Noncompete agreements (restrictive covenants preventing employees from working for competitors after employment) have been in the spotlight lately. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had moved to impose a sweeping ban, but that effort has been dropped after legal challenge. In Ohio, meanwhile, courts continue to enforce restrictive covenants under traditional case law standards, but the legislature is actively considering major reforms. For Ohio employers and workers, it’s a critical moment to understand what has changed, what remains, and what may soon.
What Happened: The FTC’s NonCompete Rule and Its Rescission
In April 2024, the FTC adopted a NonCompete Clause Rule that would have declared most postemployment noncompetes unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act, except for narrow exceptions (e.g. senior executives).
The rule was to take effect September 4, 2024.
However, a federal judge vacated the rule in August 2024, finding the agency lacked authority and that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.
As of early September 2025, the FTC has formally withdrawn its appeal in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, ending its bid to revive the nationwide ban. The rule is officially no longer advancing.
What Remains: Enforcement, State Laws and What to Watch
With the national rule off the table, the regulatory and legal landscape shifts to enforcement of individual agreements, state laws, and legislative reform. Key points:
The FTC may now focus more on case-by-case enforcement under its existing authority (e.g. Section 5, “unfair methods of competition”) to challenge noncompetes that are unduly broad, harmful, or unfair.
States remain the primary arena for legal rules governing noncompetes. Ohio is among states where reforms are being actively discussed.
Employers with interstate workforces must pay attention to differing state standards, choice-of-law/forum clauses, etc.
Ohio Law: Current Status and Recent Development
Current Case Law and Standards in Ohio
Ohio’s enforceability of noncompete agreements is rooted in common law (court decisions). The key benchmark case is Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), in which the Ohio Supreme Court adopted a “reasonableness” standard. Under that standard, for a noncompete to be enforceable, it must:
Be no greater than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests;
Not impose undue hardship on the employee; and
Not injure the public interest. National Law Review+2Kohnen & Patton Law LLP+2
Other recognized factors:
Temporal limitation: how long after employment the restriction lasts. Kohnen & Patton Law LLP+1
Geographic limitation: how broad an area the restriction covers must be tied to where the employer actually does business or where the employee had actual contact. Overbroad geographic scope is often struck down. Ohio Insurance Agents+1
Nature of the employee’s role: whether the employee had access to confidential information, trade secrets, unique customer relationships, etc. Kohnen & Patton Law LLP+1
Recent Ohio Decisions
Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio / Kross Acquisition Co. v. Kief (2024): A noncompete with a 2-year restriction covering all of Ohio and Kentucky was held unenforceable because it was overly broad. The court refused to “blue pencil” (i.e. modify) the agreement to a narrower scope, instead invalidating it entirely under a “red pencil” approach. laboremploymentlawnavigator.com+2National Law Review+2
Ohio appellate courts are increasingly willing to invalidate problematic noncompetes rather than trying to modify them, especially when the overbreadth is substantial and the revisions needed are not clear. laboremploymentlawnavigator.com+1
What Is Pending: Proposed Legislation (Ohio Senate Bill 11)
Ohio has a bill, Senate Bill 11 (SB 11), introduced February 5, 2025, that would significantly change the legal landscape. Key provisions under SB 11: Ogletree+3Benesch Law+3Foley & Lardner LLP+3
Would ban noncompete agreements (and modifications thereof) entered into or modified after the bill becomes effective, for both employees and a broad class of “workers” (including independent contractors, interns, volunteers, apprentices, etc.). Foley & Lardner LLP+2Benesch Law+2
Would void any noncompete clauses that: prohibit working for another employer after employment ends; impose penalties or fees (including lost profits, goodwill, etc.); or require reimbursement of costs or other penalty-style obligations. Benesch Law+1
Would also limit choice-of-law and forum selection: for workers primarily living and doing business in Ohio, non-Ohio venue or law provisions would be unenforceable unless the worker had counsel and selected them. Foley & Lardner LLP+1
Remedies for workers: civil action, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, actual damages, possible punitive damages up to $5,000. Foley & Lardner LLP+1
What Ohio Employers and Employees Should Be Doing Now
Given the uncertainty and potential for change:
Employers in Ohio should audit current noncompete agreements: check the duration, geography, functional scope, whether there was sufficient consideration, whether employees had access to trade secrets, etc.
Be particularly careful with large geographic scope or sweeping restrictions which may be vulnerable under recent Ohio case law (e.g., Kross).
Monitor SB 11, as its passage would fundamentally alter what noncompete agreements are allowed in Ohio moving forward.
Update contractual provisions where possible to be compliant with current law and ready for likely changes (choice-of-law, forum clauses, penalties, etc.).
For employees: review your agreements, understand their scope and your obligations, and consider whether they’re likely to be enforceable under Ohio law. If unsure, get legal advice.
What This Means for the Future
The legal and regulatory shift is away from broad federal rulemaking (for now) toward state-by-state reform and litigation over specific noncompete agreements.
Ohio seems poised to be one of the states that either significantly restricts or nearly bans most noncompete covenants (depending on how SB 11 evolves).
Courts in Ohio are showing less tolerance for overbroad restrictive covenants and more willingness to invalidate them entirely rather than rewrite them.
Employers who lag in reviewing their noncompete clauses may face risk of unenforceability or legal challenge; employees may have more room to push back.
Conclusion
Although the FTC’s attempt at a sweeping nationwide noncompete ban has been dropped, noncompete agreements are still heavily scrutinized, and Ohio is very much in the mix of change. Under current Ohio law, reasonable noncompetes are still enforceable, but recent case law (like Kross) shows clear limits. Proposed legislation (SB 11) could reframe what is allowed. If you are subject to, enforce, or draft noncompete agreements in Ohio, now is a critical time for legal review and strategic planning.
If your business has restrictive covenants, or you’re bound by a noncompete, it’s wise to consult with Ohio employment law counsel. Gertsburg Licata can help you assess whether your agreements are enforceable under current case law, what changes may be needed, and how to prepare for legislative reforms. Contact us to ensure your agreements protect your legitimate business needs while minimizing legal risk.
