Florida's CHOICE Act  Boosts Employer Enforcement of Noncompete Restrictions

July 21, 2025
unnamed (17)

The CHOICE Act, or the Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality and Economic Growth Act, was passed by state lawmakers on April 24 to expand the permissible length of some noncompete agreements to four years and mandate the issuance of preliminary injunctions, among other employer friendly provisions.

The new law took effect on July 1, 2025. The focus of the Act is on protecting Florida businesses’ confidential information and customer relationships through the use of noncompete restrictions. Rather than supplant existing law under Section 542.335, Florida Statutes, it introduces new categories of agreements with greater restrictions and eases employers’ ability to enforce these agreements.

While current noncompete law generally limits the restricted period to two years, the CHOICE Act extends this period to four years. It also adopts a presumption of enforceability. Instead of requiring the employer to justify the need for enforcement, the employee must show why an injunction is not warranted and why the noncompete is unenforceable. Importantly, the Act also mandates courts to issue preliminary injunctions for employers who sue to enforce the noncompete. The Act applies strictly to higher-salaried employees, defined as those earning more than twice the annual mean (average) wage in the county where the employer has its principal place of business. If the employer’s principal place of business is outside of Florida, then the annual mean wage is calculated based on the county where the covered employee resides.

Notably, salary excludes bonuses, commissions, healthcare, retirement benefits, and other forms of compensation. Generally, the law will apply to employees who earn around six figures or more.The CHOICE Act makes it easier to enforce the provisions against out-of-state employees—especially if the employer files for enforcement in Florida first. 

However, the strength of Florida’s new law may scare and push remote employees who work in employee-friendly states to promptly file for declaratory action in their home state. This would include workers in locations that ban or nearly ban noncompete restrictions or which have a higher salary level for enforcement of noncompete restrictions—states like California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington DC.

Notably, healthcare professionals are excluded from the Act.Because the Act does not repeal the current law but adds to it, it is unclear whether doctors will be excluded from or remain subject to the current law which already recognizes the need to consider the community’s health care needs before enforcing a noncompete against a doctor. 

To be enforceable under the Act, the non compete agreement must meet the following requirements:

  • The non-compete period must not exceed four years.
  • The employer must advise the employee in writing of the right to seek counsel before signing and allow the employee at least seven days to consider the agreement.
  • The employee must acknowledge in writing that they will receive confidential information or customer relationships during their employment.
  • The non-compete period is reduced day for day by any nonworking portion of the notice period under any applicable garden leave provision. A garden leave provision allows an employer to prevent an employee from immediately working for a competitor or accessing confidential information by continuing to pay an employee who is no longer actively working for the employer.

While the Act emphasizes stringent protection of business interests and predictable enforcement, there are other nonlegal considerations. Is a four year non-compete standard for the industry? How will implementation of a four year noncompete impact hiring and retention? Can the business afford to raise the base salaries of employees to meet the salary threshold required by the Act? It remains to be seen whether employers can convince highly paid workers to sign these types of contracts. Careful consideration of a reluctant employee’s particularized concern and careful legal drafting may facilitate the ability to reach such agreement.