A non-compete agreement, also called a covenant not to compete or a restrictive covenant, is a contractual provision that restricts a former employee from working for competitors or starting a competing business for a defined period of time after leaving their job. Employers use non-competes to protect legitimate business interests that a departing employee could otherwise exploit: trade secrets, confidential pricing or operational information, client relationships developed using the employer’s resources, and goodwill built at the employer’s expense.

In the Maryland employment context, non-compete clauses are most commonly found in employment agreements, executive compensation agreements, and agreements tied to equity or bonus compensation. They are also frequently included in the sale of a business, where the seller agrees not to compete with the buyer for a set period after closing. Business-sale non-competes are evaluated differently from employment non-competes and are generally viewed more favorably by Maryland courts because the seller has received meaningful consideration in the form of the sale price.

Non-compete agreements are frequently paired with other restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation clauses (restricting solicitation of former clients or employees), confidentiality agreements, and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Each of these serves a different protective function, and each is evaluated differently under Maryland law. This distinction matters enormously when you are deciding which tools to use to protect your business, a topic covered in detail below in the Non-compete vs. non-solicitation vs. NDA section.

Yes, non-compete agreements are generally enforceable in Maryland. Unlike California, which refuses to enforce employment non-competes as a matter of public policy, Maryland law recognizes them as valid tools for protecting legitimate business interests. There is no general statutory or common law policy against enforcement.

That said, Maryland courts disfavor non-competes and construe them strictly against the employer who drafted them. An agreement that is overbroad in duration, geographic reach, or scope of restricted activities will not be saved by good intentions. Maryland courts have repeatedly refused to enforce non-competes that sweep broader than the employer’s actual competitive interests, restricted employees from working in any role at a competitor (rather than roles that could actually harm the employer), or failed to identify what protected interest the restriction was meant to serve.

In addition to the common law reasonableness analysis, Maryland has enacted statutory restrictions that make non-competes void for certain categories of employees regardless of how well the agreement was drafted. These statutory restrictions, introduced progressively since 2019 and expanded most recently through HB 1388 in 2024, have significantly narrowed the universe of employees who can be bound by a non-compete in Maryland. Before you rely on an existing agreement or draft a new one, you need to confirm that the employee falls outside all of these statutory exclusions.

Maryland courts apply a three-part common law reasonableness test to determine whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable. The agreement must be reasonable in all three dimensions. An agreement that passes two of the three will still fail if the third is excessive.

1. Duration

Maryland law does not set a hard statutory maximum duration for non-compete agreements in the general employment context. One-year restrictions are usually the easiest to defend, and Maryland courts have often upheld two-year restrictions. Longer periods face greater scrutiny and are more vulnerable to challenge unless the facts strongly justify them. For the specific category of high-earning healthcare professionals subject to § 3-716(b), the maximum permitted duration is one year from the last day of employment, and this statutory cap cannot be contracted around.

The duration must be tied to the employer’s actual need: how long would it take for the employer’s competitive advantage to erode if the employee were working for a competitor? For most roles, one year is adequate. For senior executives with access to multi-year strategic plans or deep client relationships, two years may be justified. But the employer must be able to articulate why the specific duration chosen is necessary, not simply pick the longest period they think a court might accept.

2. Geographic scope

The geographic restriction must correspond to the actual area in which the employer operates and competes. A restriction covering the entire state of Maryland may be reasonable for a business with statewide operations but unreasonable for a local business that serves a single county or metropolitan area. A national or multi-state restriction is reasonable only if the employer genuinely operates on that scale and the employee’s role involved contacts across that territory.

Maryland courts have rejected geographic restrictions that were disconnected from the employer’s actual competitive footprint. A court in the Maryland federal district has found that an “industry-wide” restriction, without any geographic or employer-specific limitation, was facially overbroad and unenforceable even after applying the blue pencil doctrine.

3. Scope of restricted activities

The restriction must be limited to activities that could actually harm the employer’s competitive position. A clause that bars the former employee from working for a competitor “in any role” will likely be struck down. The restriction must be tied to the specific type of work the employee performed and where that work created competitive risk for the employer, for example, by giving the employee access to client relationships, proprietary pricing, or confidential technical processes.

