Is My Non-Compete Enforceable in California? No, and Your Employer May Owe You a Notice

Almost certainly not. California voids non-compete agreements in employment, and since 2024 it goes further: including one in a contract is itself unlawful, employers had to send affected employees written notice that the clause was void, and an employee can sue over it and recover legal fees. The Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad, a Los Angeles employment firm representing employees only, handles those claims.

At a glance

• The clause is void. Business and Professions Code section 16600(a) makes every contract that restrains someone "from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind" void to that extent, unless it fits a narrow exception elsewhere in the chapter.
• It is void however narrowly it was written. Section 16600(b)(1) says the section is to be read broadly "to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored".
• Including it was unlawful. Section 16600.1(a): "It shall be unlawful to include a noncompete clause in an employment contract, or to require an employee to enter a noncompete agreement" that meets no exception.
• Your employer probably owed you a notice. Section 16600.1(b) required employers to notify affected employees by 14 February 2024 that the clause was void, in writing, individually, to the last known postal and email address. That applied to current employees and to former employees employed after 1 January 2022.
• You can sue, and you can recover fees. Section 16600.5(e) gives an employee, a former employee, or a prospective employee a private action for an injunction or actual damages or both, and a prevailing employee "shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs".
• Signing it elsewhere does not save it. Section 16600.5(a) voids the contract "regardless of where and when the contract was signed", and (b) bars an employer from trying to enforce it even where the contract was signed and the employment maintained outside California.

Why does California void non-competes when most states allow them?

Because California protects the right to work rather than the employer's interest in restricting it.

Section 16600(a) is short and old: "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." Most states ask whether a restriction is reasonable in scope, geography and duration. California does not run that test in the employment context. Either the agreement fits one of the narrow statutory exceptions, which are mostly about the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership, or it is void.

The legislature made that even harder to argue with in 2024. Section 16600(b)(1) directs that the section "shall be read broadly" to void a non-compete in employment "no matter how narrowly tailored". Subdivision (c) adds that the section is not limited to contracts where the restrained person is even a party.

What changed in 2024, and why it matters to you

Two statutes took effect on 1 January 2024, and together they turned a defence into a claim.

AB 1076 added section 16600.1. Subdivision (a) makes it unlawful to include a non-compete clause in an employment contract or to require an employee to sign one. Subdivision (b) then imposed a deadline on employers: by 14 February 2024, an employer had to notify each affected current employee, and each former employee employed after 1 January 2022, that the clause or agreement was void. Subdivision (b)(2) is specific about the form. It had to be "a written individualized communication" delivered to the employee's last known address and email address. Subdivision (c) makes a violation an act of unfair competition under section 17200.

SB 699 added section 16600.5. It closed the out-of-state route and gave employees a way into court. The contract is void "regardless of where and when the contract was signed". An employer "shall not attempt to enforce" it, even where it was signed and the employment maintained outside California. Entering one or attempting to enforce one "commits a civil violation". And subdivision (e) creates the private action, with attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing employee.

That last point is the practical one. Before 2024 a void non-compete was mostly a shield you raised if your former employer came after you. Now it can be the reason you are in court in the first place.

Did my employer have to send me a notice?

If you were employed by them after 1 January 2022 and your contract carried a non-compete clause that fits no exception, then yes, and the deadline was 14 February 2024.

Two things worth being clear about. The deadline has passed, so this is not a clock you are waiting on. And a missing notice is not automatically a payday. It is a statutory violation, and what it is worth depends on your facts, including what the clause did to you.

Where it tends to matter most is the employee who did not know the clause was void and behaved as though it was not. People turn down work, sit out a notice period they did not owe, take a lower offer outside the restricted field, or decline to talk to a competitor at all. If you did any of that because of a clause your employer was required to tell you was void, that is worth a conversation.

Look for a letter or an email from around late 2023 or early 2024 saying a non-compete in your agreement is void. If you never received one, say so when you call.

Ready to talk it through?

If you have a non-compete in front of you, or you are being threatened with one, the useful move is a short conversation before you make a decision about your next job. At the Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad the consultation is free and confidential, and the firm represents employees only.

What about an NDA, or a clause that stops me taking clients?

Those are different agreements and they are not all void, so read the label carefully.

