December 24, 2025 | Posted By: Hoyer Law Group, PLLC

The content of this blog post was last updated on Thursday, January 8, 2026. The laws may have changed since this blog post was written.

Noncompete agreements are common in Florida employment contracts, but they are often misunderstood. Employees are frequently told that noncompetes are “always enforceable” in Florida, while employers sometimes assume that signing an agreement guarantees protection from competition. Neither view is quite right.

Florida law takes a distinctive approach: it begins with a strong prohibition against restraints of trade, then creates a detailed statutory carve-out allowing noncompetes under defined conditions. In 2025, the Legislature expanded that carve-out even further for a narrow category of highly compensated workers.

This article explains how Florida noncompete law actually works, how courts apply it in real cases, and what the 2025 amendments changed.

Quick Answers (FAQ)

Are noncompete agreements legal in Florida?

Yes — but only because Florida law creates a statutory exception to the general rule that restraints of trade are unlawful.

Are noncompetes enforceable in Florida?

Often yes, provided the employer can meet the statutory requirements and the restriction is reasonable in scope.

Do Florida courts care about hardship to the employee?

Yes, but not in the way many employees expect. Economic hardship does not automatically defeat enforcement.

What happens if a noncompete is too broad?

Courts usually modify it rather than invalidate it entirely.

What changed in 2025?

Florida enacted the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act, creating new, strongly enforceable noncompete and garden-leave agreements for certain highly compensated workers.

The Statutory Framework:

Restraint of Trade → Carve-Out → Conditions

The Default Rule: Restraints of Trade Are Unlawful

Florida noncompete law starts from a position of skepticism. Section 542.18 of the Florida Statutes declares that “[e]very contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.” Fla. Stat. § 542.18.

This principle remains foundational. Noncompete agreements are not favored by default; they are enforceable only because the Legislature has chosen to permit them under specific circumstances.

The Carve-Out: When Noncompetes Are Allowed

The principal carve-out appears in section 542.335. That statute provides that a written covenant restricting competition may be enforced if it is reasonable in time, area, and line of business and supported by a legitimate business interest. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1).

Importantly, the statute instructs courts not to apply traditional rules of contract construction that disfavor restraints on trade. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(h). Once an employer satisfies the statutory framework, enforcement analysis becomes markedly employer-friendly.

What Must Be Shown for a Noncompete to Be Enforceable

A Legitimate Business Interest

An employer must plead and prove the existence of at least one “legitimate business interest.” Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b). The statute provides a non-exclusive list, including:

• Trade secrets, as defined in § 688.002(4). Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)1.
• Valuable confidential business or professional information that does not otherwise qualify as trade secrets. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)2.
• Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers or clients. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)3.
• Customer goodwill. Fla Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)4.
• Extraordinary or specialized training. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)5.

Courts require specificity. Generic assertions of “confidential information” or “customer relationships” are insufficient. See Anich Indus., Inc. v. Raney, 751 So. 2d 767, 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1180–83 (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Customer goodwill must be tied to an ongoing business or professional practice, a specific geography location, or a specific marketing or trade area. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)(4).

The Florida Supreme Court has emphasized that the statutory list is not exhaustive and that legitimacy depends on context and proof. White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774, 786 (Fla. 2017).

Reasonableness of the Restraint

Even with a legitimate business interest, the restriction must be reasonably necessary to protect it. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)( c ). Courts examine:

• Duration
• Geographic scope
• Scope of prohibited activity

The statute contains presumptions of reasonableness for certain time periods, but those presumptions can be rebutted. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d).

A Separate Question: What the Law Says About Harm to the Employee

Florida does not apply a free-floating “fairness” or hardship test. Indeed, Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(G)(1) prohibits a court from considering any individualized economic harm or other hardship that may be caused to the employee. Courts routinely state that economic hardship to the employee, standing alone, does not invalidate a noncompete.

That does not mean hardship is irrelevant. Employee harm appears indirectly in several places:

• In determining whether a restriction is broader than reasonably necessary.
• In shaping injunctive relief.
• In decisions narrowing geographic or functional scope.

In practice, however, once an employer establishes a legitimate business interest and contractual breach, the analysis tends to favor enforcement even if the restriction significantly limits the employee’s short-term earning capacity.

How Noncompete Cases Actually Play Out in Court

Section 542.335 places the burden squarely on the employer to plead and prove both the existence of a legitimate business interest and that the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect it. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b)–( c ). Courts scrutinize this showing closely, particularly at the injunction stage.

Florida courts have long made clear that the existence of a legitimate business interest is not presumed, and that the prohibition of competition itself is not a legitimate business interest. As the Fourth District explained:

Any competition by a former employee may well injure the business of the employer. An employer, however, cannot by contract restrain ordinary competition. In order for an employer to be entitled to protection, there must be special facts present over and above ordinary competition. These special facts must be such that without the covenant not to compete the employee would gain an unfair advantage in future competition with the employer.

Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc., 844 So. 2d 792, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

More recently, courts have applied this principle to reject noncompetes supported only by generalized or industry-common assertions. As Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey demonstrates, Florida courts do not simply accept labels; an employer must identify and prove concrete, protectable business interests, not merely invoke generic notions of confidentiality or customer relationships. 653 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1180–83 (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Injunctions Are the Real Battlefield

Most Florida noncompete disputes are effectively decided at the preliminary injunction stage. While final adjudication may occur much later, the practical consequences of enforcement are often determined early in the case.

Once an employer establishes the existence of a legitimate business interest and makes a prima facie showing of a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant, Florida law permits courts to presume irreparable harm. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j). As the First District has explained, “[o]nce a violation of a non-compete covenant is established by prima facie evidence, the statute shifts the burden to the respondent to establish the absence of injury.” DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

This statutory presumption helps explain why economic hardship arguments often fail at the injunction stage. Florida courts do not disregard the impact of enforcement on the employee; rather, once the presumption applies, the analysis focuses on whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests, not on individualized hardship. See id.; see also Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(g)1.

As a result, preliminary injunction proceedings frequently turn on narrow questions of proof and scope, often under compressed timelines. By the time a case reaches trial or arbitration, the competitive landscape may already have shifted in ways that are difficult to unwind.

Even a “Win” May Not Be a Win: Blue-Penciling

Florida law requires courts to modify overbroad restraints rather than invalidate them entirely. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)( c ).

As a result, a ruling that a noncompete is “too broad” often leads to a narrower, court-imposed restriction — not freedom from restraint. Employees sometimes discover that a partial victory still leaves them sidelined.

What If the Agreement Requires Arbitration?

Many Florida employment agreements pair noncompetes with arbitration clauses, often allowing employers to seek injunctive relief in court while sending the merits to arbitration.

A recent example is found in Atlantic Wealth Partners, LLC v. Brant, where the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified that an employer does not necessarily waive arbitration by filing suit for injunctive relief or conducting limited discovery related to that relief. 417 So. 3d 338, 342–44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

The practical effect is that employees may face immediate court-ordered restraints followed by arbitration proceedings with limited discovery and review. However, an arbitration clause may well provide the employee with significant leverage due to the costs of arbitration that may be forced upon the employer.

The 2025 CHOICE Act: What Changed — and What Didn’t

Overview of the CHOICE Act

In 2025, Florida enacted Part II of Chapter 542, known as the CHOICE Act. Fla. Stat. §§ 542.41–.45. The Legislature expressly found that stronger enforcement of restrictive covenants for certain workers serves a legitimate state interest. Fla. Stat. § 542.42. The Legislature reasoned that “enforcing strong legal protections in contracts between employers and contracted personnel [can] encourage optimal levels of information sharing and training and development” between employees and employers. Id.

Who Is Covered

The CHOICE Act applies prospectively to agreements entered on or after July 1, 2025.

The Act applies only to “covered employees,” generally defined as employees or contractors earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county. Fla. Stat. § 542.43(3). Certain health care practitioners are excluded, and physicians with medical specialties should be aware of certain statutory provisions found at Fla. Stat. § 542.336, which limit the enforcement of some noncompete agreements.

Covered Noncompete and Garden-Leave Agreements

For covered employees, the Act authorizes:

• Covered noncompete agreements lasting up to four years. Fla. Stat. § 542.43(6); § 542.45.
• Covered garden-leave agreements, requiring advance notice and continued pay during the restricted period. Fla. Stat. § 542.43(5); § 542.44.

These agreements are expressly declared not to violate Florida’s restraint-of-trade statute. Fla. Stat. §§ 542.44(2), 542.45(2).

Mandatory Injunctions and Shifted Burdens

Perhaps most significantly, the Act employs a presumption favorable to employers and requires courts to issue preliminary injunctions upon alleged breach unless the employee or their new employer can rebut enforcement by clear and convincing evidence. Fla. Stat. §§ 542.44(5), 542.45(5).

What the CHOICE Act Does Not Do

The Act does not repeal or replace section 542.335. Any restrictive covenant that does not qualify as a covered agreement remains governed by traditional Florida noncompete law. Fla. Stat. § 542.45 (final paragraph).

Key Takeaways

• Noncompetes are legal in Florida, but only by statutory exception.
• Employers must establish a legitimate business interest and narrowly tailor the restrictions to protect those interests; and mere competition is not a legitimate business interest.
• Florida courts frequently enforce noncompetes, especially at the injunction stage.
• Employee hardship alone rarely defeats enforcement.
• Even successful challenges may result in court-modified restrictions rather than invalidation.
• The 2025 CHOICE Act significantly strengthens employer enforcement tools for a limited class of highly compensated workers.
• Employees should seek legal advice before signing a noncompete and before taking steps to leave an employer or start a competing venture.