{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "north-carolina",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in North Carolina",
      "description": "A question-by-question summary of North Carolina non-compete law, including the five-factor reasonableness test, the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 writing requirement, the new-consideration rule for mid-employment covenants, time-and-territory limits, the strict blue-pencil doctrine that bars judicial reformation, non-solicitation drafting, tolling and extension-on-breach clauses, physician public-policy limits, the § 22B-3 forum-clause bar, attorney-fee recovery, trade-secret alternatives, and the pending HB 269 and SB 673 bills.",
      "state": "North Carolina",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "North Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only if it is in writing, supported by consideration, reasonable in time and territory, and protects a legitimate business interest.",
        "keyLaw": "common law (Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989)); writing requirement N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4",
        "exceptions": "Physician/health-care covenants face a public-policy bar (Zaldivar); pending HB 269 (<$75k) and SB 673 (hospital) not enacted",
        "courtNarrowing": "trimOnly",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Express tolling clauses enforced (federal courts); equitable tolling unsettled",
        "maxLength": "No statutory limit",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Not addressed",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Reasonableness test applies",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "Reasonableness-tested non-recruitment restraint; solicitation needs active persuasion (Crockett)"
      },
      "about": [
        "North Carolina non-compete agreements",
        "North Carolina five-factor reasonableness test",
        "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4 writing requirement",
        "North Carolina new-consideration rule for mid-employment covenants",
        "North Carolina time and territory reasonableness",
        "North Carolina strict blue-pencil doctrine",
        "North Carolina non-solicitation covenants",
        "North Carolina non-compete tolling and extension-on-breach clauses",
        "North Carolina physician non-compete public-policy limits",
        "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22B-3 forum-selection bar",
        "North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act",
        "North Carolina HB 269 and SB 673 pending legislation"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-north-carolina"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in North Carolina?",
        "answerText": "Sometimes. North Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only when it satisfies a five-part common-law test: the covenant must be in writing, part of an employment contract, supported by valuable consideration, reasonable as to time and territory, and designed to protect a legitimate business interest. Because a non-compete is a partial restraint of trade — a category North Carolina law disfavors — a covenant is upheld only when it is supported by consideration, reasonably necessary, and not against public policy.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q1-ridgway-five-factor",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway",
            "citation": "Med. Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. 649 (2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156110/medical-staffing-network-inc-v-ridgway/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156110/medical-staffing-network-inc-v-ridgway/#:~:text=To%20be%20enforceable%20under%20North,protect%20a%20legitimate%20business%20interest.",
            "proposition": "North Carolina enforces an employee non-compete only if it is (1) in writing, (2) part of an employment contract, (3) based on valuable consideration, (4) reasonable as to time and territory, and (5) designed to protect a legitimate business interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To be enforceable under North Carolina law, a non-competition agreement must be: (1) in writing; (2) part of an employment contract; (3) based on valuable consideration; (4) reasonable as to time and territory; and (5) designed to protect a legitimate business interest.",
            "date": "2009-01-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q1-ridgway-five-factor"
          },
          {
            "id": "q1-daniel-five-factor",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whittaker General Medical Corp. v. Daniel",
            "citation": "Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/#:~:text=Such%20covenants%20are%20enforceable%20in,(5)%20not%20against%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "The North Carolina Supreme Court enforces employee covenants only if they are in writing, part of an employment contract, based on valuable consideration, reasonable as to time and territory, and not against public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Such covenants are enforceable in this state if they are (1) in writing, (2) made part of a contract of employment, (3) based on valuable consideration, (4) reasonable both as to time and territory, and (5) not against public policy.",
            "date": "1989-06-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q1-daniel-five-factor"
          },
          {
            "id": "q1-gs-75-4",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-4.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_75/GS_75-4.html",
            "proposition": "Section 75-4 makes any agreement limiting a person's right to do business in North Carolina unenforceable unless it is in writing and signed by the party who agrees not to compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "No contract or agreement hereafter made, limiting the rights of any person to do business anywhere in the State of North Carolina shall be enforceable unless such agreement is in writing duly signed by the party who agrees not to enter into any such business within such territory: Provided, nothing herein shall be construed to legalize any contract or agreement not to enter into business in the State of North Carolina, or at any point in the State of North Carolina, which contract is now illegal, or which contract is made illegal by any other section of this Chapter.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q1-gs-75-4"
