open-agreements 0.7.7 → 0.8.0

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/colorado.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Colorado"
 slug: colorado
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/colorado
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/colorado
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/colorado · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/colorado · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Colorado[^about]
 
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ That common-law rule survives the statute, but it now operates alongside the pro
 
 **Short answer.** Do not count on it. Colorado courts have discretion to blue-pencil an overbroad covenant but are not required to, and parties cannot contractually force a court to rewrite one [^twentythree-ltd-discretion][^twentythree-ltd-no-contractual-compulsion].
 
-In *23 LTD v. Herman*, the court explained that it is not a court's function to rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy, and a severability clause cannot compel the court to do so [^twentythree-ltd-no-rewrite][^twentythree-ltd-no-contractual-compulsion]. The risk is compounded by the penalty regime: because merely presenting a void covenant is unlawful, an employer cannot safely assume a court will trim an overbroad covenant into a lawful one [^crs-present-void-narrowing].
+In *23 LTD v. Herman*, the court explained that it is not a court's function to rewrite a contract to enable enforcement of terms that violate Colorado public policy, and a severability clause cannot compel the court to do so [^twentythree-ltd-no-rewrite][^twentythree-ltd-no-contractual-compulsion]. The risk is compounded by the penalty regime: because merely presenting a void covenant is unlawful, an employer cannot safely assume a court will trim an overbroad covenant into a lawful one [^crs-present-void-narrowing]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Colorado non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/colorado) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ The best Colorado authority points toward caution. In *Phoenix Capital, Inc. v.
 >
 > Because the wage thresholds reset every year and the health-care and minority-owner rules apply to agreements entered into or renewed on or after their effective dates, recheck the current C.R.S. § 8-2-113 text and the latest PAY CALC Order before relying on a Colorado covenant or updating a form [^dev-sb25-083][^ebg-recent-thresholds].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Colorado. This article synthesizes Colorado primary law and is not legal advice from a Colorado-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Colorado. This article synthesizes Colorado primary law and is not legal advice from a Colorado-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^crs-void-rule]: **C.R.S. § 8-2-113** — "Except as provided in subsections (2)(b) and (3) of this section, any covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of labor for any employer is void." *C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(a).* <https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-08.pdf>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/connecticut.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Connecticut"
 slug: connecticut
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/connecticut
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/connecticut · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/connecticut · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Connecticut[^about]
 
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ The important limitation is connection. *Schimenti* held that continued employme
 
 **Short answer.** Do not count on judicial rewriting. Connecticut authority gives employers no reliable rule that a court will rewrite an overbroad covenant into an enforceable one — internally inconsistent restraint language can be construed against the drafter, and the one statutory severance rule in this area preserves only the *non-covenant* provisions of a contract when the covenant itself is void [^thoma-ambiguous-duration-against-drafter][^physician-void-covenant-remainder-survives].
 
-The practical lesson is to draft severable and tiered restrictions. If the contract states one indivisible radius or one indivisible activity ban, a court may have no narrower text to preserve. Separable tiers, customer-specific alternatives, and a severability clause give a court cleaner text to enforce or strike.
+The practical lesson is to draft severable and tiered restrictions. If the contract states one indivisible radius or one indivisible activity ban, a court may have no narrower text to preserve. Separable tiers, customer-specific alternatives, and a severability clause give a court cleaner text to enforce or strike. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Connecticut non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/connecticut) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 *Thoma* illustrates the risk of internally inconsistent noncompetition language: the court could not reasonably reconcile the conflicting terms and construed the ambiguity against the drafter [^thoma-ambiguous-duration-against-drafter]. The physician statute separately shows a narrow statutory severance model — when a physician covenant is void in whole or in part, the contract's remaining provisions survive [^physician-void-covenant-remainder-survives].
 
