Non-Solicitation Agreements in California: What’s Legal and What’s Not
If you signed a non-solicitation agreement with your California employer, you need to understand what it actually means. California law treats non-solicitation agreements differently than most states, and many clauses that employers think are binding are actually unenforceable.
This guide walks you through California’s rules on non-solicitation agreements, explains the landmark Edwards v. Arthur Andersen case, and shows you how to know whether your agreement can actually be enforced against you.
What Is a Non-Solicitation Agreement?
A non-solicitation agreement is a contract clause that restricts your ability to contact or do business with certain people after you leave your job. These clauses typically fall into two categories:
Customer/Client Non-Solicitation: Prevents you from selling to or contacting customers you worked with at your previous employer.
Employee Non-Solicitation: Prevents you from recruiting or contacting coworkers from your previous employer (sometimes called “anti-raiding” clauses).
Employers often use these agreements to protect their business relationships and workforce. But in California, the enforceability of these clauses depends heavily on which type you signed and how it’s written.
The Edwards v. Arthur Andersen Decision: The Game-Changer
The most important case about non-solicitation agreements in California is Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008. This case fundamentally changed how California courts treat these clauses.
What Happened in the Case
Edward Edwards was a senior manager at Arthur Andersen, a major accounting firm. When Edwards left to start his own consulting business, Arthur Andersen tried to enforce a non-solicitation clause in Edwards’ employment contract.
The clause prohibited Edwards from:
- Performing accounting services for any client he worked with at Arthur Andersen for 18 months after leaving
- Soliciting any client of Arthur Andersen’s Los Angeles office
Edwards argued the clause violated California law. Arthur Andersen argued it was narrowly tailored and protected legitimate business interests.
The Court’s Ruling
The California Supreme Court sided with Edwards. The court held that the non-solicitation clause was an illegal restraint on trade under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, even though the restriction was carefully limited to clients Edwards actually worked with.
This was a major decision because it rejected what courts in other states had been doing: upholding “narrow” or “reasonable” non-solicitation agreements. The Edwards court said California doesn’t allow that exception, no matter how careful the restriction is.
Why This Matters
The Edwards decision established a clear rule: non-solicitation clauses that restrict your ability to work for or sell to former customers are presumed unenforceable in California. Employers cannot get around this by drafting the clause carefully or limiting it to a short time period.
Customer Non-Solicitation Agreements: Presumed Unenforceable
Based on the Edwards ruling and subsequent cases, California courts have consistently held that customer non-solicitation agreements are unenforceable restraints on trade.
Why Customer Non-Solicitation Clauses Fail
When a non-solicitation clause prevents you from working for or soliciting customers, it effectively stops you from practicing your profession. Courts view this as a ban on competition, which violates California’s strong public policy against restricting how people earn a living.
In 2018, the case AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. confirmed that section 16600 applies to employee non-solicitation provisions as well. The court extended the Edwards logic: agreements that limit your ability to work are unenforceable, even if they’re narrowly written.
The “Narrow Tailoring” Argument Doesn’t Work
Employers sometimes argue that their non-solicitation clause is enforceable because it’s carefully limited in scope or duration. California courts reject this argument.
The Edwards court specifically held that there is no “narrow restraint” exception to section 16600. Even restrictions that cover only:
- Customers you personally worked with (not all company customers)
- A limited time period (6 months, 1 year, or 18 months)
- A specific geographic area
- A particular line of business
…are still unenforceable if they prevent you from working for former customers.
What Employers Cannot Do
California employers cannot legally:
- Prohibit you from working for or soliciting your former company’s customers
- Require you to stay away from clients you personally served
- Restrict your ability to contact customers after you leave
- Enforce time-limited restrictions (even 6 months) on customer solicitation
The Gray Area: Employee Non-Solicitation Agreements
While customer non-solicitation clauses are clearly unenforceable, employee non-solicitation agreements occupy a more uncertain legal space in California.
What These Clauses Look Like
Employee non-solicitation (or “anti-raiding”) clauses prevent you from recruiting or contacting coworkers from your former employer. For example, a clause might say: “Employee agrees not to recruit, solicit, or encourage the employment of any person employed by the Company for 12 months after departure.”
Possible Enforceability
Unlike customer non-solicitation clauses, employee non-solicitation agreements have not been flatly rejected by the California Supreme Court. Some older cases, like Loral Corp. v. Moyes, suggested these clauses might be enforceable if they don’t significantly impact your ability to work or hire employees.
However, the AMN Healthcare decision raised serious questions about whether even employee non-solicitation clauses survive section 16600. The court expressed skepticism about whether Loral remains good law after Edwards.