Maryland courts have made clear that an employer cannot restrict an employee simply because the employer trained them or gave them skills. Skills acquired during employment do not, without more, justify a covenant not to compete. The restriction must be connected to something the employer has a legitimate right to protect: its trade secrets, its client relationships, its confidential information, or its goodwill.

Beyond the three-part test, Maryland courts also consider two additional factors when reviewing a non-compete:

• Legitimate business interest: The restriction must serve a genuine business purpose. Protecting trade secrets, confidential client information, and goodwill developed at the employer’s expense are recognized legitimate interests. Preventing an employee from using general skills they acquired during employment is not.
• Undue hardship on the employee: A non-compete that effectively prevents the former employee from working in their field, forfeits vested benefits, or forces them into an entirely different industry for significantly lower pay may be found unenforceable as an undue hardship. Courts balance the employer’s interest in protection against the employee’s right to earn a living.

Note also that the non-compete must not be contrary to the public interest. A restriction that would materially harm access to essential services in a community, for example, can be found unenforceable on public policy grounds even if it would otherwise satisfy the reasonableness test.

Maryland law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees earning at or below 150% of the state minimum wage. This restriction is codified at Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716, and the threshold is tied to the state minimum wage established under § 3-413. It is not a reasonableness factor that a court weighs: it is an outright prohibition. A non-compete imposed on a covered low-wage employee is void from the start, regardless of how carefully it was drafted.

As of March 2026, the state minimum wage is $15.00 per hour, making the threshold $22.50 per hour, or approximately $46,800 per year. Employers should monitor any future amendments to § 3-413, because any enacted change to the state minimum wage would automatically change this threshold as well.

Employees earning above the threshold can still be subject to a non-compete, provided the agreement satisfies the common law reasonableness test and any other applicable statutory restrictions (see the healthcare and veterinary sections below).

It is also worth noting that the wage threshold ban does not apply to agreements concerning the taking or use of a client or patient list or other proprietary client-related or patient-related information, under the express carve-out in § 3-716(a)(2). However, this carve-out is narrower than a general exemption for all non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. Employers should not assume that every non-solicitation or confidentiality clause automatically falls outside the statute, and agreements should be reviewed with that distinction in mind.

In April 2024, Governor Wes Moore signed House Bill 1388, which added significant new restrictions to Maryland’s non-compete statute for workers in healthcare and veterinary fields. These restrictions were enacted in response to concerns that non-compete agreements in healthcare were restricting patient access to care and contributing to market consolidation. The relevant provisions were incorporated into Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716.

Veterinary practitioners and technicians

Non-compete agreements for all licensed veterinary practitioners and veterinary technicians in Maryland are void, regardless of their compensation level. This ban took effect on June 1, 2024. If your practice employs or contracts with veterinarians or vet techs and you have non-compete provisions in those agreements, those provisions are void under current Maryland law. HB 1388 states that the veterinary amendment is to be construed retroactively, while the healthcare-specific provisions apply only to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.

Licensed healthcare professionals

For licensed healthcare professionals who are required to be licensed under the Maryland Health Occupations Article, who are employed in a position that provides direct patient care, and who earn $350,000 or less in total annual compensation, non-compete agreements are void. This prohibition applies to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.

This provision covers a wide range of healthcare workers, including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, and other licensed professionals who interact with and treat patients directly. The threshold covers the substantial majority of employed healthcare providers in Maryland.

Healthcare professionals earning more than $350,000

A narrow category of licensed healthcare professionals who provide direct patient care and earn more than $350,000 annually may still be subject to a non-compete agreement. However, the statute imposes strict caps:

• Duration cannot exceed one year from the employee’s last day of employment.
• Geographic restriction cannot exceed 10 miles from the employee’s primary place of employment.

These are not default ceilings that can be negotiated up. They are hard statutory limits. Any agreement purporting to impose a longer duration or broader geographic radius on a healthcare professional earning over $350,000 is unenforceable to the extent it exceeds these limits.