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ HB 5492 would have made a covenant void and unenforceable against employees earn
 >
 > Treat a failed bill like HB 5492 as a monitoring item, not as present Connecticut law. Recheck the official Connecticut General Assembly bill status each session before changing forms or telling workers that Connecticut has enacted a general wage-threshold non-compete statute [^hb-5492-wage-threshold-bill].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Connecticut. This article synthesizes Connecticut primary law and is not legal advice from a Connecticut-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Connecticut. This article synthesizes Connecticut primary law and is not legal advice from a Connecticut-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^scott-employee-noncompete-reasonableness]: **Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.** — "In order to be valid and binding, a covenant which restricts the activities of an employee following the termination of his employment must be partial and restricted in its operation ‘in respect either to time or place, . . . and must be reasonable — that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public." *Scott v. Gen. Iron & Welding Co., 171 Conn. 132 (1976).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2268855/scott-v-general-iron-welding-co/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20valid,the%20interests%20of%20the%20public.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/delaware.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Delaware"
 slug: delaware
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/delaware
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/delaware · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Delaware[^about]
 
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ That is not a safe harbor for nationwide clauses. It is a procedural and factual
 
 **Short answer.** Usually not as a litigation strategy. Delaware courts retain equitable discretion, but recent Chancery and Supreme Court decisions warn that overbroad covenants may fall rather than be rewritten [^sunder-supreme-blue-pencil-discretion].
 
-The modern no-blue-pencil spine comes from *Kodiak*, *Intertek*, and *Sunder*. The reason is incentive-based: if courts routinely trim overbroad restrictions, employers can draft broadly, chill workers, and still get a lawful restraint if challenged [^kodiak-blue-pencil-inequity][^intertek-no-rescue][^sunder-supreme-perverse-incentives].
+The modern no-blue-pencil spine comes from *Kodiak*, *Intertek*, and *Sunder*. The reason is incentive-based: if courts routinely trim overbroad restrictions, employers can draft broadly, chill workers, and still get a lawful restraint if challenged [^kodiak-blue-pencil-inequity][^intertek-no-rescue][^sunder-supreme-perverse-incentives]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Delaware non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/delaware) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ This is a narrow licensing rule, not a general employee non-compete statute. It
 
 The through-line is not that Delaware became anti-enforcement. It is that Delaware separates contract forms carefully and demands fact-specific tailoring before enforcing true restraints on work.
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Delaware. This article synthesizes Delaware primary law and is not legal advice from a Delaware-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Delaware. This article synthesizes Delaware primary law and is not legal advice from a Delaware-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^fp-uc-reasonableness-test]: **FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton** — "Instead, our courts carefully review the covenants to assure they ‘(1) [are] reasonable in geographic scope and temporal duration, (2) advance a legitimate economic interest of the party seeking its enforcement, and (3) survive a balancing of the equities.’" *FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783, at *6 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20our%20courts%20carefully%20review,a%20balancing%20of%20the%20equities.%E2%80%9D>
 
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ The through-line is not that Delaware became anti-enforcement. It is that Delawa
 
 [^payscale-legitimate-interests]: **Payscale Inc. v. Norman** — "For a restrictive covenant, ‘‘[l]egitimate interests’ recognized by Delaware law include protection of employer goodwill[] and protection of employer confidential information from misuse.’" *Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 15-16 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=For%20a%20restrictive%20covenant%2C%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98%5Bl%5Degitimate,employer%20confidential%20information%20from%20misuse.%E2%80%9D>
 
-[^payscale-specific-interests-pleaded]: **Payscale Inc. v. Norman** — "Payscale alleges that the non-compete’s terms are directly tied to protecting specific contracts with its most valued customers; at the pleadings stage, it is reasonable to infer that protecting relationships with these key ... customers is in Payscale’s ‘particularly strong economic interest.’" *Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 18 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=Payscale%20alleges%20that%20the%20non%2Dcompete%E2%80%99s,Payscale%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cparticularly%20strong%20economic%20interest.%E2%80%9D>
+[^payscale-specific-interests-pleaded]: **Payscale Inc. v. Norman** — "Payscale alleges that the non-compete’s terms are directly tied to protecting specific contracts with its most valued customers; at the pleadings stage, it is reasonable to infer that protecting relationships with these key customers is in Payscale’s ‘particularly strong economic interest.’" *Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 18 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=Payscale%20alleges%20that%20the%20non%2Dcompete%E2%80%99s,Payscale%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cparticularly%20strong%20economic%20interest.%E2%80%9D>
 
