{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "non-compete",
    "state": "south-carolina",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Non-Competes in South Carolina",
      "description": "South Carolina enforces non-competes only when the restraint is reasonable under common law, strictly construes them against the employer, and will not blue-pencil an overbroad covenant.",
      "state": "South Carolina",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "enforceability": "reasonable",
        "bottomLine": "South Carolina has no non-compete statute and enforces a covenant only if it meets all five common-law reasonableness factors, strictly construes it against the employer, and will not blue-pencil or reform an overbroad covenant.",
        "keyLaw": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 717 S.E.2d 103 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) (five-factor test from Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan)",
        "exceptions": "Sale-of-business reviewed more leniently (Palmetto Mortuary); pending H.4767 physician-ban bill not enacted",
        "courtNarrowing": "no",
        "appliesToContractors": "unclear",
        "extendedForBreach": "Points against it — extending past stated end date is against public policy (Stonhard)",
        "maxLength": "No statutory cap",
        "noticeRequirement": "None",
        "incomeThreshold": "None",
        "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants get relaxed review versus employment covenants (Palmetto)",
        "customerNonSolicit": "Must be narrow under reasonableness test",
        "employeeNonSolicit": "May seek employees absent contract interference"
      },
      "about": [
        "South Carolina non-compete agreements",
        "South Carolina restrictive covenants",
        "Standard Register v. Kerrigan reasonableness test",
        "South Carolina red-pencil no blue-pencil rule",
        "South Carolina non-compete consideration",
        "Palmetto Mortuary sale of business covenant",
        "South Carolina physician non-compete bill",
        "South Carolina trade secrets"
      ],
      "translations": [
        {
          "language": "中文",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Español",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Português",
          "status": "planned"
        },
        {
          "language": "Deutsch",
          "status": "planned"
        }
      ],
      "relatedForm": {
        "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-south-carolina"
      }
    },
    "questions": [
      {
        "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability",
        "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "Yes, sometimes. South Carolina has no general non-compete statute, so enforceability turns on common law: a covenant is upheld only if it is necessary to protect a legitimate interest, reasonably limited in time and place, not unduly harsh on the employee, reasonable as a matter of public policy, and supported by valuable consideration.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "team-ia-five-factor-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas",
            "citation": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237, 717 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete,(5)%20supported%20by%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "Team IA states South Carolina's five-factor reasonableness test for enforcing a covenant not to compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is: (1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer; (2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place; (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood; (4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and (5) supported by valuable consideration.",
            "date": "2011-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-team-ia-five-factor-test"
          },
          {
            "id": "kerrigan-restraint-of-trade",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan",
            "citation": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan, 238 S.C. 54, 119 S.E.2d 533 (1961).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/#:~:text=The%20reason%20that%20contracts%20against,which%20is%20against%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "Kerrigan explains that non-competes are restraints of trade against public policy and are therefore unenforceable unless they meet the reasonableness criteria.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The reason that contracts against competition are held to be unenforceable unless they meet certain criteria, is that they constitute a restraint upon trade which is against public policy.",
            "date": "1961-03-22",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-kerrigan-restraint-of-trade"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "protectable-interests",
        "label": "What interests are protectable?",
        "heading": "What legitimate business interests can support a South Carolina non-compete?",
        "answerText": "The core interest that justifies a non-compete is the employer's customer relationships and goodwill. South Carolina separately enforces covenants protecting an employer's contractual relationships with its own employees, and it protects trade secrets by statute independent of any covenant.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "kerrigan-customer-protection",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan",
            "citation": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan, 238 S.C. 54, 119 S.E.2d 533 (1961).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/#:~:text=A%20restrictive%20covenant%2C%20therefore%2C%20is,against%20loss%20of%20his%20customers.",
            "proposition": "Kerrigan supports protecting the employer against the loss of its customers as the legitimate interest that can justify a restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A restrictive covenant, therefore, is reasonable if it is designed to protect the employer against loss of his customers.",
            "date": "1961-03-22",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-kerrigan-customer-protection"
          },
          {
            "id": "oxman-employee-nonsolicit",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Oxman v. Sherman",
            "citation": "Oxman v. Sherman, 239 S.C. 218, 122 S.E.2d 559 (1961).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1336916/oxman-v-sherman/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1336916/oxman-v-sherman/#:~:text=We%20construe%20the%20first%20covenant,their%20contractual%20relations%20with%20respondents.",