          },
          {
            "id": "q1-gs-75-1",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_75/GS_75-1.html",
            "proposition": "North Carolina's restraint-of-trade statute declares every contract or combination in restraint of trade illegal — the policy backdrop that makes non-competes disfavored partial restraints.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina is hereby declared to be illegal.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q1-gs-75-1"
          },
          {
            "id": "q1-kuykendall-partial-restraint",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall",
            "citation": "United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643 (1988).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/#:~:text=However%2C%20this%20position%20was%20modified,and%20not%20against%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "Non-competition clauses are partial restraints of trade that are upheld only if supported by valuable consideration, reasonably necessary to protect the covenantee, and not against public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, this position was modified and it became generally recognized that, while non-competition clauses were in partial restraint of trade, they would nevertheless be upheld if the covenants were supported by valuable consideration, reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the covenantee, and not against public policy.",
            "date": "1988-07-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q1-kuykendall-partial-restraint"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "consideration",
        "label": "What consideration is required?",
        "heading": "What consideration does a North Carolina non-compete require?",
        "answerText": "It depends on timing. A covenant signed at the start of employment is supported by the offer of employment itself, but a covenant imposed on an existing employee must be supported by new consideration — continued at-will employment is not enough. The new consideration can be modest; North Carolina courts do not weigh its adequacy, and payments as small as a few hundred dollars have been upheld.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q2-empt-staffing-milner",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Employment Staffing Group, Inc. v. Little",
            "citation": "Emp't Staffing Grp., Inc. v. Little, 243 N.C. App. 266 (2015).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3007343/empt-staffing-grp-inc-v-little/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3007343/empt-staffing-grp-inc-v-little/#:~:text=%E2%80%9C%5BI%5Df%20an%20employment%20relationship%20already,be%20based%20upon%20new%20consideration.%E2%80%9D",
            "proposition": "A covenant not to compete added after an employment relationship already exists must be supported by new consideration.",
            "verbatimQuote": "“[I]f an employment relationship already exists without a covenant not to compete, any such future covenant must be based upon new consideration.”",
            "date": "2015-10-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q2-empt-staffing-milner"
          },
          {
            "id": "q2-empt-staffing-amount",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Employment Staffing Group, Inc. v. Little",
            "citation": "Emp't Staffing Grp., Inc. v. Little, 243 N.C. App. 266 (2015).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3007343/empt-staffing-grp-inc-v-little/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3007343/empt-staffing-grp-inc-v-little/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20we%20hold%20that%20Defendant%E2%80%99s,%24100%20consideration%20is%20without%20merit.",
            "proposition": "North Carolina courts do not invalidate a non-compete for inadequacy of consideration; a $100 payment was not invalidating.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, we hold that Defendant’s argument that this Court may invalidate the non-compete covenant based on the inadequacy of the $100 consideration is without merit.",
            "date": "2015-10-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q2-empt-staffing-amount"
          },
          {
            "id": "q2-daniel-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whittaker General Medical Corp. v. Daniel",
            "citation": "Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/#:~:text=When%20the%20relationship%20of%20employer,or%20a%20new%20job%20assignment.",
            "proposition": "When the employment relationship exists before the covenant is signed, there must be new consideration such as a raise in pay or a new job assignment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "When the relationship of employer and employee is established before the covenant not to compete is signed there must be consideration for the covenant such as a raise in pay or a new job assignment.",
            "date": "1989-06-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q2-daniel-consideration"
          },
          {
            "id": "q2-hejl-500",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Assocs., 196 N.C. App. 299 (2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1283156/hejl-v-hood-hargett-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1283156/hejl-v-hood-hargett-associates-inc/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20because%20the%20parties%20dealt,due%20to%20lack%20of%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "A $500 payment to a long-time employee for signing a covenant was adequate consideration on the consideration element (though the covenant was ultimately unenforceable on other grounds).",
            "verbatimQuote": "Therefore, because the parties dealt at arms length, and the Plaintiff received $500.00 as consideration for signing the Agreement, we find the Agreement is not void due to lack of consideration.",
            "date": "2009-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q2-hejl-500"
          },
          {
            "id": "q2-qsp-newemployment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "QSP, Inc. v. Hair",
            "citation": "QSP, Inc. v. Hair, 152 N.C. App. 174 (2002).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1422226/qsp-inc-v-hair/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1422226/qsp-inc-v-hair/#:~:text=This%20offer%2C%20made%20by%20QSP,and%20therefore%20constituted%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "An offer of new employment constitutes valuable consideration for a non-compete, so a covenant entered at the start of (or in exchange for) employment is supported by consideration.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This offer, made by QSP on 12 February 2000, was an offer of new employment and therefore constituted valuable consideration.",