 [^sunder-supreme-blue-pencil-discretion]: **Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson** — "This is not to say that Delaware courts should never blue pencil an agreement that is overbroad in some respects. But the relief Appellant sought was a wholesale reformation of the parties’ agreement." *Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 495 (Del. 2024).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=This%20is%20not%20to%20say,reformation%20of%20the%20parties%E2%80%99%20agreement.>
 
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ The through-line is not that Delaware became anti-enforcement. It is that Delawa
 
 [^kodiak-goodwill-limit]: **Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. Adams** — "In sum, Kodiak has a legitimate business interest in protecting the goodwill it purchased when it bought Northwest, and the confidential information about Kodiak operations that Adams knows or could access." *Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, 2022 WL 5240507, at *8 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8247185/kodiak-building-partners-llc-v-philip-d-adams/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20Kodiak%20has%20a,Adams%20knows%20or%20could%20access.>
 
-[^derge-substantial-consideration]: **Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.** — "Plaintiff received substantial consideration ... $1 million—in a merger that was conditioned on his agreement to the Non-Compete." *Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 16-17 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=Plaintiff%20received%20substantial%20consideration,conditioned%20on%20his%20agreement%20to%20the%20Non%2DCompete.>
+[^derge-substantial-consideration]: **Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.** — "Plaintiff received substantial consideration—nearly $1 million—in a Merger that was conditioned on his agreement to the Non-Compete." *Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 16-17 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=Plaintiff%20received%20substantial%20consideration,conditioned%20on%20his%20agreement%20to%20the%20Non%2DCompete.>
 
 [^derge-reasonable-sale-scope]: **Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.** — "The record here shows that Tanknology conducted business across the United States and internationally, and that, as COO, Plaintiff had responsibility over operations across all markets. Thus, Defendants have a legitimate business interest in the Protected Area." *Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 19 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=The%20record%20here%20shows%20that,interest%20in%20the%20Protected%20Area.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/district-of-columbia.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "District of Columbia"
 slug: district-of-columbia
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/district-of-columbia
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/district-of-columbia · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in the District of Columbia[^about]
 
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ The statute sets graduated monetary relief: an employer that subjects an employe
 
 The chapter also forbids retaliation: an employer may not retaliate or threaten to retaliate against a covered employee for refusing, failing to comply with, or complaining about a banned non-compete, and an employer that retaliates owes each affected employee between $1,000 and $2,500 [^retaliation-ban][^retaliation-relief].
 
-Enforcement is real. In November 2023, the Attorney General announced settlements with three employers and described the ban as making it illegal to impose non-compete agreements on most District workers earning less than $150,000 a year [^oag-enforcement]. The Attorney General has also treated a franchise *no-poach* clause as violating both the ban and the District's Antitrust Act, which declares contracts in restraint of trade illegal [^oag-nopoach][^antitrust].
+Enforcement is real. In November 2023, the Attorney General announced settlements with three employers and described the ban as making it illegal to impose non-compete agreements on most District workers earning less than $150,000 a year [^oag-enforcement]. The Attorney General has also treated a franchise *no-poach* clause as violating both the ban and the District's Antitrust Act, which declares contracts in restraint of trade illegal [^oag-nopoach][^antitrust]. For a clause-by-clause exposure screen of a specific agreement against these rules, the [District of Columbia non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/district-of-columbia) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!NOTE]
 > **Practice note.**
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ The duration limits are written as hard caps: a non-medical highly compensated e
 >
 > Open question: District law does not say whether a clause extending the restricted period during a breach is enforceable, and the statute caps the term in calendar days measured from separation. Do not assume a District court will toll or extend an expired non-compete, and do not draft a highly compensated employee's covenant in a way that depends on running past the 365-day or 730-day cap [^tolling-duration-cap][^tolling-cumulative].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not District of Columbia. This article synthesizes District of Columbia primary law and is not legal advice from a District of Columbia-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not District of Columbia. This article synthesizes District of Columbia primary law and is not legal advice from a District of Columbia-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^ban-covered]: **D.C. Code § 32-581.02** — "Beginning October 1, 2022, no employer may require or request that a covered employee sign an agreement or comply with a workplace policy that includes a non-compete provision." *D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(1).* <https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/florida.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Florida"
 slug: florida
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/florida
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/florida · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/florida · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Florida[^about]
 
