North Dakota non-compete law: N.D.C.C. 9-08-06 for recruiters

North Dakota has voided employee non-competes by statute for a long time, and its rule is one of the shortest in the country. Section 9-08-06 of the North Dakota Century Code says a contract restraining anyone from a lawful profession, trade or business "is to that extent void," with two exceptions: the sale of a business's goodwill and certain agreements among partners, members or shareholders. There is no salary threshold, no notice period and no garden-leave math. For a recruiter, North Dakota is simpler than Washington or Massachusetts, but a candidate's agreement can still name another state's law, and confidentiality obligations still apply.

This page covers North Dakota. The general screen is in non-compete questions for candidates; agency-side clauses are in non-solicitation clauses for recruiters.

The statute, in full

N.D.C.C. 9-08-06, "In restraint of business void - Exceptions," reads:

A contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void, except:

1. A person that sells the goodwill of a business and the person's partners, members, or shareholders may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a reasonable geographic area and for a reasonable length of time, if the buyer or any person deriving title to the goodwill from the buyer carries on a like business in that area.

2. Partners, members, or shareholders, upon or in anticipation of a dissolution of a partnership, limited liability company, or corporation; upon or in anticipation of a dissociation of a partner or member; or as part of an agreement addressing the dissociation or sale of a partner, member, or shareholder's ownership interest, may agree that all or any number of them will not carry on a similar business within a reasonable geographic area where the partnership, limited liability company, or corporation business has been transacted, or within a specified part of the area.

The chapter version checked for this page is the Legislative Branch's compiled chapter 9-08 PDF. North Dakota's Legislative Assembly meets in regular session in odd-numbered years; if you are reading this after a session, check the chapter again.

Reading it as a recruiter

Two words in the statute deserve attention. "Anyone" means the rule is not limited to employees in the narrow sense. "To that extent" means the contract is void only as far as it restrains the person; the rest of the agreement, including confidentiality terms, can stand.

What is missing from North Dakota's law

Several features recruiters see in other states do not appear in 9-08-06:

• No earnings threshold. Compare Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Illinois, which tie enforceability to pay.
• No notice or timing rule. Nothing in the section requires an employer to give a non-compete before an offer or a set number of days before the start date.
• No choice-of-law or venue clause. Minnesota, Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts all restrict employers from routing a local worker's dispute elsewhere. North Dakota's section does not address it.
• No penalty or fee-shifting provision in the section itself.

The absence of a choice-of-law rule is the one that matters most in practice. A North Dakota candidate who works remotely for a company in a state that enforces non-competes may have an agreement naming that state. What happens then is not something the North Dakota section answers on its own terms, and it is not something a recruiter should guess at.

What to ask, and what to leave alone

Ask the same restrictive-agreement questions you ask every candidate for the role. In North Dakota the useful additions are about ownership and governing law.

NORTH DAKOTA CANDIDATE — restrictive agreements

1. "Have you signed anything that could limit you taking this role:
    a non-compete, a non-solicit, or a confidentiality agreement?"
2. "Did you sign it as an employee, or as an owner, partner or
    shareholder, for example when a business was sold?"
3. "What does it restrict, and for how long after you leave?"
4. "Does it say which state's law applies?"
5. "Has your employer raised it with you or anyone who left?"
6. "Could you share it with the hiring company's lawyer, as far as
    the agreement allows?"
Always: "We don't want any confidential information, files or client
lists from your current employer."

• Do not tell the candidate the agreement is void. Even where the statute is short, the facts, the exceptions and the governing-law clause decide the answer.
• Do not ask the candidate to describe their employer's customers, pricing or plans to help you size the risk.
• Do not drop a candidate because they mention an agreement. Tell the hiring company and let it decide with counsel.
• Expect restrictive agreements to come back at resignation. Counteroffers and retention bonuses sometimes come with new paperwork; the counteroffer conversation script covers how to handle that moment.

Three situations you will meet

The remote employee of an out-of-state company

A candidate lives and works in Fargo for a software company based in another state, and their offer letter included a 12-month non-compete governed by that state's law. Record exactly that: where they live and work, where the employer is, what the clause says, which law it names. The hiring company's counsel decides what it means.

The former owner

A candidate sold their share of an agricultural services business two years ago and agreed not to run a similar business in the counties where it operated. That is the kind of agreement the statute's exceptions describe. If the new role is close to that business, the hiring company needs to know before the first interview, not at the offer.

The client-facing salesperson

A candidate has no non-compete but agreed not to contact their employer's customers for a year. The statute does not mention non-solicits, so do not treat the clause as void or as valid. Ask whether the role would put them in front of those same customers, and pass the answer on.

For agencies placing in North Dakota

The same section applies to your own business. A non-compete in your recruiters' employment agreements, or a clause in a client contract that restrains someone from working in their trade, should be reviewed against 9-08-06 by counsel. Licensing is a separate question; see the North Dakota staffing agency license guide. For how neighboring Minnesota handles client no-hire terms, which it addresses by statute, see Minnesota non-compete law.

The federal rule, briefly

Nothing at the federal level changes the North Dakota analysis as of October 2026. The FTC's Noncompete Rule page states that a district court order of August 20, 2024 stopped the FTC from enforcing the rule. The Commission voted on September 5, 2025 to dismiss its appeals and accede to the vacatur, and on February 12, 2026 published a notice removing the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The FTC still brings cases against particular employers, such as its April 2026 order against Rollins, Inc.

Checklist

• Restrictive-agreement question asked the same way for every candidate in the role.
• Owner, partner or shareholder status noted, since both statutory exceptions turn on it.
• Governing-law clause noted for remote and multistate candidates.
• Non-solicits flagged to the hiring company rather than assumed void.
• No enforceability opinion given; candidate pointed to their own lawyer.
• Chapter 9-08 re-checked after each legislative session.