{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "missouri",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in Missouri",
      "description": "Missouri enforces non-competes only when the restraint is reasonable and tied to protecting trade secrets or customer contacts, with separate statutory safe harbors for non-solicitation and owner covenants.",
      "state": "Missouri",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "Missouri enforces a non-compete only to the extent it is reasonable and protects the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition, with the employer bearing the burden.",
        "keyLaw": "Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006)",
        "exceptions": "Employee no-hire/anti-raiding safe harbor (§ 431.202, ≤1 yr); owner/sale covenants (§ 431.204); no physician statutory cap",
        "courtNarrowing": "rewrite",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Not addressed",
        "maxLength": "No statutory limit (~2 yrs commonly within range)",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Allowed — owner/sale covenants (§ 431.204)",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Safe harbor — § 431.202, up to 1 year"
      },
      "about": [
        "Missouri non-compete agreements",
        "Missouri restrictive covenants",
        "Healthcare Services of the Ozarks v. Copeland reasonableness test",
        "Missouri non-solicitation safe harbor section 431.202",
        "Missouri owner covenant statute section 431.204",
        "Missouri non-compete consideration Baker Durrell",
        "Missouri 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-missouri"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Missouri?",
        "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. Missouri is a reasonableness state, not a general ban state. A non-compete is enforceable only if it is reasonable — no more restrictive than necessary — and only to the extent it protects the employer's trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "copeland-reasonable-standard",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland",
            "citation": "Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/#:~:text=In%20practical%20terms%2C%20a%20non%2Dcompete,legitimate%20interests%20of%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Copeland states Missouri's core rule that a non-compete is reasonable only if no more restrictive than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In practical terms, a non-compete agreement is reasonable if it is no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.",
            "date": "2006-08-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-copeland-reasonable-standard"
          },
          {
            "id": "copeland-mere-competition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland",
            "citation": "Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20such%20restrictions%20are,trade%20secrets%20or%20customer%20contacts.",
            "proposition": "Copeland limits enforceable restraints to those protecting trade secrets or customer contacts, not mere competition.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In addition, such restrictions are not enforceable to protect an employer from mere competition by a former employee, but only to the extent that the restrictions protect the employer’s trade secrets or customer contacts.",
            "date": "2006-08-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-copeland-mere-competition"
          },
          {
            "id": "yates-presumptively-void",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Payroll Advance, Inc. v. Yates",
            "citation": "Payroll Advance, Inc. v. Yates, 270 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1590178/payroll-advance-inc-v-yates/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1590178/payroll-advance-inc-v-yates/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20because%20covenants%20not%20to,that%20they%20are%20demonstratively%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "Yates states that non-competes are presumptively void restraints on trade, enforceable only to the extent demonstrably reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Generally, because covenants not to compete are considered to be restraints on trade, they are presumptively void and are enforceable only to the extent that they are demonstratively reasonable.",
            "date": "2008-11-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-yates-presumptively-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "whelan-employer-burden",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew",
            "citation": "Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/#:~:text=The%20employer%20has%20the%20burden,to%20time%20and%20geographic%20space.",
            "proposition": "Whelan places the burden on the employer to prove the covenant protects trade secrets or customer contacts and is reasonable in time and geography.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employer has the burden to prove that the non-compete agreement protects its legitimate interests in trade secrets or customer contacts and that the agreement is reasonable as to time and geographic space.",
            "date": "2012-08-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-whelan-employer-burden"
          },
          {
            "id": "restraint-of-trade-backdrop",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 416.031(1).",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=416.031",
            "proposition": "Section 416.031 declares contracts in restraint of trade unlawful, the policy backdrop for analyzing restrictive covenants.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.",
            "date": "1974-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-restraint-of-trade-backdrop"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "protectable-interests",
        "label": "What interests are protectable?",
        "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a Missouri non-compete?",