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Florida enforces non-competes by statute and is among the most employer-friendly
 
 Florida courts treat section 542.335 as a comprehensive statutory framework for restrictive covenants. As the Fifth District put it, the statute is built on an unfair-competition approach, rather than the older common-law hostility to restraints [^q1-henao-framework].
 
-Since July 2025, Florida has run two parallel tracks. Most agreements are governed by the traditional section 542.335 standard described throughout this note. A second, even more employer-favorable track — the CHOICE Act, sections 542.41 through 542.45 — applies only to defined high-earning *covered employees*; covenants that do not fit the CHOICE Act definitions fall back to section 542.335 [^q1-choice-fallback].
+Since July 2025, Florida has run two parallel tracks. Most agreements are governed by the traditional section 542.335 standard described throughout this note. A second, even more employer-favorable track — the CHOICE Act, sections 542.41 through 542.45 — applies only to defined high-earning *covered employees*; covenants that do not fit the CHOICE Act definitions fall back to section 542.335 [^q1-choice-fallback]. Reviewers working through a specific draft can apply this framework clause by clause with the [Florida non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/florida).
 
 > [!NOTE]
 > **Practice note.**
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ The Federal Register notice records that a federal court held the rule unlawful
 
 "In the third case, the court held that the Non-Compete Rule was unlawful and set it aside."[^q14-fr-removal]
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Florida. This article synthesizes Florida primary law and is not legal advice from a Florida-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Florida. This article synthesizes Florida primary law and is not legal advice from a Florida-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^q1-542018-baseline]: **Fla. Stat. § 542.18** — "Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful." *Fla. Stat. § 542.18 (2025).* <https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.18>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/georgia.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Georgia"
 slug: georgia
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/georgia
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/georgia
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/georgia · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/georgia · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Georgia[^about]
 
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ For several years the Court of Appeals had read § 13-8-53(a) to require non-com
 
 The statute supports an implied-geography approach. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56 supplies a presumption that the areas where the employer does business can be a reasonable territory, provided the total distance is reasonable, so the geographic inquiry turns on overall reasonableness rather than the presence of a magic-words territory clause.
 
-"In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant that limits or restricts competition during or after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship, the court shall make the following presumptions:...(2) A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties' relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive covenant, is reasonable provided that: (A) The total distance encompassed by the provisions of the covenant also is reasonable; (B) The agreement contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time after the term of employment or a business or commercial relationship; or (C) Both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph"[^q4-grca-13-8-56-geography]
+"In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant that limits or restricts competition during or after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship, the court shall make the following presumptions: (1) During the term of the relationship, a time period equal to or measured by duration of the parties' relationship is reasonable; provided, however, that the reasonableness of a time period after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship shall be as provided for in Code Section 13-8-57; (2) A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties' relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive covenant, is reasonable provided that: (A) The total distance encompassed by the provisions of the covenant also is reasonable; (B) The agreement contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time after the term of employment or a business or commercial relationship; or (C) Both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph"[^q4-grca-13-8-56-geography]
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ O.C.G.A. § 13-8-54 frames the interpretive posture. Courts construe covenants i
 
 "A court shall construe a restrictive covenant to comport with the reasonable intent and expectations of the parties to the covenant and in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement."[^q7-grca-13-8-54-construe]
 
