California Amends Noncompete Law (Again) and Adds a Notice Requirement


California’s Business and Professions Code (the “Code”) has long been the nation’s strictest law on restrictive covenants, essentially prohibiting employee noncompetition agreements except in limited circumstances.

Two bills recently signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom reiterate and broaden the state’s restrictions on employee noncompetes. SB 699, which goes into effect January 1, 2024, and which we previously wrote about here, broadens the Code’s restrictions and provides individuals with new legal remedies. AB 1076 codifies existing California case law and establishes a significant notice obligation for employers.

With AB 1076’s February 14, 2024, notice deadline quickly approaching, it is vital that employers with California workforces take steps now to understand and prepare to comply with the new law.

AB 1076’s Enhanced Prohibition and Notice Requirement

AB 1076 adds a new Section 16600.1 to the Code. Beginning January 1, 2024, Section 16600.1 makes it unlawful for an employer to include a noncompete clause in an employment agreement or to require an employee to enter into a noncompete agreement. It also codifies existing case law that a violation of Section 16600 constitutes “an act of unfair competition.” In addition, Section 16600.1 also establishes a new employer notice requirement giving employers until February 14, 2024, to notify employees—both current and former employees who were employed after January 1, 2022—who are subject to an unlawful noncompete agreement or clause, that such agreement or clause is void. Importantly, these notices must be in writing, individualized, and delivered to the individual’s last known physical address and email address.

AB 1076’s Declarative Amendments

Currently, Section 16600 of the Code voids contracts that restrain an individual from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind unless the restriction meets one of the Code’s three statutory exceptions, i.e., restrictive covenants relating to the sale of a business or dissolution of a partnership or limited liability company. AB 1076 clarifies Section 16600 in two important ways. First, it explicitly codifies the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (Cal. 2008), which held that, no matter how narrowly tailored they are, noncompete agreements and clauses are void under California law in the employment context. Second, AB 1076 confirms that Section 16600’s prohibitions apply even when the person being restrained from engaging in lawful competition is not a party to the contract at issue. Previously, there was ambiguity surrounding this issue arising from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 1130 (Cal. 2020). That ambiguity is now eliminated. 

What Employers Should Do Now


©2025 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
National Law Review, Volume XIII, Number 300