            "date": "2002-08-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q2-qsp-newemployment"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "duration-limits",
        "label": "How do courts judge time and territory?",
        "heading": "How do North Carolina courts judge a non-compete's time and territory?",
        "answerText": "Reasonableness is a question of law for the court, and the employer bears the burden of proving it. A geographic restriction is reasonable only to the extent it protects the employer's interest in keeping its existing customers, so a territory broader than the area where the employee actually built customer relationships is vulnerable.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q3-hartman-matter-of-law",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Assocs., 117 N.C. App. 307 (1994).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/#:~:text=The%20reasonableness%20of%20a%20noncompetition,for%20the%20court%20to%20decide.",
            "proposition": "The reasonableness of a non-competition covenant is a matter of law for the court.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The reasonableness of a noncompetition covenant is a matter of law for the court to decide.",
            "date": "1994-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q3-hartman-matter-of-law"
          },
          {
            "id": "q3-hartman-burden",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Assocs., 117 N.C. App. 307 (1994).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/#:~:text=The%20party%20who%20seeks%20the,that%20the%20covenant%20is%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "The party seeking to enforce a non-compete bears the burden of proving the covenant is reasonable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The party who seeks the enforcement of the covenant not to compete has the burden of proving that the covenant is reasonable.",
            "date": "1994-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q3-hartman-burden"
          },
          {
            "id": "q3-hartman-territory",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Assocs., 117 N.C. App. 307 (1994).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/#:~:text=A%20restriction%20as%20to%20territory,employer%20in%20maintaining%20%5Bits%5D%20customers.",
            "proposition": "A territorial restriction is reasonable only to the extent it protects the employer's legitimate interest in maintaining its customers.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restriction as to territory is reasonable only to the extent it protects the legitimate interests of the employer in maintaining [its] customers.",
            "date": "1994-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q3-hartman-territory"
          },
          {
            "id": "q3-daniel-overbroad",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whittaker General Medical Corp. v. Daniel",
            "citation": "Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/#:~:text=If%20a%20contract%20by%20an,it%20will%20not%20be%20enforced.",
            "proposition": "A restraint that is too broad to be a reasonable protection of the employer's business will not be enforced.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If a contract by an employee in restraint of competition is too broad to be a reasonable protection to the employer’s business it will not be enforced.",
            "date": "1989-06-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q3-daniel-overbroad"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "legitimate-interest",
        "label": "What is a legitimate business interest?",
        "heading": "What counts as a legitimate business interest in North Carolina?",
        "answerText": "A covenant must protect something more than the employer's general wish to avoid competition. Before a restraint can be reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest, the employee must have acquired intimate knowledge of the business that is not generally available to the public. And the restriction must track the employee's actual duties — a covenant that bars work distinct from what the employee actually did is unenforceable.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q4-kuykendall-interest",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall",
            "citation": "United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643 (1988).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/#:~:text=Before%20a%20covenant%20can%20be,generally%20available%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "A covenant can be reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest only where the employee acquired intimate knowledge of the business not generally available to the public.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Before a covenant can be found reasonably necessary for the protection of a legitimate business interest, we hold that it is first necessary to find the employee, as a result of his employment, acquired intimate knowledge of the nature and character of the business which was not otherwise generally available to the public.",
            "date": "1988-07-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q4-kuykendall-interest"
          },
          {
            "id": "q4-ridgway-duties",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway",
            "citation": "Med. Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. 649 (2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156110/medical-staffing-network-inc-v-ridgway/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1156110/medical-staffing-network-inc-v-ridgway/#:~:text=However%2C%20we%20have%20held%20that,actually%20performed%20by%20the%20employee.",
            "proposition": "Restrictive covenants are unenforceable where they prohibit the employee from future work distinct from the duties the employee actually performed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, we have held that restrictive covenants are unenforceable where they prohibit the employee from engaging in future work that is distinct from the duties actually performed by the employee.",
