{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "wisconsin", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Wisconsin", "description": "A question-by-question summary of Wisconsin non-compete law under Wis. Stat. § 103.465, including the five-factor reasonableness test, the no-blue-pencil rule, divisibility of separate covenants, employee and customer non-solicitation, consideration, tolling and extension-during-breach clauses, choice of law, the 2025-26 legislative attempts, and trade-secret alternatives.", "state": "Wisconsin", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Wisconsin enforces employee non-competes only if they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest under a demanding five-factor test, and an overbroad covenant is voided in full because courts will not blue-pencil it.", "keyLaw": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465", "exceptions": "Sale-of-business/equity covenants judged under common-law rule of reason; lawyers barred (SCR 20:5.6)", "courtNarrowing": "no", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "No — an extension-during-breach clause voids the entire covenant (H&R Block v. Swenson)", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Common-law rule of reason for sale/equity covenants", "customerNonSolicit": "Governed by § 103.465", "employeeNonSolicit": "Governed by § 103.465" }, "about": [ "Wisconsin non-compete agreements", "Wis. Stat. § 103.465 restrictive covenants", "Wisconsin five-factor reasonableness test", "Wisconsin no-blue-pencil rule", "Wisconsin divisibility of restrictive covenants", "Wisconsin employee and customer non-solicitation", "Wisconsin restrictive covenant consideration", "Wisconsin non-compete tolling and extension clauses", "Wisconsin choice-of-law and restrictive covenants", "Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-wisconsin" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Wisconsin?", "answerText": "Yes, but only if they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest. Wisconsin is not a ban state, yet Wis. Stat. § 103.465 makes a restrictive covenant lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer, and the courts apply a demanding five-factor test that an overbroad covenant fails.", "sources": [ { "id": "q1-103465-core", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465", "citation": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/103/465", "proposition": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465 makes a restrictive covenant in an employment contract lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant by an assistant, servant or agent not to compete with his or her employer or principal during the term of the employment or agency, or after the termination of that employment or agency, within a specified territory and during a specified time is lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q1-103465-core" }, { "id": "q1-star-direct-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra", "citation": "Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, 319 Wis. 2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1835915/star-direct-inc-v-dal-pra/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1835915/star-direct-inc-v-dal-pra/#:~:text=A%20restrictive%20covenant%20must%3A%20(1),be%20contrary%20to%20public%20policy.", "proposition": "Star Direct v. Dal Pra states the five prerequisites a restrictive covenant must satisfy to be enforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "verbatimQuote": "A restrictive covenant must: (1) be necessary for the protection of the employer, that is, the employer must have a protectable interest justifying the restriction imposed on the activity of the employee; (2) provide a reasonable time limit; (3) provide a reasonable territorial limit; (4) not be harsh or oppressive as to the employee; and (5) not be contrary to public policy.", "date": "2009-07-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q1-star-direct-test" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Can a court narrow an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Can a Wisconsin court blue-pencil or narrow an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "No. Wis. Stat. § 103.465 declares that a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is void and unenforceable even as to any part that would have been a reasonable restraint, so Wisconsin courts do not rewrite, narrow, or blue-pencil an overbroad covenant. The Court of Appeals has confirmed that a contractual modification or savings clause cannot rescue a covenant that violates the statute.", "sources": [ { "id": "q2-103465-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465", "citation": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/103/465", "proposition": "Wis. Stat. § 103.465 voids an unreasonable restraint even as to any part of the covenant that would have been a reasonable restraint, barring judicial blue-penciling.", "verbatimQuote": "Any covenant, described in this section, imposing an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q2-103465-void" }, { "id": "q2-diamond-modification", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Diamond Assets LLC v. Godina", "citation": "Diamond Assets LLC v. Godina, 2022 WI App 47.