Wisconsin NCII laws

1. What Wisconsin law says now: statute plus judicial gloss

State statute governs restrictive covenants and permits covenants not to compete only if the restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the employer and are reasonable in time and territory, a standard the Wisconsin Supreme Court and lower courts have applied when evaluating enforceability ^{[1] [5]}. Wisconsin courts supplement the statute with long‑standing common‑law tests and precedent — for example, courts look to whether the restraint is no broader than needed to protect legitimate business interests, and Wisconsin case law provides additional factors courts weigh when assessing reasonableness ^{[6] [5]}.

2. How employers typically draft and how courts interpret them

Practitioners and law firms advise that non‑competes survive in Wisconsin when narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets, customer lists, or intellectual property and when time and territorial limits are reasonable, and they warn employers to draft covenants narrowly to avoid judicial invalidation ^{[5] [3]}. Legal guides and bar articles make clear Wisconsin’s doctrine favors worker mobility while allowing restraints tied to protecting employer property, and counsel often recommend specific drafting and consideration practices to bolster enforceability ^{[1] [7]}.

3. Federal pressure and confusion: the FTC push and its fate

A high‑profile federal effort culminated in an FTC rule banning most non‑compete clauses, framed by regulators as a way to boost worker mobility and wages; proponents argued that broad non‑competes suppress wages and career opportunities ^{[2] [8]}. That rule, however, has been challenged in court and was enjoined, meaning it currently does not displace state law in Wisconsin unless and until litigation outcomes change, leaving existing Wisconsin non‑compete practice governed by state statute and case law for now ^[3].

4. State legislative reform: AB 481 and the near‑total ban proposal

Legislative proposals in Wisconsin — notably Assembly Bill 481 introduced in late 2023 — would void most post‑employment non‑competes while excepting restraints that protect unauthorized use of customer lists or employer intellectual property, signaling a potential statutory shift toward broader worker mobility if enacted ^{[4] [9]}. Analysts and law firms tracking state bills note that the proposed changes would alter how Section 103.465 is applied and could narrow courts’ ability to uphold other forms of restrictive covenants like non‑solicits, though final outcomes depend on the bill’s passage and text ^[4].

5. Competing viewpoints and practical stakes

Labor scholars, worker advocates, and news reporting emphasize mobility benefits: freeing workers from one‑ or two‑year lockouts can prevent career derailment and upward wage suppression, while business groups and many employers argue that non‑competes are essential to protect trade secrets and investments in training, creating clear policy tension in Wisconsin discussions ^[2]. Law firm alerts and practitioner commentary stress that, regardless of policymaking, until statutes or higher court rulings change, employers in Wisconsin may still impose non‑competes subject to the statutory reasonableness standard and careful drafting ^{[3] [5]}.

6. What remains unclear in public reporting

Available sources document statutory text, proposed bills, federal rulemaking and litigation, and practitioner guidance, but they do not provide a definitive timeline for legislative action in Wisconsin or final federal litigation outcomes that could alter enforceability nationally; reporting therefore cannot assert whether AB 481 will pass or when appellate courts will resolve the FTC rule’s fate ^{[4] [3]}. For specific cases, individualized legal advice, or the latest legislative or appellate developments beyond these reports, primary legislative records and court dockets should be consulted.