Satisfying the three-part reasonableness test is necessary but not sufficient. A valid, enforceable Maryland non-compete must also meet several additional requirements rooted in contract law:

Adequate consideration

A non-compete agreement must be supported by adequate legal consideration, meaning the employee must receive something of value in exchange for signing. For new hires, the offer of employment itself is generally treated as adequate consideration in Maryland: the employee receives the job in exchange for accepting the restrictions. For existing employees asked to sign a new non-compete mid-employment, Maryland case law does not make continued employment categorically insufficient consideration. Maryland appellate authority has held that continued at-will employment can support a restrictive covenant. That said, providing additional consideration such as a raise, bonus, promotion, equity grant, or other concrete benefit is still the safer drafting practice and reduces the risk of a successful challenge.

A legitimate business interest to protect

Maryland will not enforce a non-compete that exists solely to limit competition or prevent an employee from using general skills and knowledge. The restriction must be tied to something the employer has a genuine right to protect. Maryland courts have recognized the following as legitimate business interests:

• Trade secrets and proprietary technical or operational information
• Confidential client lists and customer relationships developed at the employer’s expense
• Goodwill and client trust built through the employee’s use of the employer’s resources
• Specialized training or knowledge that is truly unique to the employer’s business (as distinct from general industry skills)

Employer investments in general training do not justify a non-compete. If an employer sends an employee to an industry certification course or teaches them skills common to the field, that investment does not create a protectable interest against competition.

Writing requirement

While Maryland does not have a statute that expressly requires non-competes to be in writing, oral non-compete agreements are practically unenforceable for reasons of proof alone. Every non-compete should be in a clear written instrument signed by the employee. The agreement should clearly identify the duration, the geographic scope, and the specific activities restricted.

Timing of execution

Non-competes should ideally be executed before or at the start of employment, not after the employee has already begun working. Courts may look skeptically at an agreement signed after employment commenced if there is no new consideration accompanying it. Best practice is to provide the non-compete agreement to the prospective employee during the offer process, with adequate time to review before signing.

Maryland follows the blue pencil doctrine, which allows a court to selectively strike grammatically severable unenforceable provisions from a non-compete while leaving the remaining enforceable portions intact. For example, if a non-compete restricts the employee for three years in a 50-county area, a court applying the blue pencil doctrine could, in theory, strike the overbroad geographic language if it is clearly severable from the rest of the agreement.

However, there is a hard and important limit to what the blue pencil doctrine permits: Maryland courts will not rewrite the agreement, add new language, or otherwise create restrictions that were not already in the contract. The court can remove, but it cannot substitute. If the offending provision is not cleanly severable from the rest of the clause, or if the agreement as a whole imposes an unreasonable or oppressive burden on the employee, the court may void the entire non-compete rather than attempt to salvage pieces of it.

Maryland case law also recognizes a “flexible” approach to blue penciling, which was adopted by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (now the Appellate Court of Maryland) in Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co. (1989). Under this approach, courts have discretion to modify the express terms of a contract “so as to align the reasonable expectations of the parties to the reasonable expectations of the law, so long as it is fair to do so.” However, Maryland’s highest court affirmed that case without expressly adopting or rejecting the flexible approach, leaving the legal landscape somewhat unsettled. Employers cannot reliably count on a court to invoke flexible blue penciling to save a poorly drafted agreement.

The practical takeaway for Maryland business owners is to include a well-drafted severability clause, but not to assume a court will reform an overbroad covenant. Maryland courts generally may strike grammatically severable language, yet they do not freely rewrite restrictive covenants to make them reasonable. The safer course is to draft the covenant narrowly from the outset so you do not have to rely on blue penciling at all.

Business owners often default to “non-compete agreement” as a catch-all term for any post-employment restriction. In practice, there are three distinct tools that serve different protective functions and face very different legal scrutiny in Maryland:

Non-compete agreement

A non-compete broadly restricts the former employee from working for any competitor or starting a competing business within a defined geographic area for a defined period. It is the most powerful restriction available but also the most legally fragile. It requires satisfying the full three-part reasonableness test, must clear the wage threshold rule, and is subject to the healthcare and veterinary bans under HB 1388. Many broad non-competes drafted before recent statutory changes are now of questionable enforceability.

