Florida's CHOICE Act, One Year In

Since mid-2025, a Florida employer can bind a senior employee to a four-year noncompete and obtain an injunction that the court must grant. More than a year later, we have found no court decision construing the law. Employers are writing these agreements, and executives are signing them, on the statute's text alone.

The Act moved against the national current. In 2024 the Federal Trade Commission adopted a rule banning most noncompetes nationwide, and a federal court in Texas set it aside before it took effect. Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024). Florida went the other direction.

The Legislature found that nondisclosure agreements and nonsolicitation clauses are "inadequate" to protect Florida companies, and that predictable enforcement "encourages investment in this state." § 542.42, Fla. Stat. House staff expected the law to draw businesses that want these agreements to relocate here or organize under Florida law. Fla. H.R. Staff Analysis, CS/CS/HB 1219 (2025).

What the Act does

The CHOICE Act lets a Florida employer hold a highly paid employee to a noncompete of up to four years, or to a paid notice period of up to four years, and have a court enforce either one almost automatically. It sits in Part II of Chapter 542, sections 542.41 through 542.45, alongside the older noncompete statute, section 542.335.

Who it covers. The Act reaches employees and individual contractors who earn, or are reasonably expected to earn, a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of the county where the employer has its principal place of business. If the employer's principal place of business is outside Florida, the employee's county of residence controls. "Salary" means base pay. Bonuses, commissions, discretionary incentives, severance, and retirement benefits do not count toward the threshold. Health care practitioners are excluded entirely. § 542.43(3), (10).

What the threshold looks like in practice. BLS does not publish an occupational "annual mean wage" for individual counties. The closest county-level BLS figure is average annual pay from its Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. On that measure, the threshold in Florida's largest counties runs from about $141,000 to $164,000 in base salary.

Minimum base salary to be a "covered employee," 2025

Palm Beach$164,170

Miami-Dade$163,636

Hillsborough$155,996

Duval$150,720

Broward$149,190

Pinellas$141,708

Orange$141,198

$0$40K$80K$120K$160K

Where it reaches. The Act applies to an employee whose primary place of work is in Florida, regardless of any choice-of-law clause. It also applies to an agreement with a Florida-based employer that is expressly governed by Florida law. §§ 542.44(1), 542.45(1).

Two kinds of agreement. The Act creates two tools, and an employer can use either or both.

How long a restriction can run

CHOICE Act garden leave Up to 4 years of paid notice. Work ends after 90 days.

CHOICE Act noncompete Up to 4 years after employment ends. Court must enjoin.

Ordinary noncompete (§ 542.335) ≤ 6 mo.court weighs reasonablenessover 2 years: presumed unreasonable

06 mo.1 yr2 yrs3 yrs4 yrs

The formalities are mandatory. An agreement qualifies only if the employer:

1. Advised the employee in writing of the right to consult a lawyer before signing;
2. Gave the employee at least 7 days to review the agreement before the offer expired;
3. Obtained the employee's written acknowledgment that the employee will receive confidential information or customer relationships; and
4. For a noncompete, included a clause reducing the noncompete period day-for-day by any nonworking portion of a garden leave notice period.

§§ 542.44(2)–(3), 542.45(2)–(3). Miss one, and the agreement falls back under section 542.335 and its familiar reasonableness analysis.

The injunction is the point

Under the CHOICE Act, a court that finds a qualifying agreement "must preliminarily enjoin" the employee from working for anyone else during the restricted period. §§ 542.44(5)(a), 542.45(5)(a). The same mandatory language runs against the new employer, which a court must enjoin from engaging the employee. §§ 542.44(5)(b), 542.45(5)(b).

That is a different world from section 542.335. Under the older statute, the employer has to plead and prove a legitimate business interest, then prove the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect it, and a court can trim an overbroad covenant. § 542.335(1)(b)–(c). An employee-side lawyer has room to work. Under the CHOICE Act, the inquiry largely skips those questions.

The injunction can be modified or dissolved only if the employee or new employer proves one of a short list of things, by clear and convincing evidence and using nonconfidential information.

1. Employer applies to enforce a covered agreement
2. Court must enjoin the employee and the new employer
3. Prevailing party recovers attorney's fees

To lift the injunction, the employee or new employer must prove one of these, by clear and convincing evidence, using nonconfidential information:

• No similar work, and no use of confidential information or customers
• The employer failed to pay what it promised, after a chance to cure
• The new employer is not in a similar business in the restricted area (noncompete)

§§ 542.44(5), 542.45(5). Clear and convincing evidence is the highest burden in civil litigation, and the Act puts it on the employee.

Two other provisions tilt the field further. A court must presume the employee had access to confidential information or customer relationships if the employee acknowledged that access in writing, which every qualifying agreement requires. And the prevailing party recovers attorney's fees, so the employer that wins the injunction also sends the bill to the other side. §§ 542.44(5)(b), (d), 542.45(5)(b), (d).

What nobody knows yet

We found no decision from any Florida appellate court, any Florida federal court, or the Eleventh Circuit construing the CHOICE Act. Until one arrives, every prediction about how the Act works in litigation rests on its text. Four questions matter most.