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10110688/diamond-assets-llc-v-carlos-godina/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10110688/diamond-assets-llc-v-carlos-godina/#:~:text=Given%20that%20the%20modification%20provision,could%20have%20no%20effect%20here.", "proposition": "Diamond Assets v. Godina held that a contractual modification provision contrary to Wis. Stat. § 103.465 has no effect and cannot save an overbroad covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "Given that the modification provision is contrary to WIS. STAT. § 103.465, it could have no effect here.", "date": "2022-07-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q2-diamond-modification" } ] }, { "slug": "divisibility", "label": "Are separate covenants severable?", "heading": "Are separate restrictive covenants in one Wisconsin agreement severable?", "answerText": "Yes, if they are genuinely distinct. Although a court cannot narrow a single overbroad covenant, Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra holds that separate covenants supporting different interests that can be independently read and enforced are divisible, so one invalid covenant does not automatically doom a stand-alone confidentiality or non-solicitation clause.", "sources": [ { "id": "q3-star-direct-divisible", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra", "citation": "Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, 319 Wis. 2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1835915/star-direct-inc-v-dal-pra/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1835915/star-direct-inc-v-dal-pra/#:~:text=Restrictive%20covenants%20are%20divisible%20when,be%20independently%20read%20and%20enforced.", "proposition": "Star Direct v. Dal Pra holds that separate covenants supporting different interests that can be independently read and enforced are divisible, so an invalid covenant does not automatically void a distinct valid one.", "verbatimQuote": "Restrictive covenants are divisible when the contract contains different covenants supporting different interests that can be independently read and enforced.", "date": "2009-07-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q3-star-direct-divisible" } ] }, { "slug": "nonsolicitation", "label": "Do non-solicitation covenants count?", "heading": "Are employee and customer non-solicitation covenants governed by § 103.465?", "answerText": "Yes. In Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an employee non-solicitation provision is a restraint of trade governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465, and it struck down a clause barring solicitation of any Manitowoc employee as overbroad on its face — voiding the covenant and undoing an award that had included roughly $1 million in attorney fees.", "sources": [ { "id": "q4-lanning-governed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning", "citation": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4460470/the-manitowoc-company-inc-v-john-m-lanning/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4460470/the-manitowoc-company-inc-v-john-m-lanning/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20we%20conclude%20that%20Lanning's,by%20Wis.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7%20103.465.", "proposition": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning held that an employee non-solicitation provision is a restraint of trade governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, we conclude that Lanning's non-solicitation of employees provision is a restraint of trade governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "date": "2018-01-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q4-lanning-governed" }, { "id": "q4-lanning-overbroad", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning", "citation": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4460470/the-manitowoc-company-inc-v-john-m-lanning/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4460470/the-manitowoc-company-inc-v-john-m-lanning/#:~:text=In%20applying%20the%20prerequisites%20that,is%20overbroad%20on%20its%20face.", "proposition": "Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning concluded that a non-solicitation of employees provision barring solicitation of any employee was overbroad on its face and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "verbatimQuote": "In applying the prerequisites that must be met under Wis. Stat. § 103.465, we conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the non-solicitation of employees provision is overbroad on its face.", "date": "2018-01-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q4-lanning-overbroad" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "What consideration is required?", "heading": "What consideration supports a Wisconsin non-compete signed during employment?", "answerText": "Conditioned continued employment is enough — at least formally. In Runzheimer International, Ltd. v. Friedlen, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an employer's forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at-will employee is lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant, so an employer that actually forbears from termination in exchange for the covenant does not necessarily have to pay extra to bind an existing worker.", "sources": [ { "id": "q5-runzheimer", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Runzheimer Int'l, Ltd. v. Friedlen", "citation": "Runzheimer Int'l, Ltd. v. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2797640/runzheimer-international-ltd-v-david-friedlen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2797640/runzheimer-international-ltd-v-david-friedlen/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20an%20employer's,for%20signing%20a%20restrictive%20covenant.", "proposition": "Runzheimer Int'l v. Friedlen held that an employer's forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at-will employee is lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "We hold that an employer's forbearance in exercising its right to terminate an at-will employee constitutes lawful consideration for signing a restrictive covenant.", "date": "2015-04-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q5-runzheimer" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does tolling extend the period?", "heading": "Can a Wisconsin non-compete be tolled or extended during a breach?", "answerText": "No — and trying voids the covenant. In H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. Swenson, the Court of Appeals held that a clause extending the restricted period by any time the employee was in violation made the duration indefinite and unreasonable, so the entire clause was void under § 103.465 even if it would otherwise have been reasonable. A tolling or extension-during-breach clause is a void-trigger in Wisconsin, not an enforcement aid.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-hrblock-extension", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "H&R Block Eastern Enters., Inc. v. Swenson", "citation": "H&R Block Eastern Enters., Inc. v. Swenson, 2008 WI App 3.