Changes to FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
In April 2024, the FTC issued a Non-Compete Clause Rule that barred most post-employment non-compete agreements nationwide. However, the ban was immediately challenged in federal court. In August 2024, a federal court enjoined the ban, and appellate litigation ensued. After a year of appellate litigation, in September 2025, the FTC dismissed its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir.) and Properties of the Villages v. FTC, No. 24-13102 (11th Cir.), effectively invalidating the ban on the non-compete rule. The Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss the appeal and accept the vacatur. Chairman Andrew Ferguson, joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak,[1] issued a joint statement. Commissioner Mark Meador[2] released a separate statement, while Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter issued a dissenting one.[3] These statements indicate that the FTC will continue to focus on unlawful non-compete clauses on a case-by-case basis under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Moreover, various states continue to propose and enact non-compete bans.
Missouri Rulings on Non-Compete Agreements
Missouri doesn’t ban non-compete agreements. Instead, Missouri common law governs their enforceability. As a result, courts look to prior cases for guidance. One case in particular—Healthcare Svcs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006)—is often cited when Missouri courts evaluate the enforceability of such agreements. Recently, the Western District cited Copeland in Jefferson City Med. Grp., P.C. v. Brummett, 665 S.W.3d 380, 382 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023) when upholding the enforcement of the non-compete clause Brummet signed.
Brummett joined JCMG, the largest physician group in Jefferson City, as a radiologist in its Radiology Division (JCR Division) under a non-shareholder-physician agreement. Id. A year later, he became a shareholder and a member of the JCR Division, which had six radiologists, including Brummett. Id.
The physician agreement included a non-compete clause stipulating that for two years after termination of the agreement, Brummett could not practice radiology within a 25-mile radius of Jefferson City (excluding Columbia). Id. Additionally, he agreed not to solicit or take away any patients or business from JCMG during this period. Id. The clause also stated that practicing radiology within the restricted area would inherently result in soliciting JCMG patients, thereby violating the agreement. Id. Brummet did not dispute the reasonableness of the time or geographic restrictions; he argued only that JCMG failed to prove the clause protected a legitimate business interest, namely, customer contacts. Id. The court, however, reasoned that under the facts of the case, it would be unfair to allow Brummet to disregard the non-compete clause and use customer contacts to compete against JCMG because over the six years he worked there, he lived in Columbia and expanded his patient and referral base with the support and connections provided by JCMG. Id.
Missouri courts, as seen in both Copeland and Brummet, strive to balance the interests surrounding non-compete agreements. As a result, these agreements are generally enforceable if they are reasonable. To be considered reasonable, a non-compete must not be more restrictive than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.”[4] Courts require these agreements to be narrowly tailored geographically and temporally. This means non-competes can’t last indefinitely, nor can they apply nationwide. For example, agreements lasting more than two years in Missouri are typically too broad in duration and may be deemed unenforceable.
FTC Seeks More Information about Real-World Effects of the Rule
Although the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban is no longer in effect, in September 2025, the FTC created a public inquiry program to “better understand the scope, prevalence, and effects” of non-compete agreements.[5] It’s requesting information from employees who entered into these agreements, as well as from employers who’ve experienced hiring difficulties because of them. The agency wants to obtain information on the use, impacts, and potential justifications for non-competes that employees have signed. Importantly, they identified healthcare markets as a concern due to the potential harm these agreements may pose for rural areas. (Notably, both cases cited above involved non-compete agreements in healthcare markets.)
Tips for Creating Effective Non-Compete Agreements
When implementing non-compete agreements, employers should focus on clarity, fairness, and legal compliance. A well-crafted non-compete should be narrow in scope, restricting only what’s necessary to protect legitimate business interests (e.g., trade secrets, confidential information, or key customer relationships). Keep the geographic area and time period reasonable; overly broad restrictions are more likely to be challenged or invalidated. Communicate the terms transparently during hiring or role changes, and provide appropriate consideration where required.
To ensure the enforceability of non-compete agreements, employers should stay up to date on current case law and regularly review and update these agreements accordingly. This includes training human resource departments and management in relevant standards.
Although Missouri doesn’t currently ban non-compete agreements, other states do. Therefore, Missouri employers who have multi-state operations should monitor other states’ regulations to remain compliant with any non-compete restrictions.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-holyoak-statement-re-noncompete-acceding-vacatur.pdf
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/meador-statement-noncompete-agreements-9.5.25.pdf
[4] Healthcare Svcs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604,609 (Mo. banc 2006)
[5] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2025-Noncompete-RFI.pdf