        "answerText": "For an ordinary employee non-compete, only two: trade secrets and customer contacts. Missouri courts have carved out these narrow exceptions to the rule against restraints on trade, and the covenant must be tied to one of them.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "copeland-two-interests",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland",
            "citation": "Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/#:~:text=Missouri%20courts%20have%20carved%20out,trade%20secrets%20and%20customer%20contacts.",
            "proposition": "Copeland recognizes only trade secrets and customer contacts as protectable interests for a Missouri non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Missouri courts have carved out narrow exceptions for trade secrets and customer contacts.",
            "date": "2006-08-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-copeland-two-interests"
          },
          {
            "id": "paradise-two-interests",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc.",
            "citation": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/#:~:text=Missouri%20recognizes%20two%20legitimate%20business,trade%20secrets%20and%20customer%20contacts.",
            "proposition": "Paradise restates that Missouri recognizes two legitimate business interests: trade secrets and customer contacts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Missouri recognizes two legitimate business interests: trade secrets and customer contacts.",
            "date": "2010-03-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-paradise-two-interests"
          },
          {
            "id": "osage-customer-contacts",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan",
            "citation": "Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71 (Mo. banc 1985).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1781769/osage-glass-inc-v-donovan/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1781769/osage-glass-inc-v-donovan/#:~:text=If%20the%20covenant%20is%20lawful,customers%20exists%2C%20enforcement%20is%20appropriate.",
            "proposition": "Osage Glass holds a covenant may be enforced where the employee had substantial customer contacts and an opportunity to influence customers.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the covenant is lawful and the opportunity for influencing customers exists, enforcement is appropriate.",
            "date": "1985-08-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-osage-customer-contacts"
          },
          {
            "id": "paradise-no-actual-solicitation",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc.",
            "citation": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/#:~:text=An%20employer%20is%20not%20required,violation%20of%20the%20non%2Dcompete%20agreement.",
            "proposition": "Paradise holds the employer need not show actual solicitation to enforce a covenant protecting customer contacts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer is not required to show actual solicitation or a willful violation of the non-compete agreement.",
            "date": "2010-03-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-paradise-no-actual-solicitation"
          },
          {
            "id": "mutsa-trade-secret-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.453",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.453(4).",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=417.453",
            "proposition": "Section 417.453 defines a trade secret as information deriving independent economic value from secrecy and subject to reasonable secrecy efforts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "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.",
            "date": "1995-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-mutsa-trade-secret-definition"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "non-solicitation-431-202",
        "label": "How are non-solicitation covenants treated?",
        "heading": "How does Missouri treat employee no-hire and customer non-solicitation covenants?",
        "answerText": "They follow two different tracks. Covenants not to solicit, recruit, or hire the employer's own workforce have a statutory safe harbor under section 431.202 — conclusively presumed reasonable if their post-employment duration is no more than one year — while covenants not to solicit customers are judged under the common-law reasonableness test.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "section-431-202-presumption",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202.2.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.202",
            "proposition": "Section 431.202 conclusively presumes a qualifying employee no-hire/anti-raiding covenant reasonable if its post-employment duration is no more than one year.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Whether a covenant covered by this section is reasonable shall be determined based upon the facts and circumstances pertaining to such covenant, but a covenant covered exclusively by subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection 1 of this section shall be conclusively presumed to be reasonable if its postemployment duration is no more than one year.",
            "date": "2001-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-202-presumption"
          },
          {
            "id": "section-431-202-clerical",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202.1(4).",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.202",
            "proposition": "Section 431.202's one-year safe harbor for covenants resting on no separate protectable interest excludes purely secretarial or clerical employees.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Between an employer and one or more employees, notwithstanding the absence of the protectable interests described in subdivision (3) of this subsection, so long as such covenant does not continue for more than one year following the employee's employment; provided, however, that this subdivision shall not apply to covenants signed by employees who provide only secretarial or clerical services.",
            "date": "2001-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-202-clerical"
          },
          {
            "id": "whelan-customer-overbroad",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew",