Non-solicitation agreement

A non-solicitation agreement is narrower: it prevents the former employee from proactively soliciting your clients or recruiting your employees for a competitor, but it does not prevent them from working in the same industry or even for a direct competitor. Non-solicitation agreements are generally much more durable in Maryland because:

• They impose a lighter burden on the employee, making undue hardship arguments harder to sustain.
• Maryland’s wage threshold ban under § 3-716 expressly excludes agreements concerning the taking or use of a client or patient list or other proprietary client-related or patient-related information under § 3-716(a)(2). This carve-out is narrower than a blanket exemption for all non-solicitation provisions, so each agreement should be reviewed to confirm its scope falls within the protected category.
• Courts view client protection as a clearer and more legitimate business interest than broad competitive exclusion.

Note that the non-solicitation protection only covers proactive solicitation: if a former client reaches out to the former employee on their own initiative, that contact is generally not a violation. The restriction is on the employee initiating contact, not on passively receiving it.

Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and confidentiality agreement

An NDA or confidentiality agreement prohibits the former employee from disclosing or using the employer’s confidential information, trade secrets, proprietary processes, and similar protected data, regardless of where they work. NDAs do not restrict where an employee can work at all. They are the most universally enforceable post-employment restriction and are not subject to Maryland’s wage threshold ban or the healthcare/veterinary prohibitions.

Maryland also provides statutory protection for trade secrets under the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 11-1201 et seq.), which gives employers a separate legal basis for protecting confidential information independent of any contractual agreement. An employee who misappropriates a trade secret can be subject to injunctive relief and damages under the statute even without a written NDA in place, though a well-drafted NDA significantly strengthens the employer’s position.

For many Maryland businesses, especially those in service industries where the primary risk is clients following a departing employee, a well-drafted non-solicitation agreement focused on client-list protection combined with a robust NDA can provide stronger and more reliable protection than a broad non-compete that may not survive a legal challenge. The statutory carve-out in § 3-716(a)(2) does protect agreements specifically targeting the taking or use of client or patient lists and proprietary client-related information, but employers should not assume broader non-solicitation or confidentiality provisions are automatically covered. An attorney can assess which combination makes sense for your specific workforce, the exact scope of each provision you need, and how each clause will be evaluated under current Maryland law. See our Contract Negotiation and Drafting practice page for more on how we approach this analysis.

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Final Rule that would have banned virtually all employment non-compete agreements nationwide, with a narrow exception for senior executives. If it had taken effect, the rule would have required employers to notify covered workers that their non-competes were no longer enforceable. It was one of the most sweeping federal employment law changes in decades.

It never took effect. The rule was immediately challenged in federal court. In August 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling in Ryan LLC v. FTC that struck down the FTC’s non-compete ban nationwide, holding that the FTC lacked statutory authority to issue the rule and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted summary judgment for the challengers and prohibited the FTC from enforcing the ban anywhere in the country.

The FTC initially appealed under the Biden administration’s leadership. When the Trump administration took office in January 2025, newly appointed FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson signaled that the FTC under his leadership would not prioritize broad, prescriptive non-compete regulations. In September 2025, the FTC dismissed its appeals and acceded to vacatur of the 2024 rule, while indicating a preference for case-by-case enforcement rather than a renewed nationwide ban.

The bottom line for Maryland business owners: the 2024 FTC non-compete rule is not in effect, and Maryland state law is the controlling authority for non-compete agreements involving Maryland employees and Maryland businesses. There is no current federal floor or ceiling on non-compete enforcement beyond what Maryland statute and case law provide. That is the landscape you need to plan around unless and until federal law changes.

Mistake 1: Using a template agreement without tailoring it to the role

Downloading a generic non-compete template and applying it uniformly across your workforce is one of the most common and costly errors Maryland employers make. Maryland courts look at whether the specific restriction on the specific employee is justified. An agreement drafted with a senior executive in mind may be facially overbroad and unenforceable when signed by an employee who had limited client exposure or no access to trade secrets. Every non-compete should be tailored to reflect the actual competitive risk created by that particular employee’s departure.

Mistake 2: Failing to check whether the employee falls within a statutory exclusion

Before relying on a non-compete, confirm the employee’s compensation clears the current wage threshold (approximately $46,800 per year, based on the current state minimum wage under § 3-413), and confirm they are not a covered healthcare or veterinary professional under HB 1388. This analysis must be repeated periodically, not just at the time of signing. An employee who was above the threshold when they signed may have moved below it since, and any future amendment to § 3-413 would raise the threshold automatically.

