Non-Compete Clause / Agreement

Use when drafting a non-compete clause or standalone non-compete agreement for an employment, partnership, or M&A context. Covers enforceability rules by jurisdiction (LB, KSA, UAE federal, DIFC, FR, US California), required elements (duration, geography, activity scope, consideration), a model clause, carve-outs, and the critical pairing with non-solicit provisions. Triggers on "non compete", "non-competition", "restraint of trade", "post-employment restriction", or "competition clause" requests.

Non-Compete Clause / Agreement

When to use this

Use this skill when drafting a post-employment or post-relationship non-competition obligation. Three primary contexts:

  1. Employment: restricting a departing employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business for a defined period and geography
  2. Business / share sale (M&A): restricting the seller of a business from competing with the buyer's newly acquired business (these are generally more enforceable than employment non-competes because the seller has received consideration specifically for the goodwill)
  3. Partnership / JV dissolution: restricting a departing partner or JV party from competing with the remaining business

Always pair with [[draft-non-solicit]] — non-solicitation clauses protect customer and employee relationships, are easier to enforce, and provide protection even when the non-compete fails.

Required inputs

InputWhy it mattersDefault
Restrained partyEmployee / departing shareholder / partner— must supply
Restraining partyEmployer / buyer / remaining business— must supply
DurationHow long after departure12 months (employment); 24-36 months (M&A or partnership)
Geographic scopeCountry, region, named citiesThe jurisdiction(s) where the business actively competes
Activity scopeSpecific industry, specific competitors, customer-facing roles onlyThe narrower the better for enforceability
ConsiderationWhat the restrained party receives for agreeingSigning bonus, severance, continued employment, purchase price
Governing lawDetermines enforceabilityJurisdiction of employment / transaction

Enforceability — jurisdiction matrix

Enforceability of non-competes varies dramatically by jurisdiction. Always verify current law with local counsel before finalizing.

JurisdictionEnforceabilityKey rules
Lebanon (LB)Enforceable in principleCivil-law courts narrowly construe; must protect a legitimate business interest; limited in scope, geography, and duration; consideration recommended but not strictly required; court may reduce but typically will not rewrite
KSAEnforceable up to 2 yearsSaudi Labor Law Art. 83: enforceable if it protects a legitimate interest, is limited in scope and duration, and is proportionate; courts may judicially narrow excessive provisions
UAE federalEnforceable up to 2 yearsFederal Decree-Law 33/2021 (Labor Law) Art. 10 + Cabinet Decision 1/2022: enforceable for specialized roles where employee has access to confidential info or customer relationships; must be proportionate; may require court order for enforcement; 2-year cap on duration
DIFCEnforceable per DIFC Employment Law Art. 13Common-law reasonableness test; protection of legitimate business interest; limited scope, geography, duration; Blue-pencil doctrine applied — courts may sever unreasonable provisions without voiding the whole clause
ADGMEnforceable — reasonableness testSimilar to DIFC; based on common-law principles
FranceStrictly regulatedFour mandatory elements: (1) written form; (2) limited in time; (3) limited in geography; (4) limited in activity; AND (5) mandatory financial compensation paid to employee during the restraint period (typically 25-33% of last monthly salary per month of restraint) — without compensation, the clause is void
UKEnforceable if reasonableCommon law garden leave / non-compete; reasonableness test; PILON clauses interact; consideration at time of contract
California (US)Essentially unenforceableBusiness and Professions Code § 16600 voids employment non-competes with very narrow exceptions (sale of business); note: California courts apply this to California employees regardless of choice-of-law clause pointing to another state

Model clause (employment context)

"During the Term of Employment and for a period of [12/24] months following the termination of the Employee's employment for any reason (the Restricted Period), the Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, within the [Restricted Territory] (meaning [defined geography]):

(a) own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, provide services to, participate in, or be connected with, in any capacity, any Competing Business (as defined below);

(b) hold any equity interest in any Competing Business exceeding [2%] of the issued share capital of a publicly listed company;

(c) serve as a director, officer, consultant, advisor, or independent contractor for any Competing Business.