            "citation": "Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/#:~:text=As%20written%2C%20the%20customer%20non%2Dsolicitation,legitimate%20interest%20in%20customer%20contacts.",
            "proposition": "Whelan held, under common law, that a customer non-solicitation clause was overbroad as written because it reached beyond the employer's legitimate customer-contacts interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As written, the customer non-solicitation clauses are more broad than necessary to protect Whelan’s legitimate interest in customer contacts.",
            "date": "2012-08-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-whelan-customer-overbroad"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "consideration",
        "label": "What consideration is required?",
        "heading": "What consideration is required to support a Missouri non-compete?",
        "answerText": "This is unsettled. Missouri appellate cases have treated continued at-will employment plus access to the employer's customers or trade secrets as adequate consideration, but the Missouri Supreme Court's reasoning that an at-will promise is illusory — and a federal court applying it to a non-compete — has cast real doubt on relying on continued employment alone.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "jumbosack-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "JumboSack Corp. v. Buyck",
            "citation": "JumboSack Corp. v. Buyck, 407 S.W.3d 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5285458/jumbosack-corp-v-buyck/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5285458/jumbosack-corp-v-buyck/#:~:text=In%20the%20instant%20case%2C%20Employee,at%2Dwill%20employment%2C%20salary%2C%20and%20commissions.",
            "proposition": "JumboSack recognizes continued at-will employment plus access to the employer's customers and assets as consideration for a non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In the instant case, Employee received in consideration for his covenant not to compete, access to Employer’s new and existing customers, as well as continued at-will employment, salary, and commissions.",
            "date": "2013-05-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-jumbosack-consideration"
          },
          {
            "id": "baker-illusory",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc.",
            "citation": "Baker v. Bristol Care, Inc., 450 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. banc 2014).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2718919/carla-baker-v-bristol-care-inc-dba-bristol-manor-and-david-furnell/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2718919/carla-baker-v-bristol-care-inc-dba-bristol-manor-and-david-furnell/#:~:text=An%20offer%20of%20continued%20at%2Dwill,not%20already%20entitled%20to%20do.",
            "proposition": "Baker holds a promise of continued at-will employment is not valid consideration because the employer makes no enforceable promise.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An offer of continued at-will employment is not valid consideration because the employer makes no legally enforceable promise to do or refrain from doing anything it is not already entitled to do.",
            "date": "2014-08-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-baker-illusory"
          },
          {
            "id": "durrell-at-will",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Durrell v. Tech Electronics, Inc.",
            "citation": "Durrell v. Tech Elecs., Inc., No. 4:16-cv-01367, 2016 WL 6833956 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2016).",
            "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-moed-4_16-cv-01367",
            "proposition": "Durrell applied Baker to a non-compete, holding at-will employment is not a source of consideration under Missouri law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An offer of at-will employment, or the continuation of at-will employment, is simply not a source of consideration under Missouri contract law.",
            "date": "2016-11-15",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-durrell-at-will"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will a court modify an overbroad covenant?",
        "heading": "Will a Missouri court modify (blue-pencil) an overbroad non-compete?",
        "answerText": "It can, but it does not have to. Missouri courts have authority to refuse to enforce unreasonable terms or to modify an overbroad covenant to make it reasonable, yet modification is discretionary — a court may instead decline to enforce the covenant at all.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "whelan-modification",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew",
            "citation": "Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20when%20the%20provisions%20of,the%20contract%20to%20be%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "Whelan states courts may refuse to enforce unreasonable terms or modify an overbroad covenant to be reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, when the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable.",
            "date": "2012-08-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-whelan-modification"
          },
          {
            "id": "sigma-refused-modification",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Sigma-Aldrich Corp. v. Vikin",
            "citation": "Sigma-Aldrich Corp. v. Vikin, 451 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2741957/sigma-aldrich-corporation-v-omar-vikin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2741957/sigma-aldrich-corporation-v-omar-vikin/#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20also%20did,refusing%20to%20modify%20the%20Agreement.",
            "proposition": "Sigma-Aldrich affirms that a court may, in its discretion, refuse to modify an overbroad covenant and decline to enforce it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The trial court also did not err by using its discretion and refusing to modify the Agreement.",
            "date": "2014-10-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-sigma-refused-modification"
          },
          {
            "id": "paradise-prevailing-party",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc.",