Current Uncertainty
The honest answer is that employee non-solicitation agreements exist in legal limbo in California:
- They have not been explicitly ruled unenforceable by the California Supreme Court
- Recent federal and state court decisions suggest they may be unenforceable under section 16600
- Most employment lawyers view them as highly vulnerable to challenge
- New legislation (Business and Professions Code section 16600.5) may eliminate any remaining exceptions for employee non-solicitation clauses
If you face an employee non-solicitation claim, you should consult an employment attorney. The law is evolving, and your specific situation matters.
The Trade Secret Exception: Increasingly Questionable
Some employers argue that non-solicitation clauses are enforceable if they protect trade secrets. This argument is based on California Business and Professions Code section 16602, which provides limited exceptions to the ban on non-compete agreements.
How the Trade Secret Exception Works (In Theory)
If a non-solicitation agreement is narrowly tailored to protect genuine trade secrets, it might be enforceable. For example, a clause that prevents you from disclosing secret client lists or confidential pricing information might be protected.
Why This Exception Is Weakening
The trade secret exception faces increasing challenges:
-
Recent Legislative Changes: The 2024 amendments to section 16600 state that restraints are void “no matter how narrowly tailored” unless they fall within explicit statutory exceptions. Since the trade secret exception was created by courts (not written into the statute), it may no longer apply.
-
Edwards’ Impact: The Edwards decision rejected the idea that “narrow tailoring” saves an otherwise illegal restraint. Courts have applied this same logic to trade secret restrictions.
-
Confidentiality Agreements Are Better: California now recognizes separate confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements as a better way to protect trade secrets. These don’t restrict your ability to work—they just require you to keep information confidential.
What You Should Know
If an employer claims their non-solicitation clause is protected because it safeguards trade secrets, that claim is weak. California law provides better, more enforceable ways to protect legitimate business interests. A non-solicitation clause is not an appropriate tool for that purpose.
How California Protects Employee Mobility
California’s restrictions on non-solicitation agreements reflect a core public policy: people have the right to work where they choose and use the skills they’ve developed.
The Underlying Philosophy
California courts and lawmakers have consistently prioritized employee mobility over employer restrictions. The state recognizes that:
- Workers need the freedom to compete fairly
- Talent and skills belong to employees, not employers
- Restrictive covenants harm both workers and the economy
- Former employees have the right to leverage their professional relationships
What California Does Protect
While non-solicitation agreements are restricted, California does protect legitimate employer interests through:
Confidentiality Agreements: You cannot use or disclose trade secrets or confidential information, even after you leave.
Non-Disparagement Clauses: In some cases, you cannot make false or damaging statements about your former employer.
Intellectual Property Assignments: Your employer can own creations you made on company time using company resources.
Fiduciary Duties: While employed, you owe loyalty to your employer and cannot solicit customers for a competing business.
These tools don’t prevent you from working; they just set reasonable boundaries on how you can use information or compete.
What to Do If You Have a Non-Solicitation Agreement
If you signed a non-solicitation agreement and you’re considering a job change, here’s how to handle it:
1. Review the Exact Language
Read your agreement carefully. Identify exactly what it prohibits. Does it restrict customer solicitation, employee recruitment, or both? Does it specify a time period and geographic area?
2. Understand California’s Rules
Keep these points in mind:
- Customer non-solicitation clauses are almost certainly unenforceable
- Employee non-solicitation clauses are questionable and getting weaker
- “Narrowly tailored” restrictions don’t save an otherwise illegal clause
- Trade secret exceptions are increasingly limited
3. Consult an Employment Attorney
If your non-solicitation agreement raises real concerns, talk to an employment lawyer. They can evaluate your specific clause and give you advice tailored to your situation. Many offer free consultations.
4. Document Your Work History
If you’re transitioning jobs, keep clear records of:
- Which customers you personally worked with
- Which coworkers you had significant contact with
- Your job title and responsibilities
- When you started and left your position
This documentation helps if disputes arise about whether you actually violated the agreement.
5. Don’t Ignore the Issue
If you’re moving to a competitor and your former employer might object, it’s better to address this upfront than to be sued later. An attorney can help you understand your exposure and negotiate with your former employer if necessary.
Conclusion: Your Right to Work Matters
California’s skepticism toward non-solicitation agreements reflects a commitment to employee rights and fair competition. While the law continues to develop—especially regarding employee non-solicitation clauses—the trend is clear: California will not enforce agreements that prevent you from using your skills and professional relationships to earn a living.
If you’re uncertain about whether your non-solicitation agreement is enforceable, don’t assume it is. Instead, get a clear answer from an employment attorney who understands California law.
For more information about employment law in California, see our complete guide to California employment contracts and learn about non-compete agreements in California and confidentiality agreements.