Mistake 3: Negotiating the non-compete as an afterthought at the end of the hiring process

Presenting a non-compete to a new hire on their first day of work, after they have already accepted the offer, given notice to their previous employer, and relocated, creates both legal and practical problems. The adequacy of consideration is cleaner when the non-compete is presented as part of the original offer. Best practice is to present the full employment agreement, including any restrictive covenants, early in the offer process and give the candidate adequate time to review and negotiate.

Mistake 4: Neglecting to add separate consideration for mid-employment agreements

Asking existing employees to sign a new or updated non-compete without providing any new benefit in exchange is a frequent source of enforceability disputes. Maryland courts may decline to enforce a mid-employment non-compete supported only by a promise of continued employment. A raise, bonus, additional paid time off, equity grant, or other concrete consideration should accompany any non-compete presented after employment has already begun.

Mistake 5: Waiting too long to enforce

When a former employee violates a non-compete, speed matters enormously. The primary remedy available to an employer is injunctive relief, specifically a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction that stops the ongoing breach while the lawsuit proceeds. Courts are far more willing to grant emergency injunctive relief when the employer acts promptly. An employer who waits weeks or months after learning of the violation has a much harder time arguing that irreparable harm is imminent. If a former employee has taken a job with a competitor in violation of their agreement, consult a Maryland business litigation attorney immediately.

Discovering that a former employee has violated their non-compete is a high-pressure situation. Here is a practical roadmap of the options available to Maryland employers:

Step 1: Assess whether the agreement is actually enforceable

Before taking any action, confirm with counsel that the agreement is valid and enforceable under current Maryland law. Check the wage threshold, check whether HB 1388 applies, review the reasonableness of the terms, and verify that adequate consideration was provided. Sending an aggressive cease and desist letter based on an unenforceable agreement creates legal exposure and is unlikely to produce the result you want.

Step 2: Cease and desist letter

In many cases, a well-crafted cease and desist letter from a business attorney is sufficient to resolve the situation without litigation. The former employee and their new employer may not know whether the agreement is enforceable. A letter that clearly identifies the violation, cites the contractual language, and states the employer’s intention to seek injunctive relief if the breach continues often prompts a negotiated resolution. The letter also creates a documented record that the employer acted promptly upon learning of the violation.

Step 3: Temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction

If the breach is ongoing and causing immediate competitive harm, the fastest court remedy is a motion for a temporary restraining order and, thereafter, a preliminary injunction. In Maryland, a court will grant a TRO if the moving party demonstrates (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying breach of contract claim, (b) the threat of irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated through money damages alone, (c) that the balance of the equities favors the injunction, and (d) that the injunction serves the public interest. Non-compete cases can satisfy this standard, especially where the former employee is actively soliciting the employer’s clients or disclosing trade secrets in real time.

Step 4: Breach of contract lawsuit

The underlying legal claim for a non-compete violation is breach of contract. Damages can include lost profits attributable to clients or business lost as a result of the breach, as well as attorneys’ fees if the agreement contains a fee-shifting provision. Note that non-compete agreements can also include liquidated damages clauses, which Maryland courts will enforce provided the clause reflects a reasonable estimation of anticipated harm and is not simply a penalty. Overly punitive liquidated damages clauses will be struck down.

Regarding the new employer

In some circumstances, the new employer who knowingly hired your former employee in breach of a valid non-compete may face exposure for tortious interference with a contractual relationship. This claim requires showing that the new employer knew about the non-compete and intentionally induced the breach. It is a separate cause of action from the breach of contract claim against the former employee, and it requires careful analysis before pursuing. An experienced Maryland business litigation attorney can advise whether it applies to your specific facts.

Yes, non-compete agreements are generally enforceable in Maryland, but only when they satisfy the state’s three-part common law reasonableness test and several additional requirements. The agreement must be reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and scope of restricted activities; must be supported by adequate consideration; and must protect a legitimate business interest without imposing undue hardship on the employee. Maryland also has statutory exclusions: non-competes are void for employees earning at or below 150% of the state minimum wage (approximately $46,800 per year as of March 2026), for most licensed healthcare professionals providing direct patient care, and for all veterinary practitioners and technicians. Because the threshold is tied to the state minimum wage under Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-413, employers should monitor future statutory changes that could raise or lower that figure. An agreement that passes all of these hurdles can still be voided if it is overbroad and the court declines to apply the blue pencil doctrine.

