Florida Non-Compete Agreements After the CHOICE Act: A New Era of Enforceability
Florida Non-Compete Agreements After the CHOICE Act: A New Era of Enforceability
Florida has long been one of the more employer-friendly states when it comes to enforcing non-compete agreements. That reputation was cemented—and meaningfully expanded—with the enactment of Florida’s CHOICE Act (the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth Act). For businesses, investors, and executives operating in Florida, the CHOICE Act materially reshapes the non-compete landscape and places Florida at the forefront of restrictive covenant enforcement in the United States.
This post explains how Florida non-competes worked before the CHOICE Act, what the Act changes, and what it means in practice for employers and employees alike.
The Pre-CHOICE Framework: Section 542.335
Before the CHOICE Act, non-compete agreements in Florida were governed primarily by Section 542.335, Florida Statutes. That statute already made Florida an outlier compared to many other states by expressly authorizing non-competes and rejecting generalized public-policy hostility toward restrictive covenants.
Under Section 542.335, a non-compete is enforceable if it:
Is in writing and signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought;
Protects a legitimate business interest (such as trade secrets, confidential information, substantial relationships with customers, or specialized training); and
Is reasonable in time, geographic scope, and line of business.
The statute also established rebuttable presumptions of reasonableness—generally six months or less for former employees, and more than two years as presumptively unreasonable in many employment contexts. Courts were directed to “blue pencil” overbroad covenants rather than void them entirely.
Even under this regime, Florida courts enforced non-competes far more readily than courts in many other states.
Enter the CHOICE Act
The CHOICE Act significantly expands this pro-enforcement posture, particularly for highly compensated employees and executives. The Act reflects a legislative judgment that businesses should be able to protect major investments in talent, confidential information, and strategic planning—especially in competitive, mobile industries.
At a high level, the CHOICE Act does three things:
Creates a new category of “covered agreements” for certain high-earning employees;
Extends the time periods that are presumptively enforceable; and
Strengthens injunctive relief and limits traditional defenses.
Covered Agreements and Compensation Thresholds
The CHOICE Act applies only to non-compete agreements entered into with employees or contractors who meet a defined compensation threshold (generally tied to a multiple of the average annual wage). In other words, the Act is aimed at senior executives, key revenue producers, and employees with access to the company’s most sensitive information—not rank-and-file workers.
For covered individuals, the Act permits non-compete periods of up to four years and establishes a presumption of enforceability that is difficult for the worker to overcome.
This is a major departure from prior law, where two years often functioned as a practical ceiling in employment cases.
Garden Leave and Continued Compensation
One of the most notable features of the CHOICE Act is its explicit recognition of garden leave arrangements. Under these structures, an employee agrees not to compete for a defined period after termination while continuing to receive compensation (often base salary).
The Act treats continued compensation as a powerful indicator of reasonableness. If an employer is paying the employee during the restricted period, courts are far more likely to enforce the covenant, even if the duration is lengthy.
Injunctions with Teeth
The CHOICE Act also strengthens remedies. Courts are expressly authorized—and in some cases directed—to issue injunctions to prevent competitive activity while litigation is pending.
Perhaps more importantly, the Act limits common defenses that employees traditionally raised, such as:
Claims that enforcement would impose undue hardship;
Arguments that the employer could be compensated with money damages; or
Public-policy objections untethered to the statute.
The focus is squarely on enforcing the contract as written, assuming statutory requirements are met.
What This Means for Employers
For Florida employers, the CHOICE Act is an invitation, but also a warning.
On the positive side, businesses now have unparalleled ability to:
Protect strategic talent and confidential information;
Deter executive defections to competitors; and
Structure exit arrangements with greater certainty.
At the same time, non-competes must still be carefully drafted. Sloppy agreements, failure to meet compensation thresholds, or misclassification of workers can still doom enforcement. The Act rewards precision, not overreach.
What This Means for Employees
For executives and high-earning professionals, Florida has become one of the least forgiving jurisdictions in the country. Signing a non-compete governed by Florida law now carries real, long-lasting consequences.
Employees should pay close attention to:
Choice-of-law and venue provisions;
Duration and scope of restrictions; and
Whether compensation continues during the restricted period.
Negotiating these terms on the front end is far easier than litigating them later.
Final Thoughts
The CHOICE Act firmly positions Florida as a national leader in enforcing non-compete agreements. For businesses, it offers powerful new tools to protect investment and competitive advantage. For employees, it raises the stakes of restrictive covenants to a level rarely seen elsewhere in the U.S.
In short, non-competes in Florida are no longer just enforceable—they are formidable. Anyone entering, drafting, or challenging one should do so with eyes wide open and experienced Florida counsel at the table.
Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship with me or my law firm. Reach out for a consultation and to obtain advice specific to your individual legal needs.