1. Does it apply to agreements signed before the Act took effect? The statute does not say. Its coverage turns on where the employee works and where the employer is based, not on when the agreement was signed. §§ 542.44(1), 542.45(1). An employer relying on an older agreement is betting on an answer no court has given, and the safer course is a new agreement that meets the Act's formalities.

2. Will a federal court issue the mandatory injunction? Probably not automatically. Federal courts decide preliminary injunctions under federal equity standards, and Florida's federal judges have already split over whether they must honor the much milder presumption of irreparable harm in section 542.335(1)(j). Compare Blue-Grace Logistics LLC v. Fahey, 340 F.R.D. 460 (M.D. Fla. 2022) (presumption does not apply in federal court), and Pliteq, Inc. v. Mostafa, 775 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (same), with TransUnion Risk & Alternative Data Sols., Inc. v. MacLachlan, 625 F. App'x 403 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished; presumption and Rule 65 "can be applied harmoniously"). The Eleventh Circuit has called the question "knotty" and left it open. Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282 (11th Cir. 2022). A statute that says a court "must" enjoin presents the same problem in sharper form, so where the case is filed may matter as much as what the agreement says.

3. Which wage figure sets the threshold? The Act measures salary against twice the annual mean wage "of the county," but defines annual mean wage as the BLS figure "for all occupations in this state." § 542.43(1), (3). BLS does not publish an occupational mean wage for individual counties. An employee whose salary sits near the line has a real argument either way.

4. How will courts treat the formalities? The Act is enforceable "according to its terms" only if the employer gave written notice of the right to counsel, the 7-day review period, and the written acknowledgment. § 542.45(2). Expect early cases to be fought over whether those steps happened, and happened in writing.

For employers

The Act rewards employers who follow its procedure exactly and gives nothing to those who come close. If you want CHOICE protection for your senior people, these are the steps that matter.

1. Run the salary test person by person. Take the most recent BLS wage figure for the county of your principal place of business, double it, and compare it to base salary only. For an employee near the line, build in a margin, because the statute does not say which BLS figure controls. A sales leader with a modest base and a large commission plan may not qualify, however much they earn.
2. Build the 7-day review into the offer. The clock runs from delivery of the agreement to the date the offer expires. An offer letter that demands a signature by Friday, sent on Wednesday, defeats the agreement.
3. Put the counsel advisory and the acknowledgment in writing, in the agreement itself. The written acknowledgment of confidential information is what triggers the presumption of access in litigation. It should describe the categories of information the employee will actually receive.
4. Define the geographic area. The Act requires an area "defined in the agreement." § 542.43(6). A phrase like "anywhere the Company does business" invites a fight you do not need.
5. Decide between a noncompete and garden leave deliberately. Garden leave costs full base salary and benefits for the notice period, but the employee remains your employee and cannot resign early. A noncompete costs less and starts when employment ends. Many employers will use both, with the day-for-day credit the Act requires.
6. Choose Florida law expressly. For an employee working outside Florida, the Act applies only if your principal place of business is here and the agreement says Florida law governs. § 542.45(1)(b).
7. Keep your section 542.335 agreements for everyone else. Employees below the threshold still sign ordinary restrictive covenants, and those remain enforceable if reasonable. The Act expressly preserves them. § 542.45 (final paragraph).

Before relying on a new form, have it reviewed against the statute line by line. The formalities are where these agreements will be won and lost.

For executives, and the companies hiring them

If you are asked to sign a CHOICE Act agreement, assume it will be enforced as written. The time to negotiate is the 7-day review period the statute guarantees you, not the week you give notice.

The Act tells the employer to advise you in writing that you may consult a lawyer. Take the advice. A few points deserve attention before you sign:

• The acknowledgment is not boilerplate. Your signature on the confidential-information acknowledgment becomes a legal presumption against you if the employer later sues.
• Four years is a ceiling. Length, geography, and the definition of "similar services" are all negotiable, and so is the consideration you receive for signing.
• Garden leave can be the better deal. It keeps you on full base salary and benefits for the notice period. A bare noncompete may pay you nothing while you wait it out.
• Check whether you qualify at all. If most of your pay comes from bonus or commission, your base salary may fall below the threshold, and the agreement is then judged under section 542.335 instead.

If you already signed one and are thinking about leaving, talk to counsel before you resign or accept an offer. The analysis starts with whether the employer followed every formality, when you signed, and whether the employer has paid what it promised.

Companies recruiting senior talent face their own exposure. The Act lets the former employer enjoin the new employer directly. § 542.45(5)(b). Ask candidates for their restrictive covenants early, and price the risk before the offer goes out.

The bottom line

Florida has decided that a senior employee's promise not to compete should be enforced quickly and with few questions asked. Employers who follow the Act's procedure get an unusually strong remedy. Employers who miss a step get section 542.335, which is still a good statute but not this one.

For executives, the Act moves the decisive moment from the day you leave to the day you sign. Read the agreement then, while the terms can still change.

Saltiel Law Group handles business and commercial litigation in Florida's state and federal courts, including noncompete disputes, and drafts the contracts that give rise to them. If you have an agreement to draft, sign, or challenge, we are glad to talk it through.