-The modification power is discretionary, not automatic. In *Belt Power, LLC v. Reed*, the Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to blue-pencil the covenants at all, leaving them unenforceable as written [^q7-beltpower-modify].
+The modification power is discretionary, not automatic. In *Belt Power, LLC v. Reed*, the Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to blue-pencil the covenants at all, leaving them unenforceable as written [^q7-beltpower-modify]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Georgia non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/georgia) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 "We nevertheless conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the ‘blue pencil’ provision in the Act to modify the terms of the covenants."[^q7-beltpower-modify]
 
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ The Act was signed and took effect on May 11, 2011. A covenant signed before tha
 >
 > Check the signing date before applying the GRCA. A covenant entered before May 11, 2011 is judged under Georgia's stricter pre-Act common law, where modification was unavailable for employment non-competes, so the modern reasonableness and blue-pencil rules do not apply to it [^q13-grca-effective-date][^q13-grca-13-8-52-application].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Georgia. This article synthesizes Georgia primary law and is not legal advice from a Georgia-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Georgia. This article synthesizes Georgia primary law and is not legal advice from a Georgia-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^q1-grca-13-8-53a-reasonable]: **O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53** — "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during the term of a restrictive covenant, so long as such restrictions are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities, shall be permitted." *O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a).* <https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20112012/114248>
 
@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ The Act was signed and took effect on May 11, 2011. A covenant signed before tha
 
 [^q4-wimmer-no-express-term]: **North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer** — "The petitioner — a Georgia corporation seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant against two former employees — asks us to review the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals that, to be deemed geographically reasonable under OCGA § 13-8-53 (a), a restrictive covenant must contain an express geographic term. In light of the statutory text and context of the GRCA, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred, so we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings." *North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 319 Ga. 641 (2024).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680273/north-american-senior-benefits-llc-v-wimmer/#:~:text=The%20petitioner%20%E2%80%94%20a%20Georgia,this%20case%20for%20further%20proceedings.>
 
-[^q4-grca-13-8-56-geography]: **O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56** — "In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant that limits or restricts competition during or after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship, the court shall make the following presumptions:...(2) A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties' relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive covenant, is reasonable provided that: (A) The total distance encompassed by the provisions of the covenant also is reasonable; (B) The agreement contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time after the term of employment or a business or commercial relationship; or (C) Both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph" *O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2).* <https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20112012/114248>
+[^q4-grca-13-8-56-geography]: **O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56** — "In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant that limits or restricts competition during or after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship, the court shall make the following presumptions: (1) During the term of the relationship, a time period equal to or measured by duration of the parties' relationship is reasonable; provided, however, that the reasonableness of a time period after the term of an employment or business or commercial relationship shall be as provided for in Code Section 13-8-57; (2) A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties' relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive covenant, is reasonable provided that: (A) The total distance encompassed by the provisions of the covenant also is reasonable; (B) The agreement contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time after the term of employment or a business or commercial relationship; or (C) Both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph" *O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2).* <https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20112012/114248>
 
 [^q5-grca-13-8-53b-customer]: **O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53** — "an employee may agree in writing for the benefit of an employer to refrain, for a stated period of time following termination, from soliciting, or attempting to solicit, directly or by assisting others, any business from any of such employer's customers, including actively seeking prospective customers, with whom the employee had material contact during his or her employment for purposes of providing products or services that are competitive with those provided by the employer's business. No express reference to geographic area or the types of products or services considered to be competitive shall be required in order for the restraint to be enforceable." *O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(b).* <https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20112012/114248>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/guam.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Guam"
 slug: guam
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/guam
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/guam
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/guam · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/guam · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Guam[^about]
 
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ The court drew that line itself. *Island Eye* rejected the *inevitable disclosur
 >
 > Do not define *confidential information* so broadly that it sweeps in the employee's general skills, knowledge, and industry experience — a confidentiality clause that effectively prevents the worker from practicing their profession is a non-compete in substance and void under section 88105. Tie confidentiality to genuine secrets that meet the 9 GCA § 43.10(f) definition the Supreme Court of Guam adopted, and remember that hiring a former competitor's at-will staff is not itself misappropriation absent an identifiable trade secret [^q6-ie-tradesecret][^q6-ie-shield].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Guam. This article synthesizes Guam primary law and is not legal advice from a Guam-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Guam. This article synthesizes Guam primary law and is not legal advice from a Guam-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^stat-88105]: **18 GCA § 88105 — Contracts in Restraint of Trade** — "Every contract, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided in the next two sections, is to that extent void." *18 GCA § 88105.* <https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc088.pdf>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/hawaii.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Hawaii"
 slug: hawaii
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/hawaii
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/hawaii
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/hawaii · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/hawaii · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Hawaii[^about]
 