            "proposition": "Oxman supports protecting the employer's contractual relationships with its employees by barring inducement to breach, rather than a blanket no-hire.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We construe the first covenant mentioned as restraining appellant from seeking to induce any of respondents' employees to breach their contract of employment and not as preventing him from seeking the services of such employees so long as there is no interference with their contractual relations with respondents.",
            "date": "1961-10-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-oxman-employee-nonsolicit"
          },
          {
            "id": "trade-secrets-act-employee-duty",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30",
            "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(B).",
            "url": "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t39c008.php",
            "proposition": "Section 39-8-30 imposes a statutory duty on employees to refrain from using or disclosing an employer's trade secret independently of any contract.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every employee who is informed of or should reasonably have known from the circumstances of the existence of any employer's trade secret has a duty to refrain from using or disclosing the trade secret without the employer's permission independently of and in addition to any written contract of employment, secrecy agreement, noncompete agreement, nondisclosure agreement, or other agreement between the employer and the employee.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-trade-secrets-act-employee-duty"
          },
          {
            "id": "trade-secrets-act-endures",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30",
            "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(A).",
            "url": "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t39c008.php",
            "proposition": "Section 39-8-30 provides that trade-secret protection endures until the secret is disclosed or discovered by proper means.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A trade secret endures and is protectable and enforceable until it is disclosed or discovered by proper means.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-trade-secrets-act-endures"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "customer-non-solicitation",
        "label": "How narrow must a customer non-solicit be?",
        "heading": "How narrow must a customer non-solicitation covenant be in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "It must be tied to the customers the employee actually dealt with. South Carolina enforces a customer non-solicitation covenant limited to customers the employee had contact with during a defined look-back period — and such a limit can even substitute for a geographic restriction — but a covenant barring solicitation of every customer on the employer's books advances no legitimate interest and is unenforceable.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "vessel-personal-contact",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Vessel Medical, Inc. v. Elliott",
            "citation": "Vessel Med., Inc. v. Elliott, No. 6:15-cv-00330-MGL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122436 (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2015).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5358739/vessel-medical-inc-v-elliott/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5358739/vessel-medical-inc-v-elliott/#:~:text=Here%2C%20Elliott%20is%20restricted%20from,covenants%20have%20withstood%20overbreadth%20challenges.",
            "proposition": "Vessel Medical upheld a customer non-solicitation covenant because it was limited to customers the employee had contact with during his last twelve months of employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Here, Elliott is restricted from soliciting customers with whom he had contact during his last 12 months of employment and such covenants have withstood overbreadth challenges.",
            "date": "2015-09-15",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-vessel-personal-contact"
          },
          {
            "id": "fournil-no-legitimate-interest",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fournil v. Turbeville Insurance Agency, Inc.",
            "citation": "Fournil v. Turbeville Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-03836-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4822524/fournil-v-turbeville-insurance-agency-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4822524/fournil-v-turbeville-insurance-agency-inc/#:~:text=The%20magistrate%20found%20that%20prohibiting,and%20this%20conclusion%20was%20well%2Dfounded.",
            "proposition": "Fournil held that prohibiting an employee from soliciting customers she had never serviced was not related to any legitimate interest of the employer.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The magistrate found that prohibiting such contacts was not related to any legitimate interest of Turbeville, and this conclusion was well-founded.",
            "date": "2009-03-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-fournil-no-legitimate-interest"
          },
          {
            "id": "fournil-ordinary-competition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fournil v. Turbeville Insurance Agency, Inc.",
            "citation": "Fournil v. Turbeville Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-03836-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2009).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4822524/fournil-v-turbeville-insurance-agency-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4822524/fournil-v-turbeville-insurance-agency-inc/#:~:text=An%20employer%20is%20not%2C%20however%2C,an%20agreement%20preventing%20ordinary%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Fournil held that an employer may not enforce a covenant that prevents ordinary competition rather than protecting a legitimate interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer is not, however, entitled to enforce an agreement preventing ordinary competition.",
            "date": "2009-03-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-fournil-ordinary-competition"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "continued-employment-consideration",
        "label": "Does continued employment count?",
        "heading": "Is continued at-will employment enough consideration for a South Carolina non-compete?",
        "answerText": "Not by itself. When a covenant is signed after employment has already begun, South Carolina requires separate, independent consideration — continued at-will employment alone is not enough.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "poole-separate-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc.",
            "citation": "Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., 345 S.C. 378, 548 S.E.2d 207 (2001).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1328953/poole-v-incentives-unlimited-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1328953/poole-v-incentives-unlimited-inc/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20we%20adopt%20the%20rule,the%20covenant%20to%20be%20enforceable.",