            "citation": "Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1873853/paradise-v-midwest-asphalt-coatings-inc/#:~:text=Notwithstanding%20any%20affirmative%20defense%2C%20a,must%20be%20the%20prevailing%20party.",
            "proposition": "Paradise conditions a contractual attorney's-fee award on prevailing-party status, which an employer needing modification may lose.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding any affirmative defense, a party requesting payment of contractual attorney fees must be the prevailing party.",
            "date": "2010-03-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-paradise-prevailing-party"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does the restricted period toll during a breach?",
        "heading": "Does a Missouri non-compete period toll or extend during a breach or litigation?",
        "answerText": "Missouri law does not squarely answer this. Neither the non-solicitation safe harbor nor the owner-covenant statute addresses whether a restricted period pauses (tolls) while a former employee is violating the covenant or while litigation is pending, and Missouri appellate courts have not laid down a clear rule on judicial or contractual tolling for non-competes.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "tolling-431-202-duration",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.202.2.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.202",
            "proposition": "Section 431.202's conclusive presumption is keyed to a fixed one-year post-employment duration, a benchmark a tolling clause could push past.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Whether a covenant covered by this section is reasonable shall be determined based upon the facts and circumstances pertaining to such covenant, but a covenant covered exclusively by subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection 1 of this section shall be conclusively presumed to be reasonable if its postemployment duration is no more than one year.",
            "date": "2001-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-tolling-431-202-duration"
          },
          {
            "id": "tolling-whelan-time",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew",
            "citation": "Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5283000/whelan-security-co-v-kennebrew/#:~:text=The%20employer%20has%20the%20burden,to%20time%20and%20geographic%20space.",
            "proposition": "Whelan measures reasonableness against the covenant's stated time and geographic terms, the yardstick an extension-on-breach clause would be tested against.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employer has the burden to prove that the non-compete agreement protects its legitimate interests in trade secrets or customer contacts and that the agreement is reasonable as to time and geographic space.",
            "date": "2012-08-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-tolling-whelan-time"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "owner-sale-of-business-431-204",
        "label": "What rules apply to owner and sale-of-business covenants?",
        "heading": "What rules apply to owner and sale-of-business covenants under section 431.204?",
        "answerText": "A separate statute governs them. Section 431.204, effective August 28, 2023, presumes certain covenants between a business entity and an owner enforceable: an owner's covenant not to solicit, recruit, hire, or interfere with the entity's employees or owners for up to two years, and an owner's customer non-solicitation covenant of up to five years limited to customers the owner dealt with.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "section-431-204-employee",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204.1.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.204",
            "proposition": "Section 431.204 presumes an owner's covenant not to solicit or interfere with the entity's employees or owners enforceable if it runs no more than two years after the owner's relationship ends.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A reasonable covenant in writing promising not to solicit, recruit, hire, induce, persuade, encourage, or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, the employment of one or more employees or owners of a business entity shall be presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade pursuant to subsection 1 of section 416.031 if it is between a business entity and the owner of the business entity and does not continue for more than two years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity.",
            "date": "2023-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-204-employee"
          },
          {
            "id": "section-431-204-customer",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204.2.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.204",
            "proposition": "Section 431.204 presumes an owner customer non-solicitation covenant enforceable up to five years if limited to customers the owner dealt with.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A reasonable covenant in writing promising not to solicit, induce, direct, or otherwise interfere with, directly or indirectly, a business entity's customers, including any reduction, termination, or transfer of any customer's business, in whole or in part, for the purposes of providing any product or any service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity shall be presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade pursuant to subsection 1 of section 416.031 if the covenant is limited to customers with whom the owner dealt and if the covenant is between a business entity and an owner, so long as the covenant does not continue for more than five years following the end of the owner's business relationship with the business entity.",
            "date": "2023-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-204-customer"
          },
          {
            "id": "section-431-204-modify",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204.4.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.204",