For the purposes of this clause, 'Competing Business' means any business that competes directly with [Employer's Business as defined in Schedule X]."

Adjust bracketed items per the inputs. The more specifically the Competing Business is defined, the more enforceable the clause — "any business that competes in any way" is far weaker than naming specific types of companies or named competitors.

Critical elements

Legitimate business interest

A non-compete that protects no genuine interest will be struck down in most jurisdictions. Recognized legitimate interests include:

  • Trade secrets and confidential customer/technical information
  • Customer relationships (the employee had material contact with and relationship with customers)
  • Business goodwill acquired by the employee at the employer's expense
  • Specialized skills or training provided by the employer

A non-compete that simply prevents an employee from using their general skills and experience in the market is not protecting a legitimate interest — it is suppressing labor mobility, which courts do not accept.

Proportionality

Even where there is a legitimate interest, the restraint must be proportionate:

  • Duration: 12 months is standard and generally enforceable; 24 months is the outer limit in most jurisdictions (especially UAE Art. 10); anything beyond 24 months for employees is very high risk
  • Geography: must match the actual area in which the business operates and where the employee competed — a Saudi-based employee with a global non-compete is unlikely to be enforced globally
  • Activity scope: "any employment in the technology sector" is too broad; "any role in B2B fintech product development focused on MENA remittances" is more precise and more enforceable

Consideration

  • In employment contexts: consideration is the employment itself if the clause is signed at the start; for clauses added during employment, additional consideration (bonus, promotion, salary increase) must be provided for the new restriction
  • In France: mandatory financial compensation during the restraint period is a statutory requirement, not optional
  • In M&A: the purchase price for the business is the consideration

Carve-outs

Standard carve-outs that improve commercial acceptability without destroying protection:

  • Holding up to [2-5%] of shares in a publicly listed company (passive investment, no management role)
  • Employment in the same broad industry but in a non-competing division (e.g., working for a bank that does not compete in the employer's specific product line)
  • Return to home jurisdiction if the employee was relocated for the role (limits the geographic scope effectively)
  • Activities that the employer is not currently conducting (protects existing business, not future aspirations)

Pairing with non-solicit

Non-compete and non-solicit clauses serve different but complementary functions:

  • Non-compete: prevents the departing party from working for or building a competing business
  • Non-solicit: prevents the departing party from taking customers or employees from the former employer

Courts universally consider non-solicit clauses more favorably than non-competes because they protect a more specific, definable business interest without broadly preventing the individual from earning a living.

Best practice: include both provisions. If the non-compete is struck down or narrowed, the non-solicit may survive and provide meaningful protection for the employer's customer relationships and talent.

See [[draft-non-solicit]] for the companion skill.

Common mistakes

  • Drafting a global non-compete for an employee whose work was regionally limited — unenforceable in most jurisdictions
  • No additional consideration for a mid-employment clause amendment — renders the new restriction unenforceable for lack of consideration (common-law jurisdictions)
  • Copying a California non-compete form for use in UAE or France — fundamentally different enforceability frameworks
  • Activity scope defined as the entire industry rather than the specific competitive activity — courts will strike it down
  • Omitting France's mandatory compensation — the clause is void without it; the employer does not even get a morally binding commitment

Related skills

  • [[draft-non-solicit]]
  • [[draft-employment-contract]]
  • [[draft-nda-unilateral]]
  • [[review-employment-risk]]

Last updated: October 13, 2026

Files (2)

Jurisdiction
General
Practice area
Employment
License
MIT
Author
sboghossian
Source
general/employment/skills/draft-non-compete-sboghossian

Test Non-Compete Clause / Agreement

Ask a legal question — get an answer generated live from this skill’s instructions.

Sign in to test this skill.