Non-Competes & NDAs
Are Non-Competes Enforceable in Georgia?
- Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq., adopted 2011) makes non-competes enforceable when reasonable in time, geographic area and scope of prohibited activities.
- For a former employee, a restraint of two years or less is presumed reasonable in time; more than two years is presumed unreasonable (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57), measured from the end of the relationship.
- Georgia courts may modify — "blue-pencil" — an overbroad covenant to make it enforceable, rather than simply striking it.
- In North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer (Ga. 2024), the Supreme Court held an express geographic term is not required — but the covenant must still be reasonable in geographic scope.
- The FTC's nationwide non-compete ban is not in effect and is not enforceable. The agency has shifted to case-by-case enforcement instead, and it is still bringing cases.
Georgia used to be a difficult state to enforce a non-compete in. Courts struck overbroad agreements outright rather than fixing them, and a single defective clause could take the whole covenant down with it. A lot of business owners still operate on that reputation.
It has not been accurate since 2011. Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act made these agreements enforceable when they are reasonable, and gave courts the power to narrow the ones that overreach rather than void them. Two more recent developments — a 2024 Georgia Supreme Court decision and the collapse of the FTC's national ban — have moved the ground again. Here is where things actually stand.
The rule since 2011
The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 and following, governs non-competes, customer non-solicitation clauses, employee non-recruitment clauses and confidentiality provisions entered into since it took effect.
The core test sits in § 13-8-53(a): a covenant restricting competition after a term of employment is enforceable so long as it is reasonable in time, in geographic area, and in the scope of activities it prohibits. That is a considerably friendlier standard for employers than what preceded it — but each of those three dimensions is a real requirement, and an agreement that overreaches on all three is still in trouble.
The two-year presumption
Duration is the one part of the test the statute answers with a number. Under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57, where a covenant is enforced against a former employee and is not tied to the sale of a business, a court presumes any restraint of two years or less is reasonable in time, and presumes any restraint longer than two years is unreasonable — measured from the date the business relationship ended.
The presumption is rebuttable in both directions, but the practical guidance is blunt: if your form agreement says three years for ordinary employees, you have written yourself onto the wrong side of a presumption for no real gain. Covenants tied to the sale of a business are treated differently and can reasonably run longer.
Courts can now fix an overbroad covenant
The change that mattered most in 2011 was procedural. Georgia courts may now modify a covenant that goes too far — narrowing its term, its territory or its scope — instead of striking the whole thing because one part was excessive.
That is real protection for an employer who drafted optimistically. It is not a licence to draft carelessly. A court asked to rewrite an agreement is a court already sceptical of it, and blue-pencilling is a rescue, not a strategy. Agreements built to be reasonable in the first place get enforced faster and at less cost.
The 2024 decision on geographic terms
For a period it looked as though every restrictive covenant in Georgia needed an express geographic limit written into it. In June 2023 the Court of Appeals held that a clause barring an employee from soliciting former co-workers was unenforceable because it lacked one, and a great many form agreements around the state were suddenly in doubt.
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed that in North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, decided September 4, 2024. The Act does not require a restrictive covenant to contain an express geographic restriction. But the decision is narrower than the headline: covenants governed by § 13-8-53(a) must still be reasonable in geographic scope. What went away was a drafting formality, not the underlying requirement — and enforceability now turns on a fact-specific look at what the covenant actually does.
Where the FTC ban ended up
The Federal Trade Commission's rule banning most non-competes nationwide never took effect. A district court stopped its enforcement in August 2024, the FTC formally abandoned its appeal in September 2025, and the rule was subsequently removed to conform with the court decisions.
That returns the question to state law, which in Georgia means the Restrictive Covenants Act. It does not mean the FTC has lost interest. The agency has moved to case-by-case enforcement under Section 5 of the FTC Act and is still bringing actions against employers whose covenants it regards as unfair or anticompetitive — including, in April 2026, an order requiring a large pest-control employer to stop enforcing non-competes against more than 18,000 workers.
The takeaway for a Georgia business is not that the risk disappeared. It is that the risk moved from a rule that would have applied to everyone at once to enforcement that arrives one employer at a time, and lands hardest on the broadest agreements.
What a defensible Georgia covenant looks like
It is worth being honest about what you are protecting. Most owners who ask for a non-compete are worried about two specific things: the customer list and the crew. Those are protectable directly, with clauses that are narrower and considerably harder to argue with.
- A term of two years or less for ordinary former employees, so the presumption works for you rather than against you.
- A territory that reflects where the employee actually worked or had customer contact — not every county the company might one day enter.
- A scope limited to the work the person actually did, rather than everything the business does.
- A separate, narrower non-solicitation clause for customers the employee actually dealt with, which is often easier to enforce than a full non-compete and frequently protects the thing you were really worried about.
- A confidentiality provision that stands on its own, since trade-secret and confidentiality protection is analysed differently from competition restraints.
If you are on the other side of one
Employees and departing partners get the reverse of this analysis. A covenant that is overbroad on its face is not automatically void in Georgia any more — a court can narrow it — but overreach still matters, and the reasonableness of the term, the territory and the scope of prohibited activity are all genuinely contestable.
The one thing not to do is assume. Both the confident assumption that a non-compete is unenforceable, and the resigned assumption that it must be honoured as written, are guesses that cost people work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are non-compete agreements enforceable in Georgia?
Yes. Under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq.), a covenant restricting competition after employment is enforceable if it is reasonable in time, geographic area and scope of prohibited activities. Georgia's old reputation as a state that would not enforce these agreements has been out of date since 2011.
How long can a Georgia non-compete last?
For a former employee, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 presumes a restraint of two years or less reasonable and a restraint longer than two years unreasonable, measured from the end of the relationship. The presumption is rebuttable, but writing three years into a standard employee agreement puts you on the wrong side of it for little gain.
Does a Georgia non-compete need to name a geographic area?
Not expressly. In North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer (September 2024), the Supreme Court of Georgia held the Act does not require an express geographic restriction. The covenant must still be reasonable in geographic scope, so what went away was a drafting formality rather than the underlying requirement.
Did the FTC ban non-competes?
The rule never took effect. A court stopped its enforcement in August 2024, the FTC abandoned its appeal in September 2025, and the rule was removed. State law governs, which in Georgia means the Restrictive Covenants Act — but the FTC has continued bringing enforcement actions against individual employers with broad covenants.
Can a Georgia court fix a non-compete that goes too far?
Yes. Since 2011 Georgia courts may modify an overbroad covenant — narrowing the term, territory or scope — rather than striking it entirely. That is genuine protection for an employer who drafted optimistically, but it is a rescue rather than a plan; reasonable agreements are enforced faster and more cheaply.
Related Pages
Have a Question About Your Business?
This article is general information, not legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, talk to Jerry Parisi directly.