            "proposition": "Section 431.204 requires a court to modify an overbroad owner covenant and enforce it as modified.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If a covenant is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the protectable business interests of the business entity seeking enforcement of the covenant, a court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified, and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests.",
            "date": "2023-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-204-modify"
          },
          {
            "id": "section-431-204-not-noncompete",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 431.204.5.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=431.204",
            "proposition": "Section 431.204 does not create or affect the enforceability of covenants not to compete except as the section provides.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Nothing in this section is intended to create or to affect the validity or enforceability of covenants not to compete, other types of covenants, or nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements, except as expressly provided in this section.",
            "date": "2023-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-section-431-204-not-noncompete"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "healthcare-physician",
        "label": "Are physician non-competes restricted?",
        "heading": "Are physician and healthcare non-competes restricted in Missouri?",
        "answerText": "Not yet by statute. Physician non-competes in Missouri are still governed by the common-law reasonableness test, and repeated legislative attempts to cap them have not become law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "physician-copeland",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland",
            "citation": "Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/#:~:text=In%20practical%20terms%2C%20a%20non%2Dcompete,legitimate%20interests%20of%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Copeland's reasonableness standard governs physician and other professional non-competes absent a profession-specific statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In practical terms, a non-compete agreement is reasonable if it is no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.",
            "date": "2006-08-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-physician-copeland"
          },
          {
            "id": "hb-2979-physician-bill",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. H.B. 2979 (2026) — Missouri Rural Doctors Act",
            "citation": "Mo. H.B. 2979, 103d Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess. (2026) (as introduced).",
            "url": "https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills261/hlrbillspdf/6359H.02I.pdf",
            "proposition": "HB 2979 (2026), as introduced, would limit physician non-competes with nonprofit employers to a clinical setting, 365 days, and five miles, with a research-university-hospital carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete between a physician and a nonprofit employer shall be valid and enforceable only if: (1) The physician is providing health care services in a clinical setting; (2) The covenant not to compete does not restrict the physician's competitive activities for a period of more than three hundred sixty-five days; and (3) The covenant not to compete does not restrict the physician's competitive activities in a geographic area of more than five miles from the address of the office or facility in which the physician provides health care services in a clinical setting.",
            "date": "2026-01-16",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-hb-2979-physician-bill"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "remedies",
        "label": "What remedies are available for a breach?",
        "heading": "What remedies are available when a Missouri non-compete is breached?",
        "answerText": "Damages, injunctive relief, and a parallel trade-secret track. A liquidated-damages clause is enforceable if it is a reasonable forecast of damages rather than a penalty, and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act separately authorizes injunctions against actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "mayer-liquidated-damages",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. Barton",
            "citation": "Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. Barton, 614 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/152690/mayer-hoffman-mccann-pc-v-barton/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/152690/mayer-hoffman-mccann-pc-v-barton/#:~:text=If%20both%20requirements%20are%20met%2C,liquidated%20damages%20provision%20is%20valid.",
            "proposition": "Mayer Hoffman McCann states Missouri's two-part test for enforceable liquidated damages: a reasonable forecast of harm that is difficult to estimate.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If both requirements are met, the liquidated damages provision is valid.",
            "date": "2010-08-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-mayer-liquidated-damages"
          },
          {
            "id": "mutsa-injunction",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.455",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.455.1.",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=417.455",
            "proposition": "Section 417.455 authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.",
            "date": "1995-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-mutsa-injunction"
          },
          {
            "id": "mutsa-contractual-remedies",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.463",
            "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.463.2(1).",
            "url": "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=417.463",
            "proposition": "Section 417.463 preserves contractual remedies alongside the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Sections 417.450 to 417.467 shall not affect: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or",
            "date": "1995-08-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri#src-mutsa-contractual-remedies"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}