            "date": "2009-01-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q4-ridgway-duties"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Can a court fix an overbroad covenant?",
        "heading": "Can a North Carolina court rewrite or blue-pencil an overbroad non-compete?",
        "answerText": "No — and this is the trap that catches many employers. North Carolina follows the strict blue-pencil doctrine: a court may strike a distinctly separable, unreasonable part of a covenant, but it may not rewrite or revise the remaining terms to make them reasonable. A reformation clause does not change this — parties cannot give a court a power the law withholds.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q5-beverage-strict",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC",
            "citation": "Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693 (2016).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/#:~:text=North%20Carolina%20has%20adopted%20the,while%20striking%20the%20unenforceable%20portions.",
            "proposition": "North Carolina follows the strict blue-pencil doctrine: a court cannot rewrite a faulty covenant but may enforce divisible and reasonable portions while striking the unenforceable portions.",
            "verbatimQuote": "North Carolina has adopted the “strict blue pencil doctrine” under which a court cannot rewrite a faulty covenant not to compete but may enforce divisible and reasonable portions of the covenant while striking the unenforceable portions.",
            "date": "2016-03-18",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q5-beverage-strict"
          },
          {
            "id": "q5-beverage-contract",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC",
            "citation": "Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693 (2016).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/#:~:text=However%2C%20parties%20cannot%20contract%20to,that%20it%20does%20not%20have.",
            "proposition": "A reformation clause cannot authorize a court to rewrite an unreasonable covenant — parties cannot contract to give a court a power it does not have.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, parties cannot contract to give a court power that it does not have.",
            "date": "2016-03-18",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q5-beverage-contract"
          },
          {
            "id": "q5-hartman-separable",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hartman v. W.H. Odell & Assocs., 117 N.C. App. 307 (1994).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1305744/hartman-v-wh-odell-and-associates-inc/#:~:text=A%20court%20at%20most%20may,to%20render%20the%20provision%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "A court may at most decline to enforce a distinctly separable part of a covenant; it may not otherwise revise or rewrite it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A court at most may choose not to enforce a distinctly separable part of a covenant in order to render the provision reasonable.",
            "date": "1994-12-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q5-hartman-separable"
          },
          {
            "id": "q5-daniel-rewrite",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Whittaker General Medical Corp. v. Daniel",
            "citation": "Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1205500/whittaker-general-medical-corp-v-daniel/#:~:text=The%20courts%20will%20not%20rewrite,will%20simply%20not%20enforce%20it.",
            "proposition": "North Carolina courts will not rewrite an overbroad covenant; they simply refuse to enforce it, though a separable reasonable provision can be enforced.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The courts will not rewrite a contract if it is too broad but will simply not enforce it.",
            "date": "1989-06-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q5-daniel-rewrite"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "non-solicitation",
        "label": "How are non-solicitation covenants treated?",
        "heading": "How does North Carolina treat customer and employee non-solicitation covenants?",
        "answerText": "Non-solicitation covenants are restrictive covenants, and their precise wording controls how far they reach. North Carolina courts read terms like solicit, recruit, and induce to require active persuasion, so a clause that bars only solicitation does not prohibit merely hiring or accepting a departing employee. A customer non-solicit that reaches prospective customers or areas where the employee had no customer connections is overbroad.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q6-crockett-solicit",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Inland American Winston Hotels, Inc. v. Crockett",
            "citation": "Inland Am. Winston Hotels, Inc. v. Crockett, 212 N.C. App. 349 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2504879/inland-american-winston-hotels-inc-v-crockett/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2504879/inland-american-winston-hotels-inc-v-crockett/#:~:text=After%20a%20thorough%20review%20of,as%20a%20matter%20of%20law.",
            "proposition": "Hiring former employees who were not actively solicited did not breach a covenant prohibiting only solicitation, recruitment, or inducement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "After a thorough review of the record, we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact, as defendants did not “solicit, recruit or induce” Brent West or Brian Fry to work for defendants in violation of the non-compete agreements and therefore, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.",
            "date": "2011-06-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q6-crockett-solicit"
          },
          {
            "id": "q6-crockett-definitions",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Inland American Winston Hotels, Inc. v. Crockett",
            "citation": "Inland Am. Winston Hotels, Inc. v. Crockett, 212 N.C. App. 349 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2504879/inland-american-winston-hotels-inc-v-crockett/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2504879/inland-american-winston-hotels-inc-v-crockett/#:~:text=We%20note%20that%20all%20of,active%20persuasion%2C%20request%2C%20or%20petition.",
            "proposition": "The terms solicit, recruit, and induce all involve active persuasion, request, or petition.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We note that all of the above-cited definitions of “solicit, recruit or induce” are similar in that they involve active persuasion, request, or petition.",