@@ -138,14 +138,14 @@ The reason is practical. A contractual extension-on-breach clause lengthens the
 
 *Del Rosario* is the best example in the staged sources of a court correcting the enforced scope. The trial court had enjoined work as a briefer statewide, but the covenant itself was limited to the County of Honolulu, and the appellate court remanded to amend the judgment to that county limit [^narrowing-del-rosario-honolulu-limit].
 
-That is not the same as permission to draft broadly. *Gagnon* refused enforcement of a non-compete that lacked a legitimate ancillary purpose, even though the employer argued confidentiality and competition concerns [^narrowing-gagnon-legitimate-purpose-required][^narrowing-gagnon-competition-not-purpose].
+That is not the same as permission to draft broadly. *Gagnon* refused enforcement of a non-compete that lacked a legitimate ancillary purpose, even though the employer argued confidentiality and competition concerns [^narrowing-gagnon-legitimate-purpose-required][^narrowing-gagnon-competition-not-purpose]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Hawaii non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/hawaii) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
 >
 > Draft Hawaii restrictions at the minimum scope supported by the protected interest. A court may limit an injunction to the contract and record before it, but *Gagnon* shows that a covenant lacking a legitimate ancillary purpose can fail rather than be saved by narrower wording [^narrowing-del-rosario-honolulu-limit][^narrowing-gagnon-legitimate-purpose-required].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Hawaii. This article synthesizes Hawaii primary law and is not legal advice from a Hawaii-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Hawaii. This article synthesizes Hawaii primary law and is not legal advice from a Hawaii-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^employee-hrs-480-4-baseline]: **HRS 480-4** — "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the State, or in any section of this State is illegal." *Haw. Rev. Stat. 480-4(a).* <https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/idaho.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Idaho"
 slug: idaho
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/idaho
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/idaho
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/idaho · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/idaho · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Idaho[^about]
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ A question-by-question summary of Idaho non-compete law under Idaho Code title 4
 
 **Short answer.** Yes, but only for key employees or key independent contractors and only if the covenant is reasonable. Idaho Code § 44-2701 makes a qualifying covenant enforceable if reasonable[^idaho-44-2701-key-employee-enforceable] as to duration, geography, work scope, and business need.
 
-Idaho is a statute-first jurisdiction for employment non-competes. The chapter 44-27 framework is employer-friendly, but it is not open-ended: the worker must be key, the restraint must protect legitimate business interests, and it cannot impose more restraint than reasonably necessary [^idaho-44-2701-key-employee-enforceable].
+Idaho is a statute-first jurisdiction for employment non-competes. The chapter 44-27 framework is employer-friendly, but it is not open-ended: the worker must be key, the restraint must protect legitimate business interests, and it cannot impose more restraint than reasonably necessary [^idaho-44-2701-key-employee-enforceable]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Idaho non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/idaho) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 Idaho courts still treat employment covenants as disfavored and strictly construed against the employer. *Blaskiewicz* reversed summary judgment because the district court skipped the Idaho statutes, while also preserving the older reasonableness and public-policy limits [^blaskiewicz-statute-first].
 
