creech-six-factor-proposed" }, { "id": "creech-consideration-only-issue", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown", "citation": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/#:~:text=Because%20we%20hold%20that%20this,the%20only%20issue%20we%20address.", "proposition": "Creech supports that the Kentucky Supreme Court resolved the case on consideration alone and did not adopt the Court of Appeals' six-factor test.", "verbatimQuote": "Because we hold that this Agreement was not supported by adequate consideration, that is the only issue we address.", "date": "2014-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-creech-consideration-only-issue" }, { "id": "q4-kegel-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=agreements%20on%20restraint%20of%20trade,hardship%20on%20the%20party%20restricted.", "proposition": "Kegel supports evaluating duration and territory under the general fair-protection standard rather than against fixed statutory caps.", "verbatimQuote": "agreements on restraint of trade are reasonable if, “on consideration of the subject, nature of the business, situation of the parties and circumstances of the particular case, the restriction is such only as to afford fair protection to the interests of the covenan-tee and is not so large as to interfere with the public interests or impose undue hardship on the party restricted.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-q4-kegel-reasonableness" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will Kentucky courts narrow overbroad covenants?", "heading": "Will a Kentucky court blue-pencil or reform an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Often, yes. Kentucky is a reformation jurisdiction: its courts have a blue-pencil power to reform or amend overly broad restrictions, and in some cases to supply a missing reasonable limit, rather than voiding the covenant outright.", "sources": [ { "id": "kegel-blue-pencil", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=our%20courts%20have%20adopted%20a,are%20overly%20broad%20or%20burdensome.", "proposition": "Kegel supports Kentucky's blue-pencil rule empowering courts to reform or amend overly broad non-compete restrictions.", "verbatimQuote": "our courts have adopted a “blue pencil” rule, whereby we are empowered to reform or amend restrictions in a non-compete clause if the initial restrictions are overly broad or burdensome.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-kegel-blue-pencil" }, { "id": "hodges-reformation-geography", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hodges v. Todd", "citation": "Hodges v. Todd, 698 S.W.2d 317 (Ky. App. 1985).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1781513/hodges-v-todd/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1781513/hodges-v-todd/#:~:text=we%20hold%20that%20the%20trial,time%20the%20contract%20was%20executed.", "proposition": "Hodges supports that a Kentucky court may supply a reasonable geographic limitation to enforce a covenant that omitted one, at least in the sale-of-business context.", "verbatimQuote": "we hold that the trial court had the authority to enforce the covenant by establishing a reasonable geographical limitation based on the intention of the parties at the time the contract was executed.", "date": "1985-05-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-hodges-reformation-geography" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "How are employee non-solicits treated?", "heading": "How does Kentucky treat employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Kentucky has no on-point employee non-solicit decision in our review, so the covenant would be treated as an ordinary restrictive covenant judged under the same Kegel reasonableness test and supported by valid consideration under Creech.", "sources": [ { "id": "ky-ens-kegel", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=agreements%20on%20restraint%20of%20trade,hardship%20on%20the%20party%20restricted.", "proposition": "Kegel restates Kentucky's common-law rule that a non-compete is reasonable only if it affords fair protection to the employer's interest without being so broad as to harm the public or impose undue hardship on the employee.", "verbatimQuote": "agreements on restraint of trade are reasonable if, “on consideration of the subject, nature of the business, situation of the parties and circumstances of the particular case, the restriction is such only as to afford fair protection to the interests of the covenan-tee and is not so large as to interfere with the public interests or impose undue hardship on the party restricted.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-ky-ens-kegel" }, { "id": "ky-ens-creech", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown", "citation": "Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown, 433 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5444327/charles-t-creech-inc-v-brown/#:~:text=Because%20the%20Agreement%20did%20not,Creech%2C%20there%20was%20no%20consideration.", "proposition": "Creech supports the rule that a non-compete fails for lack of consideration when the employer gives up no legal right and the employee receives nothing of value.", "verbatimQuote": "Because the Agreement did not require Creech to forbear the exercise of some legal right or otherwise result in some detriment to Creech, there was no consideration.", "date": "2014-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-ky-ens-creech" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does Kentucky toll a non-compete?", "heading": "Does a Kentucky non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?", "answerText": "This is an open Kentucky question. No staged Kentucky statute or appellate decision squarely endorses automatically tolling or extending the restricted period while the former employee is in breach or while litigation is pending.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-kegel-reasonableness-backdrop", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=agreements%20on%20restraint%20of%20trade,hardship%20on%20the%20party%20restricted.", "proposition": "Kegel supports applying Kentucky's reasonableness standard to any clause that extends the restricted period.", "verbatimQuote": "agreements on restraint of trade are reasonable if, “on consideration of the subject, nature of the business, situation of the parties and circumstances of the particular case, the restriction is such only as to afford fair protection to the interests of the covenan-tee and is not so large as to interfere with the public interests or impose undue hardship on the party restricted.