Wisconsin Non-Compete Agreement
Wisconsin enforces employee non-compete agreements only if reasonably necessary to protect the employer under Section 103.465. Attorney review available.
Introduction
A non-compete agreement is a contract in which an employee agrees not to compete with a business for a set time and area after the job ends, and Wisconsin is unusually strict: Section 103.465 voids an unreasonable covenant entirely, even a part that would otherwise be reasonable. Wisconsin enforces employee non-competes, but only within strict limits set by statute. Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 103.465, a covenant not to compete after employment ends, within a specified territory and during a specified time, is lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer. Courts in Wisconsin apply a five-factor reasonableness test: the restraint must protect a legitimate business interest, be reasonable in time, be reasonable in territory, not be harsh or oppressive to the employee, and not be contrary to public policy. Wisconsin is unusually strict in one way that surprises employers: it does not blue-pencil. Section 103.465 states that an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void, and unenforceable even as to any part that would be a reasonable restraint, so a court will not rewrite or narrow an overbroad covenant to save it. Under Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra a court may still enforce a separate, textually divisible covenant that is itself reasonable even if another covenant in the same agreement is void. There is no salary or income threshold in Wisconsin, and no occupation carve-out. This page explains Wisconsin's rules and offers a template scoped to them. It is a state-law overview, not a promise that any given clause will hold up.
Key Things to Know
- 1
A non-compete restricts a former employee from competing with the business for a set time and territory. Wisconsin enforces one under Statutes Section 103.465 only if it passes a five-factor reasonableness test, and an unreasonable covenant fails in full.
- 2
Wisconsin enforces non-competes under Wisconsin Statutes Section 103.465: a post-employment covenant within a specified territory and during a specified time is lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer.
- 3
Wisconsin has no salary or income threshold for a non-compete. An employee at any pay level can be bound if the covenant is reasonable. Do not rely on another state's wage floor when the worker is in Wisconsin.
- 4
Courts in Wisconsin apply a five-factor reasonableness test under Section 103.465: the restraint must protect a legitimate business interest, be reasonable in time, be reasonable in territory, not be harsh or oppressive to the employee, and not be contrary to public policy.
- 5
Courts in Wisconsin generally hold that continued at-will employment is adequate consideration for a non-compete an existing employee signs (Runzheimer International v. Friedlen), because the employer forbears its right to terminate, though firing the employee soon after signing can raise defenses.
- 6
Wisconsin does not blue-pencil. Section 103.465 makes an unreasonable restraint void even as to any part that would be reasonable, so courts will not narrow an overbroad covenant; under Star Direct v. Dal Pra a separate, textually divisible reasonable covenant can still be enforced.
- 7
Because an overbroad non-compete fails entirely, many Wisconsin employers also use a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement under the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Wisconsin Statutes Section 134.90) to protect trade secrets and customer data.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Non-Compete Agreement in Wisconsin, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Non-Compete Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Non-Compete Agreement guideCustomize your Non-Compete Agreement Template with DocDraft
Wisconsin Requirements for Non-Compete Agreement
In Wisconsin a reasonable employee non-compete is enforceable. Wisconsin Statutes Section 103.465 makes a post-employment covenant not to compete, within a specified territory and during a specified time, lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer. This is the statutory standard for the whole state.
Courts in Wisconsin apply a five-factor test under Section 103.465: the restraint must be necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, provide a reasonable time limit, provide a reasonable territorial limit, not be harsh or oppressive as to the employee, and not be contrary to public policy. A covenant tied to the employer's actual customers, confidential information, or the area where the employee worked is more likely to satisfy it.
Wisconsin has no salary or income threshold that makes a non-compete valid. Section 103.465 turns on whether the restraint is reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer, not on the employee's pay, so an employee at any level can be bound by a reasonable covenant. Do not substitute another state's wage floor for a Wisconsin worker.
Wisconsin does not blue-pencil. Section 103.465 provides that a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void, and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint. A court will not narrow or rewrite an overbroad clause to save it, so a single unreasonable term can void the whole covenant. Drafting each restriction narrowly matters in Wisconsin.