Maryland’s wage threshold under Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716 is 150% of the state minimum wage established under § 3-413. As of March 2026, the state minimum wage is $15.00 per hour, making the threshold $22.50 per hour, or approximately $46,800 per year. Employees earning at or below that amount cannot be bound by a non-compete under Maryland law. Employers should monitor future amendments to § 3-413, because any enacted change to the state minimum wage would also change this threshold automatically.

Only in very limited circumstances. Under HB 1388, which is codified in Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716 and applies to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025, non-competes are void for licensed healthcare professionals who provide direct patient care and earn $350,000 or less per year. For healthcare professionals earning more than $350,000 annually, a non-compete may be enforceable only if it does not exceed one year in duration and does not restrict work outside a 10-mile radius from the employee’s primary place of employment. These are hard statutory limits, not defaults. Non-competes for all veterinary practitioners and veterinary technicians are void under current Maryland law, regardless of compensation level. HB 1388 states that the Act is to be construed retroactively, while the healthcare-specific provisions apply only to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.

Maryland law does not set a hard statutory maximum duration for non-compete agreements in the general employment context. Courts apply a common law reasonableness standard. One-year restrictions are usually the easiest to defend, and Maryland courts have often upheld two-year restrictions. Longer periods face greater scrutiny and are more vulnerable to challenge unless the facts strongly justify them. For the specific category of high-earning healthcare professionals subject to HB 1388, the maximum permitted duration is one year from the last day of employment, and this statutory cap cannot be contracted around.

A non-compete agreement broadly restricts the former employee from working for any competitor or starting a competing business within a defined geographic area and time period. A non-solicitation agreement is narrower: it prevents the former employee from proactively soliciting your clients or recruiting your employees, but it does not prevent them from working in the same industry or even for a direct competitor. Non-solicitation agreements are generally more durable in Maryland and face less legal scrutiny than non-competes. The statutory carve-out in Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-716(a)(2) expressly excludes from the wage-threshold ban agreements concerning the taking or use of a client or patient list or other proprietary client-related or patient-related information. However, that carve-out is narrower than a blanket exemption for all non-solicitation provisions, and employers should not assume every non-solicitation clause falls outside the statute without a careful review of its scope.

Maryland follows the blue pencil doctrine, which allows courts to selectively strike grammatically severable unenforceable provisions while leaving the enforceable remainder intact. However, Maryland courts will not rewrite the agreement or add new language to make it enforceable. If the overbroad provision cannot be cleanly severed from the rest of the non-compete, or if the agreement as a whole imposes an unreasonable or oppressive burden, the court may void it entirely. Employers should never draft a non-compete broadly and assume courts will trim it to an enforceable scope. The better approach is to draft as narrowly as the business need requires from the outset, so the agreement does not require judicial intervention to survive.

If a former employee violates an enforceable Maryland non-compete, you have several options. First, confirm with counsel that the agreement is valid under current law before taking any action. If it is enforceable, a formal cease and desist letter from a business attorney is often sufficient to stop the breach without litigation. If the violation is ongoing and causing immediate competitive harm, you can seek emergency injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. You can also file a breach of contract lawsuit to recover monetary damages, including lost profits. If the new employer knowingly induced the breach, a tortious interference claim may also be available. Speed matters enormously in non-compete enforcement: act immediately upon learning of the violation.

The FTC issued a Final Rule in April 2024 that would have banned most employment non-compete agreements nationwide. Before it took effect, the rule was struck down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. FTC in August 2024. The current FTC under Chairman Andrew Ferguson dismissed the agency’s appeals and acceded to vacatur of the 2024 rule in September 2025, while signaling a preference against a broad nationwide regulatory ban. As a result, the 2024 FTC non-compete rule is not in effect, and Maryland state law is the controlling authority for non-compete agreements involving Maryland employees and businesses unless federal law changes.