            "proposition": "Poole holds that a covenant signed after employment begins requires separate consideration beyond continued at-will employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Therefore, we adopt the rule that when a covenant is entered into after the inception of employment, separate consideration, in addition to continued at-will employment, is necessary in order for the covenant to be enforceable.",
            "date": "2001-06-04",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-poole-separate-consideration"
          },
          {
            "id": "poole-duties-unchanged",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc.",
            "citation": "Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., 345 S.C. 378, 548 S.E.2d 207 (2001).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1328953/poole-v-incentives-unlimited-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1328953/poole-v-incentives-unlimited-inc/#:~:text=In%20the%20instant%20case%2C%20Poole's,and%20salary%20were%20left%20unchanged.",
            "proposition": "Poole found no separate consideration where the employee's duties, position, and salary were unchanged after signing.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In the instant case, Poole's duties, position, and salary were left unchanged.",
            "date": "2001-06-04",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-poole-duties-unchanged"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "duration-limits",
        "label": "How much time and territory are reasonable?",
        "heading": "What duration and geographic scope are reasonable for a South Carolina non-compete?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory cap; reasonableness is judged on the facts. The territory may be no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest, and both time and place must independently be reasonably limited.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "kerrigan-territorial-scope",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan",
            "citation": "Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan, 238 S.C. 54, 119 S.E.2d 533 (1961).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1356432/standard-register-co-v-kerrigan/#:~:text=Stated%20negatively%2C%20the%20territorial%20scope,legitimate%20interest%20of%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Kerrigan holds that a territorial scope is unreasonable if it covers an area broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Stated negatively, the territorial scope renders the restraint unreasonable if it covers an area broader than necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the employer.",
            "date": "1961-03-22",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-kerrigan-territorial-scope"
          },
          {
            "id": "q4-team-ia-five-factor-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas",
            "citation": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237, 717 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete,(5)%20supported%20by%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "Team IA's conjunctive five-factor test requires time and place to be reasonably limited as part of the overall reasonableness inquiry.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is: (1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer; (2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place; (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood; (4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and (5) supported by valuable consideration.",
            "date": "2011-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-q4-team-ia-five-factor-test"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "court-narrowing",
        "label": "Will South Carolina courts narrow overbroad covenants?",
        "heading": "Will a South Carolina court blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?",
        "answerText": "No. South Carolina is a strict no-blue-pencil, no-reformation jurisdiction: a court will not rewrite an unreasonable covenant, and the agreement must stand or fall on its own terms.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "poynter-no-blue-pencil",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc.",
            "citation": "Poynter Invs., Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 694 S.E.2d 15 (2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/#:~:text=These%20cases%20stand%20for%20the,fall%20on%20their%20own%20terms.",
            "proposition": "Poynter holds that South Carolina courts cannot rewrite a non-compete's restrictions, which must stand or fall on their own terms.",
            "verbatimQuote": "These cases stand for the proposition that, in South Carolina, the restrictions in a non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties' agreement, but must stand or fall on their own terms.",
            "date": "2010-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-poynter-no-blue-pencil"
          },
          {
            "id": "poynter-rewrite-error",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc.",
            "citation": "Poynter Invs., Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 694 S.E.2d 15 (2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/#:~:text=We%20reverse%20the%20order%20which,agreed%20upon%20by%20the%20parties.",
            "proposition": "Poynter reversed an order that enforced the non-compete on terms other than those the parties agreed upon.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We reverse the order which purports to enforce a non-competition agreement on terms other than those agreed upon by the parties.",
            "date": "2010-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-poynter-rewrite-error"
          },
          {
            "id": "stonhard-no-reformation",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc.",
            "citation": "Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc., 366 S.C. 156, 621 S.E.2d 352 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1202971/stonhard-inc-v-carolina-flooring-specialists-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1202971/stonhard-inc-v-carolina-flooring-specialists-inc/#:~:text=We%20hold%2C%20therefore%2C%20that%20the,neither%20of%20the%20parties%20agreed.",
            "proposition": "Stonhard holds that a covenant may not be reformed or blue-penciled to add a new term the parties never agreed to.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We hold, therefore, that the contract may not be reformed or blue-penciled so as to add an entirely new term to which neither of the parties agreed.",
            "date": "2005-10-10",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-stonhard-no-reformation"
          },
          {
