/>iConsistent with our previous reporting that states would continue to address noncompete issues even after the apparent end of the FTC Noncompete Rule, Kansas has joined the growing list of jurisdictions to pass or introduce legislation addressing restrictive covenants.
The difference between Kansas and the other states’ legislation and proposed legislation is that Kansas’s legislation is employer friendly.
On April 8, 2025, Kansas enacted a law “concerning restraint of trade; relating to restrictive covenants; providing that certain restrictive covenants are not considered a restraint of trade and shall be enforceable; amending K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 50-163” (the “Kansas Law”). Pursuant to the Kansas Law, Kansas’s “restraint of trade act shall not be construed to apply to … any franchise agreements or covenants not to compete.”
Although the Kansas Law sets forth requirements for non-solicit provisions (as discussed below), it does not place requirements or restrictions on the use of noncompetes. Thus, it is likely that noncompetes will continue to be enforced consistent with Kansas case law. The “freedom to contract” and “wide discretion” for parties to entered into employment agreements “extends to restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 522 P. 3d 364, 369-70 (Kan. App. 2022) (citing Foltz v. Struxness, 215 P. 2d 133 (Kan. 1950)). Under Kansas law, “noncompete agreements are ‘valid and enforceable if the restraint on competition is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare.’” Id. at 370 (quoting Weber v. Tillman, 913 P. 2d 84 (Kan. 1996)).
Under the Kansas Law, customer non-solicits that seek to limit a former employee’s ability to provide or offer any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the employer “shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade[,]” provided that the customer non-solicit “is limited to material contact customers and the covenant is between an employer and an employee and does not continue for more than two years following the end of the employee’s employment[.]” The statute broadly defines “material contact customers” as any “customer or prospective customer that is solicited, produced or serviced, directly or indirectly, by the employee” or any customer or prospective customer about whom the employee, directly or indirectly, had confidential business or proprietary information or trade secrets in the course of the employee’s relationship with the customer.” Customer non-solicits must be in writing.
Employee non-solicits must also be in writing. The Kansas Law states that employee non-solicits “shall be conclusively presumed to be enforceable and not a restraint of trade if the covenant is between an employer and one or more employees[,]” and the covenant: (i) seeks, on the part of the employer, to protect the employer’s confidential or trade secret business information or customer or supplier relationships, goodwill or loyalty; or (ii) is not for a period longer than two years following the end of the employee’s employment. Thus, as long as the restricted period of the employee non-solicit is no longer than two years, then the non-solicit covenant is presumed to be enforceable.
For covenants that are not presumed to be enforceable and are determined to be overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business entity’s legitimate business interest, a “court shall modify the covenant, enforce the covenant as modified and grant only the relief necessary to protect such interests.” Thus, the Kansas Law explicitly authorizes courts to modify overbroad restrictive covenants, thereby further demonstrating the legislature’s intention that restrictive covenants be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
We expect other states to continue to restrict noncompetes, including a recently passed Wyoming law that we will report on soon, as well as pending legislation in Texas and New York. Stay tuned for our posts on those bills. The Kansas Law is an example of a jurisdiction enacting an employer-friendly restrictive covenant law. It remains important for employers to review their restrictive covenants to ensure they are complying with applicable law.
