Georgia enforces non-compete agreements, but only within the limits set by the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (GRCA). The Act governs covenants signed on or after May 11, 2011, and lets a court enforce a restriction that is reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope against a worker the statute allows an employer to bind. This is one of the subjects covered in Georgia employment law; the sections below focus on when a non-compete holds up and what makes one fail.
When Georgia enforces a non-compete
A non-compete is one kind of restrictive covenant, a promise that limits what a worker can do after the working relationship ends. Under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a), a contract that restricts competition is enforceable so long as the restriction is reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities. All three have to be reasonable, and a covenant that is unreasonable on any one of them can fall.
Georgia is an at-will employment state, so without a contract a worker can leave and compete freely. A non-compete is one of the limited ways an employer can restrict that freedom, and it works only when it meets the Act’s standards.
The GRCA applies to covenants entered on or after May 11, 2011. It reaches the relationships listed in O.C.G.A. § 13-8-52, among them employers and employees, franchisors and franchisees, and sellers and buyers of a business. Covenants signed before that date are governed by the older common law, which treated non-competes far more harshly and did not let a judge narrow an overbroad one.
## Which workers an employer can bind
A true post-employment non-compete cannot be enforced against every employee. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a) bars enforcement of a post-employment competition restriction against an employee who does not, in the course of the job, do at least one of the following: customarily solicit customers or prospective customers; customarily make sales or obtain orders or contracts; perform management duties, meaning a primary duty of managing the business or a department, regularly directing the work of two or more employees, and authority over hiring and firing; or perform the duties of a key employee or a professional.
The statute defines those last two terms. A “key employee” is one who has gained notoriety or influence with customers, or specialized skills and customer information, by reason of the job; a “professional” performs work requiring advanced knowledge from a prolonged course of specialized study, under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51. An employee who lacks specialized skills, customer contacts, or confidential information generally falls outside these categories, and a full non-compete against that worker is unenforceable.
## Time, territory, and scope
Georgia measures the duration of a post-employment covenant against rebuttable presumptions in O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57. For a former employee whose covenant is not tied to the sale of a business, a restraint of two years or less is presumed reasonable, and one longer than two years is presumed unreasonable, measured from the end of the working relationship. Different presumptions apply to other relationships: three years for a distributor, dealer, franchisee, lessee, or licensee, and the longer of five years or the payout period for the owner or seller of a business.
Geography works differently than many expect. In North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, decided September 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that § 13-8-53(a) does not require a covenant to state an express geographic area; what matters is whether the covenant’s reach is reasonable on the facts. A restriction can describe its territory in implied terms, for example, by naming the specific employer or customers it protects, and still be enforceable if the scope is reasonable.
Scope is handled by O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(c), which treats a description as sufficient when it gives fair notice of the maximum reasonable scope. A covenant that limits activities to those “of the type conducted, authorized, offered, or provided within two years prior to termination” meets the standard even if it could have been drawn more narrowly.
Confirm the Act applies
A court first checks that the covenant fits a relationship covered by
O.C.G.A. § 13-8-52and was entered on or after May 11, 2011. Older covenants are judged under the pre-Act common law instead.Check whether the worker can be bound
The court looks at whether the employee solicits customers, makes sales, manages, or is a key employee or professional under
O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). A worker outside those categories cannot be held to a post-employment non-compete.Measure the time restriction
The duration is compared against the presumption in
O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57, two years or less for a former employee not tied to the sale of a business.Assess geographic and activity scope
The court decides whether the territory and prohibited activities are reasonable on the facts, whether or not the covenant states an express geographic term.
O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(b) lets an employee agree not to solicit the employer’s customers, but only customers with whom the employee had “material contact,” a term defined in O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51. A customer non-solicitation clause needs no express geographic term to be enforceable, and it is read narrowly to cover only material-contact customers and competing products or services.
Confidentiality obligations reach further still. Under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(e), a promise to keep information confidential or to protect a trade secret is not limited in time or geography for as long as the information stays confidential. Because these clauses do not depend on the § 13-8-53(a) job categories, they can bind a worker who could not be held to a full non-compete.
## When a covenant is overbroad
Before 2011, a Georgia court faced with an overbroad employee non-compete had to strike the whole thing. The GRCA changed that. O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(d) provides that a covenant which does not comply is void, but it also lets a court modify the covenant so long as the change does not make it more restrictive than the parties originally wrote it. The definition of “modification” in O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51 includes severing an offending part and enforcing the rest to the extent it is reasonable.
This is why an imperfectly drafted covenant is not automatically dead in Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia has described the Act as taking a “more permissive and flexible approach,” giving courts latitude to conform a covenant to both the parties’ intent and the statute, in Wimmer. A court can trim an overbroad term rather than discard the covenant, within the limits the statute sets.
## Non-competes and the federal rule
In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule that would have banned most non-competes across the country. A federal court set the rule aside before it took effect, and in September 2025 the FTC moved to end its appeal, leaving the rule blocked and unenforceable, per the FTC Noncompete Rule page. As of 2026, whether a non-compete is enforceable in Georgia turns on state law, the GRCA, and not on the federal rule.
Frequently asked questions
Does a Georgia non-compete have to name a geographic area?
No. In North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a) does not require an express geographic term. A covenant can describe its reach in implied terms, such as by naming the protected employer or customers, and remains enforceable if its scope is reasonable on the facts.
Can an employer enforce a non-compete after a layoff?
The Act defines “termination” to include the end of employment with or without cause, on either party’s initiative, under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51. Enforceability does not turn on who ended the job; a covenant is tested the same way against the time, geographic, and scope standards regardless of the reason for separation. Whether a separation itself was unlawful is a separate question, covered in suing for wrongful termination in Georgia.
Are non-competes signed before May 11, 2011 covered by the Act?
No. The GRCA applies to covenants entered on or after May 11, 2011. Earlier covenants are governed by Georgia’s pre-Act common law, under which a court could not narrow an overbroad employee non-compete and often struck it entirely.
What is the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause?
A non-compete restricts working in competition generally and is subject to the job-category limits in O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). A customer non-solicitation clause under § 13-8-53(b) only restricts soliciting customers with whom the worker had material contact, needs no express geographic term, and can bind workers a full non-compete could not.
Does the FTC’s non-compete ban apply in Georgia?
No. The FTC’s 2024 rule was set aside by a federal court and never took effect, and the agency moved to end its appeal in September 2025. Non-compete enforceability in Georgia is governed by the state Restrictive Covenants Act.