            "date": "2011-06-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q6-crockett-definitions"
          },
          {
            "id": "q6-hejl-prospective",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Assocs., 196 N.C. App. 299 (2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1283156/hejl-v-hood-hargett-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1283156/hejl-v-hood-hargett-associates-inc/#:~:text=Defendant%E2%80%99s%20attempt%20to%20prevent%20Plaintiff,an%20impermissible%20restraint%20on%20Plaintiff.",
            "proposition": "Barring an employee from obtaining clients the employer itself had failed to obtain is an impermissible restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Defendant’s attempt to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining clients where Defendant had failed to do so, is an impermissible restraint on Plaintiff.",
            "date": "2009-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q6-hejl-prospective"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does the clock pause during a breach?",
        "heading": "Does a North Carolina non-compete period toll or extend during a breach or litigation?",
        "answerText": "Only if the contract says so. North Carolina has no appellate decision holding that a court will equitably extend a restricted period to make up for time the former employee spent violating the covenant, so equitable tolling is unsettled. But federal courts applying North Carolina law have enforced express extension-on-breach clauses, stating that such tolling provisions appear to be valid under North Carolina law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q7-philips-valid",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Hope",
            "citation": "Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Hope, 631 F. Supp. 2d 705 (M.D.N.C. 2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2579285/philips-electronics-north-america-corp-v-hope/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2579285/philips-electronics-north-america-corp-v-hope/#:~:text=Such%20tolling%20provisions%20appear%20to,valid%20under%20North%20Carolina%20law.",
            "proposition": "An express contractual tolling provision that pauses the protected period during non-compliance appears valid under North Carolina law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Such tolling provisions appear to be valid under North Carolina law.",
            "date": "2009-06-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q7-philips-valid"
          },
          {
            "id": "q7-philips-tolled",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Hope",
            "citation": "Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Hope, 631 F. Supp. 2d 705 (M.D.N.C. 2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2579285/philips-electronics-north-america-corp-v-hope/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2579285/philips-electronics-north-america-corp-v-hope/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20expiration%20of%20the,months%2C%20until%20April%209%2C%202010.",
            "proposition": "Applying the tolling clause, the court extended the non-compete by the eleven-month period of the employee's non-compliance.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus, the expiration of the Non-Competition Agreement should be tolled for eleven months, until April 9, 2010.",
            "date": "2009-06-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q7-philips-tolled"
          },
          {
            "id": "q7-southtech-tolls",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Southtech Orthopedics, Inc. v. Dingus",
            "citation": "Southtech Orthopedics, Inc. v. Dingus, 428 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.C. 2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2524901/southtech-orthopedics-inc-v-dingus/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2524901/southtech-orthopedics-inc-v-dingus/#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20as,that%20injunctive%20relief%20is%20warranted.",
            "proposition": "A clause tolling the time limitation while the employee is in violation preserves the employer's bargained-for remedy and was given effect under North Carolina law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "On the other hand, as discussed above, paragraph ll(m) of the employment agreement tolls the time limitation of the non-compete as long as defendant is in violation of it, and so plaintiff will not be deprived of its bargained-for remedy if it later turns out that injunctive relief is warranted.",
            "date": "2006-03-27",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q7-southtech-tolls"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "physicians",
        "label": "Are physician non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are physician and health-care non-competes enforceable in North Carolina?",
        "answerText": "Not categorically, and they face an extra public-policy hurdle. North Carolina courts will refuse to enforce a physician covenant when doing so would create a substantial question of potential harm to the public health, weighing factors such as the shortage of specialists in the restricted area, the risk of a local monopoly, emergency availability, and patient choice. A pending bill, SB 673, would go further and ban non-competes for hospital-employed health-care professionals — defined as licensed physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and registered nurses — outright.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q8-zaldivar-publicpolicy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. v. Zaldivar",
            "citation": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Zaldivar, 264 N.C. App. 260 (2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/#:~:text=After%20carefully%20reviewing%20the%20covenants%2C,of%20summary%20judgment%20for%20defendants.",
            "proposition": "The Court of Appeals held physician covenants unenforceable because they violated public policy and affirmed summary judgment for the physician.",
            "verbatimQuote": "After carefully reviewing the covenants, we find that they are unenforceable because they violate public policy and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants.",
            "date": "2019-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q8-zaldivar-publicpolicy"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-zaldivar-balance",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. v. Zaldivar",
