Are non-competes banned in Minnesota — does that mean mine is void?
The short answer
Minnesota Statutes §181.988, effective July 1, 2023, generally voids covenants not to compete in employment agreements — meaning the statute generally treats most employee non-compete clauses in contracts signed on or after July 1, 2023 as void and unenforceable under Minnesota law. The statute defines a covenant not to compete narrowly — it does not cover non-disclosure agreements, trade secret protections, or non-solicitation clauses restricting client or contact lists, which remain permissible. The ban applies to contracts signed on or after the effective date; pre-July 2023 agreements involve a separate analysis. Whether the ban applies to your specific agreement depends on when it was signed, which state's law it designates, and whether what is at issue is a non-compete or a different type of restrictive covenant. Scan your agreement to see what its restrictive clauses say and when it was signed.
What Dang reviews here: Dang reviews the clause language in your employment agreement — what the non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality, and IP terms say and what to ask about them. It does not verify wage, hour, or leave compliance.
Jurisdiction focus: MN — rules differ in other states.
No account requiredFile deleted after analysisNot legal advice
What Minnesota Stat. §181.988 says about non-competes
Minnesota Statutes §181.988 — enacted in 2023 and effective July 1, 2023 — generally provides that any covenant not to compete in an employment agreement is void and unenforceable. The statute defines a covenant not to compete as an agreement restricting the employee, after termination, from working for another employer for a period, in a geography, or in a similar capacity. The statute expressly states it does not render void non-disclosure agreements, trade secret protections, or non-solicitation clauses restricting use of client or contact lists.
Two exceptions exist: non-competes agreed upon in connection with the sale of a business, and non-competes agreed upon in anticipation of a business dissolution, remain valid if reasonable in scope and geography. The statute also includes a choice-of-law provision: an employer may not require an employee who primarily resides and works in Minnesota to waive the substantive protections of Minnesota law. This is relevant if the agreement designates another state's law.
Why people worry
Workers in Minnesota who signed non-competes before July 2023 may not know whether the ban applies to them; those who signed after that date may not know that the clause in their offer was void when presented. The practical concern is whether a clause that appears in an agreement is actually enforceable, and whether a non-solicitation or confidentiality clause — which is not covered by the ban — has been mistakenly assumed to be voided as well.
What to look for in your agreement
- The date the agreement was signed — the Minnesota ban applies to contracts signed on or after July 1, 2023.
- Whether the clause is a non-compete (post-employment work restriction) or a non-solicitation or confidentiality clause — the statute distinguishes these.
- The governing law clause — whether the agreement designates another state's law and the implications under §181.988's choice-of-law provision.
- Whether the agreement involves a sale-of-business or business-dissolution context, which are the statute's stated exceptions.
- Any remaining restrictive covenants — non-solicitation, IP assignment, confidentiality — that are separate from the non-compete.
Questions to ask before acting on the clause
- Ask the employer to confirm their understanding of whether the non-compete is intended to be enforced in Minnesota.
- Ask the other party to clarify which of the remaining restrictive clauses — non-solicitation, confidentiality — they view as active.
- Confirm the signing date of the agreement and what state's law it designates.
- Consider having the agreement reviewed if there is uncertainty about which clauses are covered by the ban and which are not.
Why scan instead of guess
The general rule tells you the baseline. Your offer tells you what you’re actually being asked to sign — and the wording is what binds. Dang reads the document and flags the clauses worth reviewing, in plain English.
The deterministic engine scores and decides what’s risky. The AI only enriches the plain-English wording — AI extracts, code decides, never the other way around.
Your original file is deleted promptly after processing — we keep only the report you can read. No account needed for a one-time scan. Free preview first; full report $6.99, one-time.
Common questions
Does the Minnesota ban apply to agreements signed before July 2023?
The statute applies to covenants not to compete in contracts signed on or after July 1, 2023. Agreements signed before that date involve a separate analysis under prior Minnesota law and the agreement's governing-law designation.
Does the ban also cover non-solicitation clauses?
No — Minnesota Stat. §181.988 explicitly states that it does not render void non-solicitation agreements or agreements restricting the use of client or contact lists. Those clauses are separate from non-competes and may remain in effect.
Sources
- Minnesota Statutes §181.988 — Covenants Not to Compete Void in Employment Agreements (official statute text, MN Office of the Revisor of Statutes) · official source
- Sources last checked 2026-06-11. Laws and market practices change — confirm current rules before relying on them.
No account required · File deleted after analysis · Not legal advice. Dang reports contract findings in plain English — general information, not legal advice about your situation. For consequential decisions, consult a licensed attorney in your state.