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1912635/hr-block-eastern-enterprises-inc-v-swenson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1912635/hr-block-eastern-enterprises-inc-v-swenson/#:~:text=The%20effect%20of%20the%20extension,outcomes%20the%20employee%20cannot%20predict.", "proposition": "H&R Block v. Swenson held that a clause extending the restricted period by any period of violation made the duration of the restraint indefinite rather than fixed and definite.", "verbatimQuote": "The effect of the extension provision thus makes the duration of the restraint not a fixed and definite time period but a time period that is contingent upon outcomes the employee cannot predict.", "date": "2007-12-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q6-hrblock-extension" }, { "id": "q6-hrblock-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "H&R Block Eastern Enters., Inc. v. Swenson", "citation": "H&R Block Eastern Enters., Inc. v. Swenson, 2008 WI App 3.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1912635/hr-block-eastern-enterprises-inc-v-swenson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1912635/hr-block-eastern-enterprises-inc-v-swenson/#:~:text=Because%20this%20restraint%20in%20each,if%20each%20is%20otherwise%20reasonable.", "proposition": "H&R Block v. Swenson held that because the extension provision made the restraint unreasonable, each clause was void and unenforceable even if otherwise reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "Because this restraint in each clause is unreasonable, each clause is void and unenforceable even if each is otherwise reasonable.", "date": "2007-12-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q6-hrblock-void" } ] }, { "slug": "confidentiality-ndas", "label": "Are confidentiality clauses treated as covenants?", "heading": "Are confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses subject to § 103.465 in Wisconsin?", "answerText": "They can be. In Diamond Assets LLC v. Godina, the Court of Appeals treated a broad confidentiality covenant as a restrictive covenant subject to Wis. Stat. § 103.465 and held it unenforceable on a motion to dismiss, regardless of any evidence the employer might later offer — because an overbroad confidentiality restraint fails the same reasonableness test as a non-compete.", "sources": [ { "id": "q7-diamond-nda", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Diamond Assets LLC v. Godina", "citation": "Diamond Assets LLC v. Godina, 2022 WI App 47.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10110688/diamond-assets-llc-v-carlos-godina/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10110688/diamond-assets-llc-v-carlos-godina/#:~:text=As%20to%20the%20confidentiality%20covenant%2C,might%20be%20able%20to%20submit.", "proposition": "Diamond Assets v. Godina held that an overbroad confidentiality covenant subject to Wis. Stat. § 103.465 was unenforceable on a motion to dismiss, regardless of later evidence.", "verbatimQuote": "As to the confidentiality covenant, we agree with Godina that it is properly subject to a motion to dismiss as unenforceable, regardless of the evidence Diamond might be able to submit.", "date": "2022-07-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q7-diamond-nda" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "Do sale-of-business covenants differ?", "heading": "Are sale-of-business and ownership covenants treated differently in Wisconsin?", "answerText": "Yes. A covenant given outside the employer-employee relationship — as part of a genuine business sale or equity transaction rather than as a condition of employment — falls outside § 103.465's exacting scrutiny and is judged under the common-law rule of reason. Reiman Associates, Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc. applied the more lenient rule of partial enforcement to a sale-of-business covenant, and Selmer Co. v. Rinn evaluated a covenant it found outside the employment relationship under the rule of reason instead of the statute.", "sources": [ { "id": "q8-reiman", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Reiman Assocs., Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc.", "citation": "Reiman Assocs., Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc., 102 Wis. 2d 305 (Ct. App. 1981).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2033820/reiman-associates-inc-v-ra-advertising-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2033820/reiman-associates-inc-v-ra-advertising-inc/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20covenants%20incidental%20to%20the,and%20reasonable%20under%20the%20circumstances.", "proposition": "Reiman v. R/A Advertising held that covenants incidental to the sale of a business benefit from the rule of partial enforcement, under which even an unreasonable restraint is enforced to the extent reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "Additionally, covenants incidental to the sale of a business benefit from full application of the rule of partial enforcement: even an unreasonable restraint will be enforced to the extent necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.", "date": "1981-04-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q8-reiman" }, { "id": "q8-selmer", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Selmer Co. v. Rinn", "citation": "Selmer Co. v. Rinn, 2010 WI App 106.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8238275/selmer-co-v-rinn/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8238275/selmer-co-v-rinn/#:~:text=Having%20determined%20Wis.%20Stat.%20%C2%A7,common%20law's%20rule%20of%20reason.", "proposition": "Selmer Co. v. Rinn held that a covenant outside the employment relationship is evaluated under the common law's rule of reason rather than Wis. Stat. § 103.465.", "verbatimQuote": "Having determined Wis. Stat. § 103.465 does not apply, we must determine whether the covenant not to compete satisfies the common law's rule of reason.", "date": "2010-07-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q8-selmer" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-of-law", "label": "Can a choice-of-law clause avoid § 103.465?", "heading": "Can an out-of-state choice-of-law clause avoid Wisconsin's non-compete rules?", "answerText": "Generally no. Wisconsin courts refuse to enforce a choice-of-law clause that would apply another state's more permissive covenant law in place of § 103.465, because doing so would violate Wisconsin's fundamental public policy. Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp. refused to apply Ohio law that permitted severability, and Bush v. National School Studios identified laws prohibiting covenants not to compete as the kind of fundamental policy that overrides a contractual choice of law.", "sources": [ { "id": "q9-beilfuss", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp.", "citation": "Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp., 2004 WI App 118.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2084488/beilfuss-v-huffy-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2084488/beilfuss-v-huffy-corp/#:~:text=We%20hold%20the%20choice%20of%20law%20provision%20is,public%20policy%2C%20while%20Ohio%20does.", "proposition": "Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp. held a choice-of-law provision unenforceable because applying Ohio severability law would violate Wisconsin's public policy controlling covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "We hold the choice of law provision is unenforceable because it violates Wisconsin's long-standing public policy controlling covenants not to compete, in that Wisconsin does not permit severability as a matter of public policy, while Ohio does.", "date": "2004-05-12", "pullQuoteLocator": "We hold the choice of law provision is|public policy, while Ohio does.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q9-beilfuss" }, { "id": "q9-bush", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bush v. National School Studios, Inc.", "citation": "Bush v. National School Studios, Inc., 139 Wis. 2d 635 (1987).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1236111/bush-v-national-school-studios-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1236111/bush-v-national-school-studios-inc/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20however%2C%20statutes%20or,an%20important%20state%20public%20policy.", "proposition": "Bush v. National School Studios identified laws prohibiting covenants not to compete as an example of an important state public policy that can override a contractual choice-of-law stipulation.", "verbatimQuote": "In general, however, statutes or common law which make a particular type of contract enforceable, e.g., usury laws, or which make a particular contract provision unenforceable, e.g., laws prohibiting covenants not to compete, or that are designed to protect a weaker party against the unfair exercise of superior bargaining power by another party, are likely to embody an important state public policy.", "date": "1987-06-25", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q9-bush" } ] }, { "slug": "remedies", "label": "What remedies and exposure apply?", "heading": "What remedies and litigation exposure apply to Wisconsin non-competes?", "answerText": "An employer can pursue injunctive relief and damages, and a recent decision recognizes disgorgement of profits as a remedy for tortious interference involving an employee non-compete; any attorney-fee award is in turn capped by a statutory reasonableness presumption. But the employee side has its own limits: under Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., an at-will employee fired for refusing to sign a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement has no wrongful-discharge claim.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-frey", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Frey Construction & Home Improvement, LLC v. Hasheider Roofing & Siding, Ltd.", "citation": "Frey Construction & Home Improvement, LLC v. Hasheider Roofing & Siding, Ltd., 2025 WI App 4.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10293559/frey-construction-home-improvement-llc-v-hasheider-roofing-siding/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10293559/frey-construction-home-improvement-llc-v-hasheider-roofing-siding/#:~:text=However%2C%20we%20further%20conclude%20that,intentional%20interference%20with%20contract%20claim.", "proposition": "Frey Construction v. Hasheider Roofing held that disgorgement may be an appropriate remedy for an intentional interference with contract claim involving an employee non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "However, we further conclude that disgorgement may be an appropriate remedy for an intentional interference with contract claim.", "date": "2024-12-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q10-frey" }, { "id": "q10-tatge", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc.", "citation": "Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 579 N.W.2d 217 (1998).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2053665/tatge-v-chambers-owen-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2053665/tatge-v-chambers-owen-inc/#:~:text=We%20also%20hold%20that%20a,to%20sign%20a%20non%2Ddisclosure%2Fnon%2Dcompete%20agreement.", "proposition": "Tatge v. Chambers & Owen held that an at-will employee terminated for refusing to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement cannot maintain a wrongful-discharge claim.", "verbatimQuote": "We also hold that a contract cause of action for wrongful discharge may not be maintained under Brockmeyer where an at-will employee is terminated for failing to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement.", "date": "1998-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q10-tatge" }, { "id": "q10-fees-presumption", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045", "citation": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045(2)(a).