WA Noncompete Ban (HB 1155) and the “Nonsolicitation” Problem

Washington Non-Compete Rule Update Overview

After the failure of the federal government to protect workers against unfair restrictive covenants, Washington has taken matters into its own hands. With the passage of HB 1155, the state is outlawing noncompete agreements altogether, beginning in 2027. For employees, this is a major win—but it does not mean all post-employment restrictions are gone.

In fact, many of the disputes we expect to see over the next several years will center on nonsolicitation agreements—historically a common instrument to circumvent noncompete restrictions while looking and functioning just like noncompetes.

Below is a quick summary of HB 1155, what it does, what it doesn’t, and what both employers and workers should consider when the law takes effect.

Noncompetes Are Being Eliminated

Under HB 1155, effective June 30, 2027:

• Noncompetition agreements are simply void and unenforceable, regardless of your salary or position.
• Employers cannot require you to sign a noncompetition agreement, enforce one, or even threaten to enforce one;
• The law applies not only to employees, but also to independent contractors.

This is a significant shift. Previously, Washington allowed noncompetes for higher-paid workers under certain conditions. That framework is going away.

For most workers, the practical effect is simple: your employer cannot stop you from leaving and working for a competitor.

Other Restrictions Remain

Not all restrictive covenants are noncompetition agreements. Even with the noncompete ban, employers can still use other types of agreements, including:

• Nonsolicitation agreements (agreements not to solicit customers)
• Confidentiality agreements (agreements not to disclose information)
• Trade secret protections (legal and contractual obligations to protect the privacy of certain information crucial to employer operations).

All of these are distinct from (but adjacent to) noncompetes—which is why employers have sometimes used them to work around noncompete bans. In practice, they can still limit an employee’s ability to transition to a new job or bring clients along.

HB 1155 did not eliminate these other protections, but has installed guardrails to limit their role in fair competition in Washington.

What Counts as a “Nonsolicitation” Agreement?

For workers in sales, professional services, and other relationship-driven industries, clients are a key part of their livelihood. Knowing this, employers used nonsolicitation agreements to not only restrict taking of existing clients, but effectively hamstring former employees from competing altogether. True nonsolicitation agreements are supposed to be narrow. Generally, they are designed to prohibit employees from:

• Actively reaching out to customers to move their business, or
• Recruiting coworkers to leave the company.

Both goals are still legal in Washington, but the new law makes clear employers can restrict only how you get business, not whether you can do the work at all. This distinction is important and likely requires a careful review of the applicable nonsolicitation agreement. If an agreement says you cannot:

• “Do business with,”
• “Provide services to,” or
• “Accept work from”

a customer, that provision may be treated as a noncompete—and therefore invalid under the new law. On the other hand, if a nonsolicitation agreement says you cannot:

• “Solicit business from existing customers,” or
• “Encourage existing employees to leave their employ”

the provision will be enforceable. Because the distinction is sometimes razor thin, many “nonsolicitation” agreements are written broadly enough that they go beyond mere solicitation and cross the line into competition. Under HB 1155, those provisions are vulnerable to challenge.

Despite the new law, it is unlikely that every employer will immediately update their agreements—or interpret them correctly. As a result, employees may still encounter overly broad or outdated provisions and should look out for the following red flags:

1. The agreement prohibits “doing business with” customers. This kind of language is broader than a lawful nonsolicitation clause and is likely to be unenforceable under the noncompete ban.

2. The agreement bars you from accepting work. Even if framed narrowly, restrictions on accepting unsolicited business are prohibited. A nonsolicitation agreement may speak only to solicitation, not competition.

3. The agreement covers more than just current customers. Provisions that apply broadly to anyone the company had ever worked with, had contact with, or who was a “prospective customer” may go beyond permissible limits. “Prospective customers,” for example, are simply non-customers. Agreements restricting your interactions with non-customers will likely be construed as an unlawful noncompetition agreement.

4. The agreement conflates multiple restrictions. Clauses that mix solicitation bans with broader language restricting the performance of work can be problematic. Vague provisions blurring lines between solicitation and competition are common battlegrounds for fights between employer protections and workers’ rights.

Threatened Enforcement of Noncompetes Are Unlawful

What About Existing Agreements?

Practical Tips for Employees and Employers