There was confusion in recent years over the enforceability of non-compete agreements due to the FTC’s focus on the topic. However, after the dust from litigation settled, the legal landscape remains largely unchanged. State law still controls, and Ohio offers employers broad non-compete protection as compared to other states.
The Nationwide Ban is Dead
On May 7, 2024, the FTC published its Non-Compete Rule (the “Rule”) prohibiting employers from entering non-competes with workers on or after September 4, 2024.
The FTC’s Rule was immediately challenged. In Ryan, LLC v. FTC, the plaintiff filed suit in the Northern District of Texas challenging the FTC’s authority to conduct substantive rulemaking regarding “unfair methods of competition” and claiming the Rule was arbitrary. 746 F. Supp. 3d 369. The Northern District of Texas found that the FTC did not have the power to create substantive rules regarding unfair competition and ruled that the noncompete ban was “unreasonably overbroad” based on its “one-size-fits-all” approach. Id. In Properties of the Villages v. FTC, the Middle District Court of Florida issued a preliminary injunction against the FTC, preventing the enforcement of the Rule, holding that Congress had not explicitly given the FTC the power to regulate noncompete agreements. Props. of the Vills., Inc. v. FTC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151982.
Although the FTC appealed both decisions, in September 2025, it dismissed its appeals in Ryan and Properties of the Villages and acceded to the vacatur of the Rule. In February 2026, the FTC officially removed the non-compete rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Shift to “Case-by-Case” Enforcement
While there is no blanket federal ban, the FTC has not walked away from the issue entirely. The current strategy is individualized enforcement under Section 5 of the FTC Act. For instance, the agency has created a Joint Labor Task Force intended to coordinate investigations and enforcement actions related to labor market competition. Recently, such enforcement actions have focused on specific companies that use overly broad non-competes, particularly those affecting low-wage workers or specialized sectors like healthcare and pest control.
There are several recent and notable examples. In November 2025, the FTC challenged Gateway Services due to their blanket imposition of noncompete agreements for almost all of their 1,800 employees without a procompetitive reason for the lack of individualized consideration of the employees’ roles. In February 2026, the FTC ordered building services contractor Adamas Amenity Services LLC to cease enforcement of no-hire agreements, which Adamas was using to restrict building owners and management companies across New York City and New Jersey from directly hiring workers employed by Adamas. In April 2026, the FTC ordered Rollins, Inc. (the parent of Orkin) to void non-compete agreements for over 18,000 employees, signaling that they will still dismantle agreements they deem “unfair” on an individual basis. Rollins’s noncompete agreements typically prohibited employees from working in the pest-control industry for two years after ending employment with Rollins and further prohibited industry work within a 75-mile radius from one of Rollins’ more than 700 locations in the U.S.
State Law Controls
Because of the Rule’s failure, the enforceability of your non-compete depends almost entirely on state law. In states like California, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and North Dakota there remains a ban on nearly all non-competes. Other states (including Colorado, Washington, and Virginia) have passed laws in 2025 and 2026 that prohibit non-compete clauses for workers earning below a certain salary (often ranging from $100k to $150k). Several states have recently adopted industry specific bans on noncompete agreements, such as Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Rhode Island, who have banned or limited the use of non-competes for healthcare professionals.
Ohio is one of fewer than a dozen states without legislation limiting non-compete agreements and instead relies on the 1975 Ohio Supreme Court decision Raimonde v. VanVlerah to assess whether a restrictive covenant is reasonable and based upon a protectable business interest. However, this regime may soon change. In February 2025, Ohio state senators introduced Senate Bill 11 to ban noncompete agreements that restrict workers’ post-employment and provide them with the right to take legal action against employers. The bipartisan legislation would also void non-compete agreements entered into or modified after the bill’s effective date. Similarly, Senate Bill 301, which was introduced in October 2025, proposes to prohibit nonprofit hospitals from enforcing non-complete agreements against certain healthcare workers, except for a limited restriction of no more than six months within a 15-mile radius of the specific employment location. Taken together, these proposals signal growing momentum toward limiting – or potentially eliminating – noncompete agreements in Ohio.
What Ohio Employers Should Consider Regarding Non-Competes
In general, the enforceability of a non-compete in Ohio, as well as through FTC investigation, depends on the reasonableness of the agreement and whether it is narrowly tailored to protect against unfair competition. Employers should consider these questions when deciding whether to ask an employee to sign a non-compete agreement.
- Scope of the Restriction: Courts scrutinize whether non-compete agreements are reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and the scope of the restricted activity.
- Duration: Ohio courts routinely enforce non-compete agreements related to employment of up to one year, and in some instances, up to two years. If the sale of a business is involved, up to five years is enforceable.
- Geographic Scope: The geographic scope should be limited to areas where the employer does business or is in active preparation to conduct business.
- Prohibited Conduct: The employee should only be prohibited from performing work that is actually competitive with the employer.
- The Worker’s Role & Level of Authority: Senior executives with decision-making authority are treated differently than employers with lower levels of authority.
- Access to Confidential Information & Trade Secrets: If any employee has access to confidential information that would result in unfair competition in the hands of competitors, courts are more likely to enforce non-compete obligations.
- Use of Less Restrictive Means: Employers should consider whether non-solicitation, confidentiality, and non-disclosure agreements could achieve the desired result without limiting the employee from earning a living in their chosen occupation.
The attorneys at Cavitch Familo & Durkin can help navigate this fragmented regulatory environment and help protect your interests. Contact us today at 216-621-7860.