Under Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra (2009 WI 76), a court in Wisconsin may enforce a separate, textually divisible covenant that is itself reasonable even when another covenant in the same agreement is void, but only if the covenants can be read and enforced independently. Drafting the non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality terms as standalone covenants helps a reasonable one survive if another fails.
Courts in Wisconsin generally hold that continued at-will employment is adequate consideration for a non-compete an existing employee signs (Runzheimer International v. Friedlen, 2015 WI 45), because the employer forbears its right to terminate. The court cautioned that firing the employee shortly after signing can support a fraudulent-inducement or good-faith-and-fair-dealing defense, so timing and good faith still matter.
Wisconsin's statute has no occupation-specific carve-out. Physicians, broadcasters, and other workers are judged under the same Section 103.465 reasonableness standard as everyone else, with no separate statutory exemption or special rule. The enforceability of any Wisconsin non-compete turns on the five-factor reasonableness test, not the employee's profession.
Because an overbroad non-compete fails entirely in Wisconsin, many employers also use a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement under the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Wisconsin Statutes Section 134.90). It protects trade secrets and customer data without a court testing the reasonableness of a restraint, and it can back up a non-compete that a court declines to enforce.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, within limits. Wisconsin Statutes Section 103.465 makes a post-employment covenant not to compete, within a specified territory and during a specified time, lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer. Courts in Wisconsin apply a five-factor reasonableness test and enforce a covenant that satisfies it. But an unreasonable restraint is void even in part, so a poorly drafted covenant can fail entirely in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin does not set a fixed maximum. Section 103.465 requires the time restriction to be reasonable and reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer, judged on the facts of each case. Courts in Wisconsin generally uphold post-employment restraints of roughly one to two years when they are tied to a genuine business interest and a reasonable territory, and scrutinize longer or open-ended terms. Because Wisconsin will not narrow an overbroad term, an unreasonably long period can void the whole covenant.
No. Wisconsin does not blue-pencil. Section 103.465 provides that a covenant imposing an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void, and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant that would be a reasonable restraint, so a court will not narrow or rewrite an overbroad clause to save it. Under Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, a court may still enforce a separate, textually divisible covenant that is itself reasonable, but only if it can be read and enforced independently of the void one.
Courts in Wisconsin apply a five-factor test under Section 103.465. The restraint must be necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer, provide a reasonable time limit, provide a reasonable territorial limit, not be harsh or oppressive as to the employee, and not be contrary to public policy. A covenant tied to the employer's actual customers, confidential information, or the area where the employee worked is more likely to satisfy the test in Wisconsin than a broad industry-wide ban.
No. Wisconsin has no wage or income threshold that decides whether a non-compete is valid. Section 103.465 turns on whether the restraint is reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer, not on how much the employee earns, so employees at any pay level can be bound by a reasonable covenant. Do not substitute another state's salary figure when the worker is in Wisconsin; the analysis is reasonableness, not pay.
Generally yes for an existing employee. In Runzheimer International v. Friedlen, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an employer's promise of continued at-will employment is adequate consideration for a non-compete an existing employee signs, because the employer forbears its right to fire the employee. The court cautioned that terminating the employee shortly after signing could support a fraudulent-inducement or good-faith defense, so timing still matters in Wisconsin.
They pair the non-compete with, or rely on, a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement and the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Wisconsin Statutes Section 134.90), which lets a business protect and sue over the misappropriation of trade secrets without a court testing the reasonableness of a restraint. Because an overbroad non-compete fails entirely in Wisconsin, this approach is a common backstop for confidential information and customer data.
No. In 2024 the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule that would have banned most non-competes nationwide, but a federal court set it aside before it took effect, so it is not currently in force, and its status has remained unsettled. Either way, Wisconsin's own statute, Section 103.465, independently governs and makes reasonable, necessary non-competes enforceable in Wisconsin, so the federal rule's fate does not change Wisconsin law today.