FTC's non-compete ban almost certainly dead, based on a Texas federal court decision

"The political dynamics of legislatively dealing with non-competes make it unappealing to members of Congress. The move is favorable to employees - and there are more of them, so those are potential votes. But employers like non-competes and they can spend money via lobbying to help members get elected. In a choice of money versus votes, Capitol Hill favors money."

"Washington, DC, and about a half-dozen states including California, Rhode Island, and Minnesota have banned non-competes, whereas several other states - including Illinois, Massachusetts and Nevada - have sharply limited when they can be enforced, said Mark Goldstein, a partner in the New York law firm ReedSmith, where he specializes in employment law."

""It's a bit of a patchwork depending on where you are in the country," Goldstein said, adding that states and courts differ on whether those state laws speak to the state where the employee works or where the company is based."

Legislative action on non-competes is politically unattractive to members of Congress because employers support non-competes and can finance campaigns, while employees offer votes. Employers use lobbying dollars to help elect members, and Capitol Hill often prioritizes financial support over votes. The absence of a federal ban leaves regulation to states. Washington, DC and several states including California, Rhode Island, and Minnesota have banned non-competes. Other states such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Nevada have sharply limited enforcement. State laws create a patchwork of rules. States and courts vary on whether laws apply based on the employee's workplace or the company's location.

Read at InfoWorld