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ The remedy is also different. A trade-secret injunction targets actual or threat
 >
 > Separate confidentiality, trade-secret, and non-compete obligations. If the real risk is misuse of secret information, an Idaho Trade Secrets Act claim may be better tailored than a broad work ban, but the employer still needs secrecy efforts and misappropriation evidence [^idaho-48-801-trade-secret-definition][^idaho-48-802-injunction].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Idaho. This article synthesizes Idaho primary law and is not legal advice from a Idaho-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Idaho. This article synthesizes Idaho primary law and is not legal advice from a Idaho-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^idaho-44-2701-key-employee-enforceable]: **Idaho Code § 44-2701** — "A key employee or key independent contractor may enter into a written agreement or covenant that protects the employer’s legitimate business interests and prohibits the key employee or key independent contractor from engaging in employment or a line of business that is in direct competition with the employer’s business after termination of employment, and the same shall be enforceable, if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, type of employment or line of business, and does not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests." *Idaho Code § 44-2701.* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title44/T44CH27/SECT44-2701/>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/illinois.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Illinois"
 slug: illinois
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/illinois
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/illinois
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/illinois · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/illinois · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Illinois[^about]
 
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Illinois is not a ban state, but it regulates employee non-competes and non-soli
 
 "A covenant not to compete or a covenant not to solicit is illegal and void unless (1) the employee receives adequate consideration, (2) the covenant is ancillary to a valid employment relationship, (3) the covenant is no greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the employer, (4) the covenant does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (5) the covenant is not injurious to the public."[^ifwa-15-enforceability]
 
-Clearing the statute is necessary but not sufficient: the covenant must also be reasonable under the three-prong rule of reason the Illinois Supreme Court restated in *Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo* [^reliable-fire-3prong]. So the practical question in Illinois is layered — does the worker earn enough to be bound, was the covenant supported and properly noticed, and is the restraint reasonable on the facts.
+Clearing the statute is necessary but not sufficient: the covenant must also be reasonable under the three-prong rule of reason the Illinois Supreme Court restated in *Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo* [^reliable-fire-3prong]. So the practical question in Illinois is layered — does the worker earn enough to be bound, was the covenant supported and properly noticed, and is the restraint reasonable on the facts. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against those layered gates, the [Illinois non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/illinois) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 This note reflects current enacted law as of the review date. Two bills introduced in the 104th General Assembly would change it — HB 3213 would prohibit covenants not to compete and not to solicit outright, and HB 1642 would raise the non-compete earnings threshold to $300,000 — but as of the review date both remained in committee and neither had been enacted, so they do not yet affect enforceability.
 
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ It is easy to conflate two different things: a covenant an *employee* signs, and
 
 So an inter-employer no-poach or wage-fixing arrangement can draw antitrust exposure independent of the IFWA's rules for employee covenants.
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Illinois. This article synthesizes Illinois primary law and is not legal advice from a Illinois-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Illinois. This article synthesizes Illinois primary law and is not legal advice from a Illinois-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^ifwa-15-enforceability]: **820 ILCS 90/15** — "A covenant not to compete or a covenant not to solicit is illegal and void unless (1) the employee receives adequate consideration, (2) the covenant is ancillary to a valid employment relationship, (3) the covenant is no greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the employer, (4) the covenant does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (5) the covenant is not injurious to the public." *820 ILCS 90/15.* <https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/082000900K15.htm>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer/content/india.md → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer/content/in.md}

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
 jurisdiction: "India"
-slug: india
+slug: in
 countryCode: IN
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/india
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/in
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/india · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/in · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in India[^about]
 
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ Because Section 27 applies to all contracts, not just employment, an employer ca
 >
 > Build the protection program around what Indian law actually enforces: a confidentiality clause tied to identifiable trade secrets, a narrow non-solicitation clause, in-term exclusivity, garden leave inside the notice period, and a cost-based bond — used consistently for employees and contractors. Do not define *confidential information* so broadly that it sweeps in the worker's general skill and experience, which would make the clause a *de facto* non-compete and void under Section 27 [^vfs-confidentiality][^amex-freedom].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not India. This article synthesizes India primary law and is not legal advice from a India-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is not admitted to practise law in India. This article summarizes publicly available India legal sources for general information only — it is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer–client relationship. It may not reflect the most recent legal developments and is provided without warranty as to accuracy or completeness; verify against the primary sources cited and consult a locally qualified lawyer before relying on it.
 