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/814/i/045", "proposition": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045(2)(a) presumes that reasonable attorney fees do not exceed three times the compensatory damages awarded, rebuttable after weighing the statutory reasonableness factors.", "verbatimQuote": "In any action in which compensatory damages are awarded, the court shall presume that reasonable attorney fees do not exceed 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded but this presumption may be overcome if the court determines, after considering the factors set forth in sub. (1) , that a greater amount is reasonable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q10-fees-presumption" }, { "id": "q10-fees-agreement", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045", "citation": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045(3).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/814/i/045", "proposition": "Wis. Stat. § 814.045(3) preserves the parties' right to agree on attorney fees and presumes such an agreement is reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "This section does not abrogate the rights of persons to enter into an agreement for attorney fees, and the court shall presume that such an agreement is reasonable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q10-fees-agreement" } ] }, { "slug": "legislation", "label": "What about recent legislation and industry rules?", "heading": "What recent legislation and industry-specific rules affect Wisconsin non-competes?", "answerText": "No statutory change took effect. In the 2025-26 session the legislature considered a broad ban (2025 Assembly Bill 567) and medical-practitioner restrictions (2025 Assembly Bill 675 and Senate Bill 657), but all three failed to pass at the end of the session, leaving § 103.465 unchanged. The main industry-specific rule already on the books is the lawyer non-compete bar in SCR 20:5.6.", "sources": [ { "id": "q11-ab567", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "2025 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 567", "citation": "2025 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 567 (failed to pass, Mar. 23, 2026).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/proposals/ab567", "proposition": "2025 Assembly Bill 567 would have made most post-termination non-compete covenants illegal, void, and unenforceable; it failed to pass at the end of the 2025-26 session.", "verbatimQuote": "This bill makes most such covenants illegal, void, and unenforceable after the termination of employment or agency.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q11-ab567" }, { "id": "q11-ab675", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "2025 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 675", "citation": "2025 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 675 (failed to pass, Mar. 23, 2026).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/proposals/ab675", "proposition": "2025 Assembly Bill 675 would have restricted non-compete covenants for medical practitioners; it failed to pass at the end of the 2025-26 session.", "verbatimQuote": "This bill makes changes regarding covenants not to compete for advanced practice registered nurses, advanced practice nurse prescribers, physicians, physician assistants, and psychologists (\"medical practitioners\").", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q11-ab675" }, { "id": "q11-sb657", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "2025 Wisconsin Senate Bill 657", "citation": "2025 Wisconsin Senate Bill 657 (failed to pass, Mar. 23, 2026).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/proposals/sb657", "proposition": "2025 Senate Bill 657, the Senate companion to AB 675, would have voided medical-practitioner non-competes that restrict practice for more than 24 consecutive months; it failed to pass at the end of the 2025-26 session.", "verbatimQuote": "The bill provides that a covenant by a medical practitioner not to compete with his or her employer after the termination of the employment imposes an unreasonable restraint and is illegal, void, and unenforceable if the covenant includes a restriction that prohibits working as a medical practitioner for more than 24 consecutive months after the first day of the medical practitioner's employment with the employer that is imposing the covenant not to compete.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q11-sb657" }, { "id": "q11-scr", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. SCR 20:5.6", "citation": "Wis. SCR 20:5.6.", "url": "https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap20b.pdf", "proposition": "SCR 20:5.6 bars a lawyer from participating in an agreement that restricts the lawyer's right to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning retirement benefits or a settlement of a client controversy.", "verbatimQuote": "A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (a) a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement; or (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q11-scr" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets", "label": "What is the trade-secret alternative?", "heading": "How do trade-secret protections compare to a non-compete in Wisconsin?", "answerText": "They are often the more reliable tool. Wisconsin has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act at Wis. Stat. § 134.90, which protects qualifying information and authorizes injunctions and damages without the overbreadth risk that defeats so many non-competes — so an employer that cannot enforce a covenant may still protect genuine secrets.", "sources": [ { "id": "q12-wutsa", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wis. Stat. § 134.90", "citation": "Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c).", "url": "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/134/90", "proposition": "Wis. Stat. § 134.90, the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act, defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.", "verbatimQuote": "\"Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process to which all of the following apply: 1. The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. 2. The information is the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy that are reasonable under the circumstances.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/wisconsin#src-q12-wutsa" } ] } ] } }