            "citation": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Zaldivar, 264 N.C. App. 260 (2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/#:~:text=If%20ordering%20the%20covenantor%20to,refuse%20to%20enforce%20the%20covenant.",
            "proposition": "Where enforcement would create a substantial question of potential harm to the public health, the public interest outweighs the covenant and the court will refuse to enforce it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If ordering the covenantor to honor his contractual obligation would create a substantial question of potential harm to the public health, then the public interests outweigh the contract interests of the covenantee, and the court will refuse to enforce the covenant.",
            "date": "2019-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q8-zaldivar-balance"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-zaldivar-factors",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. v. Zaldivar",
            "citation": "Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Zaldivar, 264 N.C. App. 260 (2019).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4601038/aesthetic-facial-ocular-plastic-surgery-ctr-pa-v-zaldivar/#:~:text=This%20Court%20considers%20the%20following,the%20selection%20of%20a%20physician.",
            "proposition": "Courts weigh specialist shortage, monopoly impact, emergency availability, and patient choice in assessing the risk of substantial harm to the public from a physician covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This Court considers the following factors in determining the risk of substantial harm to the public: the shortage of specialists in the field in the restricted area, the impact of establishing a monopoly in the area, including the impact on fees in the future and the availability of a doctor at all times for emergencies, and the public interest in having a choice in the selection of a physician.",
            "date": "2019-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q8-zaldivar-factors"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-sb673",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.B. 673 (2025)",
            "citation": "S.B. 673, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2025).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/Senate/PDF/S673v1.pdf",
            "proposition": "Senate Bill 673 (2025, pending) would prohibit an employment contract for a hospital-employed health-care professional from containing a non-compete clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employment contract for a health care professional employed by a hospital, as defined in G.S. 95-28.1B, shall not contain a non-compete clause.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q8-sb673"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-sb673-def",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.B. 673 (2025)",
            "citation": "S.B. 673, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2025).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/Senate/PDF/S673v1.pdf",
            "proposition": "Senate Bill 673 defines the covered health-care professionals as licensed physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and registered nurses.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Health care professional. – An individual who is a licensed physician, physician assistant, advanced practice registered nurse as defined by the North Carolina Board of Nursing, or registered nurse.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q8-sb673-def"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "out-of-state-employers",
        "label": "Can an out-of-state employer force the dispute elsewhere?",
        "heading": "Can an out-of-state employer force a North Carolina non-compete dispute into another state's courts?",
        "answerText": "Not for a contract entered into in North Carolina. North Carolina voids any provision in a contract entered into in the State that requires a lawsuit or arbitration arising from the contract to be brought or heard in another state. A national employer that drops its standard out-of-state forum or venue clause into an agreement entered into in North Carolina cannot count on that clause to move the dispute out of state. Section 22B-3 reaches forum and arbitration provisions; it does not by itself void an out-of-state choice-of-law clause.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q9-gs-22b-3",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22B-3",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22B-3.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_22B/GS_22B-3.html",
            "proposition": "A provision in a contract entered into in North Carolina that requires litigation or arbitration of a contract dispute to occur in another state is against public policy and void.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided in this section, any provision in a contract entered into in North Carolina that requires the prosecution of any action or the arbitration of any dispute that arises from the contract to be instituted or heard in another state is against public policy and is void and unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q9-gs-22b-3"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "attorney-fees",
        "label": "Can a party recover attorney fees?",
        "heading": "Can a party recover attorney fees in a North Carolina non-compete dispute?",
        "answerText": "Usually not in a plain contract action. North Carolina's reciprocal-fee statute for business contracts expressly excludes employment contracts, so a one-sided attorney-fee clause in an employment non-compete generally will not support a fee award. Fees are available on the margins — for example, to a prevailing party on an unfair-trade-practices claim under § 75-1.1, in the court's discretion and on findings of willfulness or a frivolous action.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q10-gs-6-21-6",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.6",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.6(1).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_6/GS_6-21.6.html",