A confidentiality agreement protecting genuine trade secrets is not the same thing as a non-compete, and California law treats trade secrets under their own statute. A clause that stops you soliciting your former employer's customers, or one that stops you recruiting your former colleagues, is a non-solicitation clause. Courts have treated customer non-solicitation clauses in employment as restraints that run into section 16600, and the 2024 amendments were written broadly, but the analysis depends on what the clause actually says and does.

The practical point is that employers often bundle all of this into one document titled something else. What controls is the effect of the words, not the heading. If a clause has the practical effect of stopping you working in your field, bring it in and have it read.

Can I be fired or have an offer pulled over this?

It happens, and it can be its own claim.

Most California employment is at will, so an employer can generally end it for any reason that is not itself unlawful. Refusing to sign a document the law makes it unlawful to require is not an ordinary reason. Section 16600.1(a) makes requiring the agreement unlawful, and section 16600.5(e) extends the private action to a prospective employee, which is the law contemplating exactly the situation where an offer is conditioned on signing.

If an offer was withdrawn because you would not sign, or you were let go after you questioned the clause, that sequence is worth describing to a lawyer in full. The order of events usually matters more than the document.

How long do I have to act?

Sooner is better, and the deadlines depend on which claim you are bringing.

The 14 February 2024 notice deadline was an obligation on your employer, not a deadline on you. Your own time limits come from the claim you bring, and those vary. A claim under section 16600.5, an unfair competition claim under section 17200, and any wrongful termination or retaliation claim attached to the same facts each run on their own clock, and some are short.

If discrimination or retaliation is part of the story, note that claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) require an administrative complaint to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) (formerly DFEH) within three years, and some claims carry shorter windows. Deadlines can run earlier than people expect, so treat the clock as already running.

Frequently asked questions

Is a non-compete enforceable in California?

Generally no. Business and Professions Code section 16600(a) makes a contract restraining someone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business void to that extent, unless it fits a narrow exception in the same chapter. Section 16600(b)(1) directs that this be read broadly to void a non-compete in employment "no matter how narrowly tailored".

My employer never told me my non-compete was void. Was that required?

If you were employed after 1 January 2022 and your agreement carried a non-compete that fits no exception, section 16600.1(b) required your employer to notify you in writing by 14 February 2024, individually, at your last known postal address and email address. Many employers did not do it.

Can I sue my employer over a non-compete in California?

Section 16600.5(e) allows an employee, a former employee or a prospective employee to bring a private action for injunctive relief or actual damages or both, and a prevailing employee is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. What a specific situation is worth depends on the facts.

I signed my non-compete in another state. Does California law still apply?

Section 16600.5(a) says a contract void under the chapter is unenforceable "regardless of where and when the contract was signed", and (b) bars an employer from attempting to enforce it even where the contract was signed and the employment maintained outside California.

Is a non-solicitation clause the same as a non-compete?

No, and it needs its own read. A clause restricting who you may solicit is analysed on what it actually does, and a clause whose practical effect is to keep you out of your field runs into section 16600. The heading on the document does not decide it.

Can my employer fire me for refusing to sign one?

Section 16600.1(a) makes requiring the agreement unlawful, and the private action in section 16600.5(e) reaches prospective employees, which covers an offer conditioned on signing. If you lost a job or an offer over this, the sequence of events is the thing to describe to a lawyer.

Does any non-compete hold up in California?

The exceptions in the chapter are narrow and mostly concern the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership, not ordinary employment. Trade secret protection is a separate body of law and is not voided by section 16600.

Talk to us before you sign, or before you turn down work

If a non-compete is shaping a decision about your career, that is the moment to get it read rather than after.

The Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad represents employees across California, and most of the firm's work is in Los Angeles. The consultation is free.

Call (424) 255-8376 or send us the agreement through our contact form, and we will tell you what it actually does.

The Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad is a Los Angeles based employment law firm representing employees across California in wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wage and hour matters. Representing employees is the core of the firm's practice. Mr. Delshad serves as Editor-in-Chief of the California Wrongful Termination Law Review and trained at Latham & Watkins. Recognition includes Super Lawyers (2022 to 2027), Best Lawyers (since 2017), and an Avvo 10.0 "Superb" rating. Reviewed for California employment law accuracy. Last updated: September 1, 2026.

Attorney advertising. This article is educational only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, which exists only under a signed engagement agreement. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts. Deadlines can run early, so consult a lawyer promptly about your situation.