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-q6-kegel-reasonableness-backdrop" }, { "id": "q6-kegel-blue-pencil", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kegel v. Tillotson", "citation": "Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=our%20courts%20have%20adopted%20a,are%20overly%20broad%20or%20burdensome.", "proposition": "Kegel supports that Kentucky courts reform overbroad restraints toward reasonableness rather than mechanically enlarging them, leaving tolling-on-breach unsettled.", "verbatimQuote": "our courts have adopted a “blue pencil” rule, whereby we are empowered to reform or amend restrictions in a non-compete clause if the initial restrictions are overly broad or burdensome.", "date": "2009-10-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-q6-kegel-blue-pencil" } ] }, { "slug": "industry-specific-limits", "label": "Which Kentucky workers have special limits?", "heading": "Which Kentucky workers have special non-compete limits?", "answerText": "Kentucky's one categorical statutory ban targets temporary health care staffing. KRS 216.724 voids non-compete and contract buy-out provisions between a health care services agency and its temporary direct care staff.", "sources": [ { "id": "krs-216-724-healthcare-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216.724", "citation": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216.724(1)(a).", "url": "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53778", "proposition": "KRS 216.724 bars a health care services agency from restricting the employment of temporary direct care staff through non-compete or buy-out clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "Restrict in any manner the employment opportunities of any temporary direct care staff that is contracted with or employed by the agency, including but not limited to contract buy-out provisions or contract non-compete clauses;", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-krs-216-724-healthcare-ban" }, { "id": "krs-216-724-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216.724", "citation": "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216.724(2).", "url": "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53778", "proposition": "KRS 216.724 makes a non-complying health care services agency contract an unfair trade practice and void.", "verbatimQuote": "Any contract between a health care services agency and temporary direct care staff that does not comply with subsection (1) of this section shall be considered an unfair trade practice and be void pursuant to KRS 365.060.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-krs-216-724-void" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-of-law", "label": "Will a Kentucky choice-of-law clause hold?", "heading": "Will a choice-of-law clause selecting Kentucky law be enforced?", "answerText": "Often, yes. Kentucky's moderate reformation approach makes Kentucky law a common pick for multi-state covenants, and courts — even in states that reject blue-penciling — have applied a contractual Kentucky choice-of-law clause and found Kentucky's rule not contrary to the forum's public policy.", "sources": [ { "id": "senture-applies-kentucky-law", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Senture, LLC v. Dietrich", "citation": "Senture, LLC v. Dietrich, 575 F. Supp. 2d 724 (E.D. Va. 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2465686/senture-llc-v-dietrich/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2465686/senture-llc-v-dietrich/#:~:text=With%20respect%20to%20the%20first,Kentucky%20law%20to%20this%20case.", "proposition": "Senture supports that a court will apply Kentucky law to a non-compete under the agreement's choice-of-law and forum-selection clause.", "verbatimQuote": "With respect to the first issue, this Court will apply Kentucky law to this case.", "date": "2008-09-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-senture-applies-kentucky-law" }, { "id": "edwards-public-policy-not-repugnant", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Edwards Moving & Rigging, Inc. v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection, Inc.", "citation": "Edwards Moving & Rigging, Inc. v. W.O. Grubb Steel Erection, Inc., No. 3:12CV146-HEH (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2012).", "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ae80add7b04934747bf6", "proposition": "Edwards Moving supports enforcing a Kentucky choice-of-law clause because Kentucky's blue-penciling rule is not so repugnant to the forum's public policy as to override the parties' choice.", "verbatimQuote": "Applying the law of a state that allows “blue penciling” is not so repugnant to Virginia public policy as to overcome Virginia's preference for enforcing choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses.", "date": "2012-04-23", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-edwards-public-policy-not-repugnant" } ] }, { "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay", "label": "Did the FTC rule change Kentucky law?", "heading": "Did the FTC's federal non-compete rule change Kentucky non-compete law?", "answerText": "No. The FTC's 2024 nationwide Non-Compete Rule was set aside by a federal court before it took effect, so Kentucky non-competes remain governed by Kentucky common law and the state's narrow statutory carve-out.", "sources": [ { "id": "ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission", "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=The%20Non%2DCompete%20Rule%2C%2016%20C.F.R.,September%204%2C%202024%2C%20or%20thereafter.", "proposition": "Ryan supports the rule that the FTC Non-Compete Rule was set aside and did not take effect.", "verbatimQuote": "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.", "date": "2024-08-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-ryan-ftc-rule-set-aside" }, { "id": "ryan-ftc-unlawful", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission", "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20the%20Court%20concludes%20that,Rule%20is%20arbitrary%20and%20capricious.", "proposition": "Ryan supports the federal court's holding that the FTC lacked statutory authority and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.", "verbatimQuote": "In sum, the Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non- Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious.", "date": "2024-08-20", "pullQuoteLocator": "In sum, the Court concludes that|Rule is arbitrary and capricious.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-ryan-ftc-unlawful" } ] }, { "slug": "pending-reform", "label": "What reform efforts should employers watch?", "heading": "What recent Kentucky non-compete reform efforts should employers watch?", "answerText": "None is currently law. Kentucky's most recent reform efforts, House Bill 690 and Senate Bill 234 in the 2025 session, would have restricted non-competes for lower-wage and other workers, but both died without enactment.", "sources": [ { "id": "hb690-wage-threshold", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "An Act relating to contracts (H.B. 690)", "citation": "H.B. 690, 2025 Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2025).", "url": "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/25RS/hb690/orig_bill.pdf", "proposition": "HB 690, the 2025 reform bill that did not pass, would have barred non-competes against lower-wage covered employees.", "verbatimQuote": "No employer shall enter into, enforce, or threaten to enforce a covenant not to compete with any covered employee.", "date": "2025-02-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky#src-hb690-wage-threshold" } ] } ] } }