            "proposition": "The reciprocal attorney-fee statute for business contracts expressly excludes employment contracts from the definition of a covered business contract.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Business contract. - A contract entered into primarily for business or commercial purposes. The term does not include a consumer contract, an employment contract, or a contract to which a government or a governmental agency of this State is a party.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q10-gs-6-21-6"
          },
          {
            "id": "q10-gs-75-16-1",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_75/GS_75-16.1.html",
            "proposition": "On a § 75-1.1 unfair-trade-practices claim, the court may in its discretion award the prevailing party a reasonable attorney fee on findings of willfulness or a frivolous and malicious action.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In any suit instituted by a person who alleges that the defendant violated G.S. 75-1.1, the presiding judge may, in his discretion, allow a reasonable attorney fee to the duly licensed attorney representing the prevailing party, such attorney fee to be taxed as a part of the court costs and payable by the losing party, upon a finding by the presiding judge that: (1) The party charged with the violation has willfully engaged in the act or practice, and there was an unwarranted refusal by such party to fully resolve the matter which constitutes the basis of such suit; or (2) The party instituting the action knew, or should have known, the action was frivolous and malicious.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q10-gs-75-16-1"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "trade-secrets",
        "label": "Are trade-secret protections available instead?",
        "heading": "How do North Carolina trade-secret protections compare to a non-compete?",
        "answerText": "They remain available and are often the more durable tool. The North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act protects qualifying business and technical information without the reasonableness limits a non-compete faces, and misappropriation can be enjoined and remedied in damages, with punitive damages for willful and malicious conduct. Because a trade-secret claim does not depend on a valid covenant, it survives even where a non-compete fails.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q11-gs-66-152",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-152",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-152(3).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-152.html",
            "proposition": "The Trade Secrets Protection Act defines a trade secret by its independent commercial value from not being generally known and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "“Trade secret” means business or technical information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, program, device, compilation of information, method, technique, or process that: a. Derives independent actual or potential commercial value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable through independent development or reverse engineering by 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/north-carolina#src-q11-gs-66-152"
          },
          {
            "id": "q11-gs-66-154",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-154",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-154(c).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-154.html",
            "proposition": "Trade-secret misappropriation may be enjoined and remedied in damages, and the trier of fact may award punitive damages for willful and malicious misappropriation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the trier of fact also may award punitive damages in its discretion.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q11-gs-66-154"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "pending-legislation",
        "label": "Is the law about to change?",
        "heading": "Is North Carolina non-compete law about to change?",
        "answerText": "Possibly, but not yet. Two 2025 bills would restrict non-competes — HB 269 would bar them for covered employees earning less than $75,000 a year, and SB 673 would ban them for hospital-employed health-care professionals — but both were introduced in the 2025 session and remain pending, and neither has become law. Until one is enacted, the common-law five-factor test continues to govern.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "q12-hb269-policy",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "H.B. 269 (2025)",
            "citation": "H.B. 269, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2025).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/House/PDF/H269v1.pdf",
            "proposition": "House Bill 269 (2025, pending) would declare it the public policy of North Carolina that a contract restraining a person from exercising lawful work is void to that extent; its operative prohibition reaches covered employees earning less than $75,000 a year.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Policy. – It is the public policy of this State that any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void and unenforceable, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q12-hb269-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "q12-hb269-threshold",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "H.B. 269 (2025)",
            "citation": "H.B. 269, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2025).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/House/PDF/H269v1.pdf",
            "proposition": "House Bill 269 would define a covered employee as one earning less than $75,000 per year.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Employee. – An employee providing labor or services to another for pay of less than seventy–five thousand dollars ($75,000) per year.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q12-hb269-threshold"
          },
          {
            "id": "q12-sb673",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.B. 673 (2025)",
            "citation": "S.B. 673, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2025).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/Senate/PDF/S673v1.pdf",
            "proposition": "Senate Bill 673 (2025, pending) would prohibit a non-compete clause in the employment contract of a hospital-employed health-care professional.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employment contract for a health care professional employed by a hospital, as defined in G.S. 95-28.1B, shall not contain a non-compete clause.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/north-carolina#src-q12-sb673"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}