Non-Compete Enforceability in Florida: What “Reasonable” Actually Means

Florida has a reputation as one of the more employer-friendly states in the country when it comes to non-compete agreements, especially compared to states like California, which voids most non-competes outright. But “employer-friendly” doesn’t mean “anything goes.” Florida law imposes real, specific limits on how a non-compete can be written, and getting those limits wrong is one of the most common ways a practice’s restrictive covenant ends up unenforceable when it matters most.

The Core Rule: Florida Statute § 542.335

Florida’s non-compete law is built around a fairly detailed statute rather than a vague fairness standard. To be enforceable, a non-compete generally must:

1. Be in writing and signed by the person being restricted.
2. Protect a legitimate business interest. The statute recognizes specific categories, including trade secrets, confidential business information, substantial relationships with existing or prospective patients/clients, patient or client goodwill, and specialized training the practice provided.
3. Be reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of restricted activity.

If a practice can’t point to one of those legitimate business interests, the non-compete is void, no matter how well it’s drafted otherwise.

What “Reasonable” Actually Looks Like

Florida law provides built-in guideposts for how long a restriction can last, based on the type of relationship:

• Employees, agents, and independent contractors: 6 months or less is presumed reasonable; more than 2 years is presumed unreasonable.
• Sale of a business: up to 3 years is presumed reasonable; more than 7 years is presumed unreasonable.
• Trade secret protection specifically: up to 5 years is presumed reasonable.

These are presumptions, not hard caps. A longer restriction isn’t automatically void, but the practice has to justify it. Geographic scope works similarly: the restricted area has to reasonably match where the employee actually worked or had contact with patients or clients. A non-compete that tries to restrict a provider who only ever worked in one county from practicing anywhere in the state is a common example of overreach that courts routinely narrow.

A Newer Wrinkle: The Florida CHOICE Act

As of July 1, 2025, Florida added a second framework that runs alongside § 542.335: the CHOICE Act. It applies only to “covered employees” (generally those earning more than twice the average wage in the relevant county), and it allows non-competes up to 4 years, with the burden shifted so the employee (not the employer) has to prove the agreement is unenforceable. This is a meaningfully more employer-favorable framework, but it only applies to higher-earning employees and contracts that meet its specific requirements. Agreements signed before July 1, 2025, and most non-competes involving lower-earning staff, remain governed by the older § 542.335 framework described above.

What Happens If a Non-Compete Is Overbroad

Unlike some states where an unreasonable non-compete is simply thrown out entirely, Florida courts have the power to “blue-pencil” (that is, narrow) an overbroad restriction rather than voiding it completely. That’s good news for employers in one sense (the covenant usually survives in some form), but it also means practices shouldn’t rely on writing an intentionally broad restriction and hoping a court will fix it later. A well-drafted, appropriately scoped agreement is far more likely to be enforced as written, without the delay and expense of litigating what the “reasonable” version should look like.

What This Means for Healthcare Practices

Non-competes are common in physician, dental, and veterinary employment agreements, often to protect patient relationships and referral networks built over years. To hold up in Florida:

• Tie the restriction to a real, identifiable business interest (patient relationships, referral sources, proprietary treatment protocols, etc.), not just a general desire to prevent competition.
• Keep the duration within the statutory presumptions where possible, or be prepared to justify a longer period.
• Limit the geographic scope to where the provider actually practiced or had meaningful patient contact.
• Consider whether the CHOICE Act’s more favorable framework applies to a given hire, and draft accordingly.

Bottom Line

Florida gives employers real tools to protect their business relationships. But a non-compete only works if it’s actually enforceable, and that depends entirely on how carefully it’s drafted. An overbroad, copy-and-paste non-compete can end up being worth far less than a properly scoped one when you actually need to rely on it.

If you’d like your provider or staff non-compete agreements reviewed for enforceability, we’re happy to take a look.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Every practice’s situation is different, and the facts of your arrangement matter. Please contact our office to discuss your specific circumstances.