 [^stat-s27-void]: **Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27** — "Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void." *Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27.* <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2187/2/A187209.pdf>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/indiana.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Indiana"
 slug: indiana
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/indiana
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/indiana
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/indiana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/indiana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Indiana[^about]
 
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ The activity dimension is where covenants most often fail. In *Med-1 Solutions*,
 
 The Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed this in *Heraeus Medical, LLC v. Zimmer, Inc.* (2019). A court may excise offending words from a divisible covenant, but it may not rewrite the agreement, and a contractual reformation or modification clause does not expand that power [^heraeus-reformation-clause]. The blue pencil is available only where the covenant is *clearly divisible* and a reasonable restriction survives after the unreasonable parts are removed [^heraeus-divisibility].
 
-That divisibility requirement is decisive. In *Clark's Sales and Service, Inc. v. Smith*, an overbroad restriction that was written as an interconnected whole could not be saved, because there was no severable language a court could strike to leave a reasonable covenant behind [^clarks-indivisible].
+That divisibility requirement is decisive. In *Clark's Sales and Service, Inc. v. Smith*, an overbroad restriction that was written as an interconnected whole could not be saved, because there was no severable language a court could strike to leave a reasonable covenant behind [^clarks-indivisible]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Indiana non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/indiana) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 "The doctrine, however, does not allow a court to rewrite a noncompetition agreement by adding, changing, or rearranging terms."[^heraeus-eraser]
 
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ In *Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission*, a federal court set the rule aside wi
 
 "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter."[^ryan-ftc-set-aside]
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Indiana. This article synthesizes Indiana primary law and is not legal advice from a Indiana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Indiana. This article synthesizes Indiana primary law and is not legal advice from a Indiana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^krueger-strict-construction]: **Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger** — "We construe these covenants strictly against the employer and will not enforce an unreasonable restriction." *Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/852486/central-indiana-podiatry-pc-v-krueger/#:~:text=We%20construe%20these%20covenants%20strictly,not%20enforce%20an%20unreasonable%20restriction.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/iowa.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Iowa"
 slug: iowa
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/iowa
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/iowa
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/iowa · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/iowa · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Iowa[^about]
 
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ This is Iowa's version of a *purple pencil* rule. In *Ehlers*, the Iowa Supreme
 
 "I. In view of the position we take here, it is unnecessary to discuss these propositions separately. We now overrule Brecher v. Brown (1945), 235 Iowa 627 , 17 N.W.2d 377 , and adopt the rule that unless the facts and circumstances indicate bad faith on the part of the employer, we will enforce noncompetitive covenants to the extent they are reasonably necessary to protect his legitimate interests without imposing undue hardship on the employee when the public interest is not adversely affected."[^q5-ehlers-reform]
 
-*Farm Bureau* then applied the rule, narrowing a petroleum delivery covenant to the activities and six-township territory the employee actually served [^q5-farm-bureau-partial].
+*Farm Bureau* then applied the rule, narrowing a petroleum delivery covenant to the activities and six-township territory the employee actually served [^q5-farm-bureau-partial]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Iowa non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/iowa) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ Unlike some states, Iowa has not made its trade-secret statute the exclusive rou
 >
 > Do not use a non-compete as the only confidentiality tool. If the real concern is secrecy, draft targeted NDA, invention-assignment, and trade-secret provisions, then use chapter 550 remedies where the information meets the statutory definition and secrecy efforts can be proved [^q11-trade-secret-definition][^q11-injunctive-relief].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Iowa. This article synthesizes Iowa primary law and is not legal advice from a Iowa-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Iowa. This article synthesizes Iowa primary law and is not legal advice from a Iowa-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^q1-revere-three-prong]: **Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co.** — "(1) Is the restriction reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer’s business; (2) is it unreasonably restrictive of the employee’s rights; and (3) is it prejudicial to the public interest?" *Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 595 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 1999).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1989929/revere-transducers-inc-v-deere-co/#:~:text=(1)%20Is%20the%20restriction%20reasonably,prejudicial%20to%20the%20public%20interest%3F>