California non-compete laws: what recruiters need to know in 2026

California is the strictest non-compete state in the country, and the rule a recruiter needs is short: an employee non-compete is generally void in California, and since January 1, 2024 an employer that signs one with a California worker, or tries to enforce one, is breaking the law. The change that matters most for recruiting is that California now says this applies no matter where or when the agreement was signed. That does not mean every candidate with a non-compete is free to move, because the other side may still try to sue in another state. It means the questions you ask, and the way you hand the answers to the hiring company, matter more than the clause itself.

This page is the California piece of a set of state guides. For the general screening questions, see non-compete questions for candidates; for the agency-side clauses that California also restricts, see non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

The statute and the 2024 changes

The core rule is Business and Professions Code section 16600, which voids contracts that restrain anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business, except as the chapter itself allows. The California Attorney General's consumer alert on workers' rights puts it plainly: non-compete provisions in employment contracts "have generally been void in California for decades."

Two 2023 laws, both effective January 1, 2024, added teeth:

• SB 699, now section 16600.5. The Attorney General summarizes it as making it generally illegal for employers to enter into non-compete agreements with California employees, applying to agreements signed both inside and outside California, and extending protection "even where the contract was signed or the employment was maintained outside of California." Employers that enter into or attempt to enforce void agreements commit a civil violation, and employees can seek damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees.
• AB 1076, now section 16600.1. It codifies that existing employment non-competes are void unless they meet an explicit statutory exception, and required employers to notify current employees and certain former employees that their non-compete clauses were void by February 14, 2024. Per the Attorney General, failing to send that notice is an act of unfair competition.

What is void, and what may survive

California has no salary threshold and no notice-period rules for non-competes of the kind Washington, Oregon or Massachusetts use, because the default is that the clause is void. There is nothing to calculate.

Why a void clause can still slow a hire

Three situations keep California candidates from being simple:

1. The agreement chooses another state. A candidate who lives in California but works for a company headquartered elsewhere may have signed an agreement that names Texas, New York or Delaware law and courts. California says the clause is unenforceable regardless of where it was signed; the former employer may still file where its contract points. Which court decides first is a legal question, and it is not yours.
2. The candidate is moving out of California. Someone leaving California for a role in a state that enforces non-competes may be in a different position, depending on the agreement and where the dispute is heard.
3. The real risk is trade secrets. Former employers who cannot rely on a non-compete often rely on trade secret and confidentiality claims instead. A candidate who brings a client list or files creates a problem that California's non-compete law does not solve.

What a recruiter can ask a California candidate

Ask the same restrictive-agreement question you ask everyone for the role, early, and record only facts. You do not need the agreement's confidential terms to do your job; you need enough for the hiring company to decide whether its counsel should look.

CALIFORNIA CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed anything with your current or a past employer that
    could limit you taking this role: a non-compete, a non-solicit of
    clients or staff, or a confidentiality agreement?"
2. "Roughly what does it cover, and for how long after you leave?"
3. "Does it say which state's law applies, or where disputes go?"
4. "Was it part of selling a business or an ownership stake, or part
    of a normal employment or equity agreement?"
5. "Has your employer said anything about enforcing it?"
6. "If the hiring company's lawyer asks, could you share the
    agreement, as far as it allows you to?"
Always: "We don't want any confidential information, documents or
client lists from your current employer."

What not to do:

• Do not say "non-competes don't count in California." Say that enforceability depends on the agreement and the law, and that the company's lawyer will look at it.
• Do not ask the candidate to forward documents their agreement says are confidential, or to describe their employer's customers, pricing or pipeline in detail.
• Do not tell the candidate to ignore a letter from their employer's lawyer. Suggest they show it to their own lawyer.
• Do not ask about current or past pay while you are on the subject. California's salary history ban applies to recruiters acting for an employer; see the California salary history ban guide.

When your client is the California employer

The 2024 rules cut the other way too. A California hiring company should not put a non-compete in its own offer letter, and section 16600.5 makes entering into a void agreement a violation in itself. If a client's offer template still carries a non-compete or a broad non-solicit, raise it with the client before the offer goes out, not after the candidate's lawyer does. The offer call script is the place to confirm what the candidate will be asked to sign.

Agencies have their own exposure. If your firm employed California recruiters on agreements with non-competes, the February 14, 2024 notice requirement under section 16600.1 applied to you as an employer, separately from anything you do for clients. That is a question for your own counsel.

The federal picture

There is no federal non-compete ban to lean on. The FTC's Noncompete Rule page records that a federal district court stopped the rule on August 20, 2024; on September 5, 2025 the Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals and accede to the vacatur; and on February 12, 2026 it published a Federal Register notice removing the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC still pursues individual companies, as in its April 15, 2026 action against Rollins, Inc. covering more than 18,000 employees. For California candidates, state law already goes further than the federal rule would have.

A California checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked of every candidate for the role, in the same words.
• Recorded as facts: type, length, scope, governing-law clause, date signed, enforcement history.
• No opinion given on enforceability; candidate pointed to their own lawyer.
• Hiring company told before interviews when the agreement names another state's law or courts.
• Client's own offer documents checked for non-competes or broad non-solicits before the offer.
• "No confidential information" said in the screen and again at the offer.
• Statute and Attorney General guidance re-checked before relying on this page; the 2024 changes show how fast this area moves.