            "id": "team-ia-step-down",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas",
            "citation": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237, 717 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/#:~:text=However%2C%20we%20conclude%20the%20alternative,further%20development%20of%20the%20facts.",
            "proposition": "Team IA indicates an alternative, narrower territory written into the original agreement can remain enforceable even when the primary territory is overbroad.",
            "verbatimQuote": "However, we conclude the alternative territorial restriction contained in the parties' original agreement (South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama) would remain valid and enforceable to the extent it is not overly broad after further development of the facts.",
            "date": "2011-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-team-ia-step-down"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "confidentiality-ndas",
        "label": "Are NDAs treated like non-competes?",
        "heading": "Are confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements treated like non-competes in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "It depends on how broad they are. A genuine confidentiality or invention-assignment clause is not a restraint of trade and is not strictly construed against the employee — but an NDA that operates like a non-compete is judged like one.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "milliken-not-restraint",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=We%20therefore%20hold%20confidentiality%20and,in%20favor%20of%20the%20employee.",
            "proposition": "Milliken holds confidentiality and invention-assignment clauses are not in restraint of trade and are not strictly construed in favor of the employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We therefore hold confidentiality and invention assignment clauses are not in restraint of trade and should not be strictly construed in favor of the employee.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-not-restraint"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-reasonableness-review",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=Nevertheless%2C%20these%20agreements%20are%20still,to%20judicial%20review%20for%20reasonableness.",
            "proposition": "Milliken holds that confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements remain restrictive covenants subject to judicial review for reasonableness.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Nevertheless, these agreements are still restrictive covenants and public policy demands their scope be subject to judicial review for reasonableness.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-reasonableness-review"
          },
          {
            "id": "fay-functional-noncompete",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC",
            "citation": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 419 S.C. 622, 799 S.E.2d 318 (Ct. App. 2017).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/#:~:text=Because%20the%20nondisclosure%20provisions%20had,like%20any%20other%20noncompete%20agreement.",
            "proposition": "Fay holds that nondisclosure provisions that operate as a covenant not to compete require a reasonable time restriction like any non-compete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Because the nondisclosure provisions had the effect of a covenant not to compete, they required a reasonable time restriction like any other noncompete agreement.",
            "date": "2017-03-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-fay-functional-noncompete"
          },
          {
            "id": "fay-no-time-limit",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC",
            "citation": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 419 S.C. 622, 799 S.E.2d 318 (Ct. App. 2017).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/#:~:text=The%20nondisclosure%20provisions%20in%20paragraphs,public%20policy%20of%20South%20Carolina.",
            "proposition": "Fay held that NDA provisions operating as non-competes with no reasonable time restriction violated South Carolina public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The nondisclosure provisions in paragraphs four and six operated as noncompete provisions with no reasonable time restriction, which violated the public policy of South Carolina.",
            "date": "2017-03-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-fay-no-time-limit"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "sale-of-business",
        "label": "Are sale-of-business covenants treated differently?",
        "heading": "Does South Carolina treat sale-of-business non-competes differently?",
        "answerText": "Yes. A covenant tied to the sale of a business is scrutinized at a more relaxed level than an employment covenant, so broader restraints may be easier to defend.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "palmetto-relaxed-scrutiny",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Palmetto Mortuary Transport, Inc. v. Knight Systems, Inc.",
            "citation": "Palmetto Mortuary Transp., Inc. v. Knight Sys., Inc., 424 S.C. 444, 818 S.E.2d 724 (2018).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8399125/palmetto-mortuary-transp-inc-v-knight-sys-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8399125/palmetto-mortuary-transp-inc-v-knight-sys-inc/#:~:text=Non%2Dcompete%20covenants%20executed%20in%20conjunction,in%20conjunction%20with%20employment%20contracts.",
            "proposition": "Palmetto Mortuary holds that sale-of-business non-competes are scrutinized more leniently than employment non-competes.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Non-compete covenants executed in conjunction with the sale of a business should be scrutinized at a more relaxed level than non-compete covenants executed in conjunction with employment contracts.",
            "date": "2018-08-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-palmetto-relaxed-scrutiny"
          },
          {
            "id": "palmetto-enforced",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Palmetto Mortuary Transport, Inc. v. Knight Systems, Inc.",
            "citation": "Palmetto Mortuary Transp., Inc. v. Knight Sys., Inc., 424 S.C. 444, 818 S.E.2d 724 (2018).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8399125/palmetto-mortuary-transp-inc-v-knight-sys-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8399125/palmetto-mortuary-transp-inc-v-knight-sys-inc/#:~:text=We%20hold%20the%20territorial%20restriction,sustaining%20grounds%20are%20without%20merit.",
            "proposition": "Palmetto Mortuary upheld the territorial restriction of the sale-related covenant as reasonable and enforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We hold the territorial restriction of the non-compete covenant is reasonable and enforceable, and we hold Knight's additional sustaining grounds are without merit.",
