Florida Bucks Trend, Enacts New Employer-Friendly Noncompete Statute

While the recent trend across the country has been to restrict noncompete agreements, Florida has just made it easier for employers to enforce noncompete agreements against employees. The Florida Legislature passed HB 1219, also known as the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth Act (CHOICE or “the Act”), which took effect on July 1, 2025.[1] Importantly, CHOICE does not apply to health care practitioners and keeps Florida’s other noncompete statute (Fla. Stat. § 542.335) — which already was one of the more employer-friendly noncompete statues across the country — in place.[2] 

As we’ve reported on extensively over the last few years, states across the country have continued to enact measures restricting employment noncompete agreements, including many states that have enacted outright bans. In some ways, Florida’s CHOICE Act appears to resemble the laws in many other states. The Act includes an income threshold and certain notice requirements. But unlike other state laws which render noncompete agreements void and unenforceable if the requirements are not satisfied, Florida’s CHOICE Act takes the opposite approach — it creates a presumption of enforceability if the Act’s requirements are met. 

The Act also goes further than any other state law to provide employers with the ability to obtain injunctive relief. Restrictive covenants covered under CHOICE are deemed “fully enforceable”; the Act requires courts to issue a preliminary injunction against individuals who are found to be in violation of a covered agreement. Further, a court cannot dissolve or modify an injunction unless the individual proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she will not provide similar services to a new employer or otherwise use confidential information in violation of the agreement. Other remedies remain available, including damages and the ability for employers to reduce compensation if a covered individual “engages in gross misconduct” against the employer. Under the law, prevailing parties are also entitled to attorney fees.

Preliminary injunctions are often considered the most attractive remedy for employers aiming to prevent employees from (unlawfully) working in competition with the employer, so the CHOICE Act presents a meaningful opportunity for employers to protect their interests — if certain key conditions are met. 

Covered Agreements

The CHOICE Act applies to two types of restrictive covenants: 

1. Covered Noncompete Agreements: A covered noncompete agreement prohibits an employee from working for a competitor for a set period of up to four years after the termination of employment and within a defined geographic vicinity. 
2. Covered Garden Leave Agreements: A covered garden leave agreement compensates an existing covered employee, irrespective of whether the employee appears at work or produces any output. In exchange, the employee cannot engage in any other employment during a defined period of up to four years, unless the employer provides permission. 

The Act only applies if the employer satisfies certain additional conditions. Among other requirements, the employer must provide employees seven days to review the agreement and must notify employees that they can seek legal counsel. Employees must also acknowledge in writing that they do or will receive confidential information or customer relationships in the course of their employment.

In addition to the above employer-friendly terms, when the CHOICE Act applies to an agreement, employers may impose longer post-employment restrictions. Under existing Florida law (referenced above), noncompete agreements are considered presumptively unreasonable if they exceed two years.[3] The CHOICE Act, on the other hand, creates a presumption that covenants of up to four years are reasonable. 

Covered Employees 

The CHOICE Act does not apply to all employment relationships. Covered employees need to earn at least twice the annual mean wage of the Florida county the employer’s principal place of business is in or, if that place is outside of Florida, the Florida county in which the employee resides. 

Presumably, employers will be eager to take advantage of Florida’s new law. But employers will not be able to take advantage of the Act unless: 

• The employee’s primary place of work is in Florida, regardless of any choice of law provision; or 
• The employer has its principal place of business in Florida and the agreement includes an express choice of law provision where Florida law governs. 

Employers of health care practitioners cannot take advantage of the employer-friendly benefits of the CHOICE Act irrespective of the employee’s income. Instead, health care practitioners are only subject to preexisting Florida noncompete laws. 

A retenir

The CHOICE Act makes it easier for covered employers to enforce restrictive covenants and obtain preliminary injunctions against former employees. But the Act’s employer-friendly presumptions only apply to agreements that meet certain criteria (namely, income and notice requirements), as described above. Other restrictive covenants continue to be governed under preexisting Florida statutory and common law. 

To take advantage of this favorable legislation, Florida employers should work with counsel to ensure their restrictive covenant agreements meet the CHOICE Act’s coverage requirements.  

This article was prepared with the assistance of 2025 summer associate Sam Lanzer.

[1] H.B. 1219, 2025 Leg., 127th Sess. (Fla. 2025).

[2] A “health care practitioner,” for purposes of the CHOICE Act, includes persons licensed in acupuncture; medical practice; osteopathic medicine; chiropractic medicine; podiatric medicine; naturopathy; optometry; nursing; pharmacy; dentistry, dental hygiene, and dental laboratories; midwifery; speech-language pathology and audiology; nursing home administration; occupational therapy; respiratory therapy; dietetics and nutrition practice; athletic training; orthotics, prosthetics, and pedorthics; electrolysis; massage therapy practice; clinical laboratory practice; medical physiatry; genetic counseling; dispensing of optical devices and hearing aids; physical therapy; psychological services; and clinical, counseling, and psychotherapy services.

[3] Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d)(1).