            "date": "2018-08-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-palmetto-enforced"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "extended-for-breach",
        "label": "Does South Carolina toll a non-compete?",
        "heading": "Does a South Carolina non-compete toll or extend during breach or litigation?",
        "answerText": "South Carolina law points against it. In Stonhard, the Supreme Court held that extending a covenant's time period beyond its stated expiration would be against public policy, and no South Carolina decision endorses automatic judicial tolling during a breach.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stonhard-no-extension",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc.",
            "citation": "Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists, Inc., 366 S.C. 156, 621 S.E.2d 352 (2005).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1202971/stonhard-inc-v-carolina-flooring-specialists-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1202971/stonhard-inc-v-carolina-flooring-specialists-inc/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20any%20extension%20of%20the,party's%20private%20right%20to%20contract.",
            "proposition": "Stonhard holds that extending a covenant's time period beyond its stated expiration would be against public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, any extension of the time period would be against public policy, because it would be arbitrary and set precedent allowing a court to disrupt a party's private right to contract.",
            "date": "2005-10-10",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-stonhard-no-extension"
          },
          {
            "id": "q8-team-ia-five-factor-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas",
            "citation": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237, 717 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete,(5)%20supported%20by%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "Team IA's reasonableness test governs any restraint, including one extended by a tolling clause, which must remain reasonably limited in time.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is: (1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer; (2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place; (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood; (4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and (5) supported by valuable consideration.",
            "date": "2011-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-q8-team-ia-five-factor-test"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "physician-healthcare",
        "label": "What about physician and healthcare non-competes?",
        "heading": "Are physician and healthcare non-competes enforceable in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "For now, yes, under the same common-law test — South Carolina has no enacted physician-specific ban, though a bill to void physician non-competes passed the House in 2026 and is pending in the Senate.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "h4767-physician-bill",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "H.4767, Physician Noncompete Contract Prohibition Act",
            "citation": "H.4767, 126th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (S.C. 2026) (passed House Mar. 26, 2026; favorable Senate committee report May 5, 2026; not enacted).",
            "url": "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/prever/4767_20260505.htm",
            "proposition": "H.4767, a bill pending in the South Carolina Senate, would declare physician noncompete clauses against the public policy of the State.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Contracts with physicians containing noncompete clauses are considered interference with the establishment or maintenance of a patient's choice of physician and are against the public policy of the State of South Carolina.",
            "date": "2026-05-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-h4767-physician-bill"
          },
          {
            "id": "q9-team-ia-five-factor-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas",
            "citation": "Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237, 717 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2507693/team-ia-inc-v-lucas/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete,(5)%20supported%20by%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "Team IA's five-factor test, including the sound-public-policy factor, governs physician non-competes absent a physician-specific statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is: (1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer; (2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place; (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood; (4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and (5) supported by valuable consideration.",
            "date": "2011-10-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-q9-team-ia-five-factor-test"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "federal-ftc-overlay",
        "label": "Did the FTC rule change South Carolina law?",
        "heading": "Did the FTC's federal non-compete rule change South Carolina non-compete law?",
        "answerText": "No. The FTC's 2024 nationwide Non-Compete Rule was set aside by a federal court before it took effect, so South Carolina non-competes remain governed by South Carolina common law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ryan-ftc-set-aside",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission",
            "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=The%20Non%2DCompete%20Rule%2C%2016%20C.F.R.,September%204%2C%202024%2C%20or%20thereafter.",
            "proposition": "Ryan set aside the FTC Non-Compete Rule and held it would not take effect.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.",
            "date": "2024-08-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-ryan-ftc-set-aside"
          },
          {
            "id": "ryan-ftc-unlawful",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission",
            "citation": "Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10205745/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20the%20Court%20concludes%20that,Rule%20is%20arbitrary%20and%20capricious.",
            "proposition": "Ryan held the FTC lacked statutory authority to promulgate the rule and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In sum, the Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non- Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious.",
            "date": "2024-08-20",
            "pullQuoteLocator": "In sum, the Court concludes that|Rule is arbitrary and capricious.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/south-carolina#src-ryan-ftc-unlawful"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}