Is a Non-Compete Enforceable Against a Freelancer?

A non-compete tries to stop you working for certain people after a contract ends. Against a freelancer, a broad one is often more bluff than binding.

First, where you are decides almost everything

Non-competes are one of the most jurisdiction-dependent clauses in any contract. The same wording can be void in one place and fully enforceable in another, so the first question is always: which law governs this?

United States. There is no single national rule. California voids nearly all non-competes and treats them as unenforceable; Minnesota, Oklahoma, and North Dakota broadly ban them too. Many other states (Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado and more) allow them only above certain wage thresholds, or only when the terms are reasonable. A nationwide FTC ban on most non-competes was finalized in 2024 but struck down by a federal court, so for now state law is what counts.

United Kingdom. There is no outright ban, but a post-termination restriction is enforceable only if it protects a legitimate business interest and goes no wider than reasonably necessary in scope, area, and time. Courts regularly strike down or read down clauses that reach too far. Genuinely self-employed freelancers also sit outside normal employment restrictions, which weakens a broad clause further.

EU. Rules vary by country, and several member states will only enforce a non-compete if you are financially compensated during the restricted period. A broad, unpaid clause is especially weak there.

Even where non-competes are allowed, courts want them reasonable: narrow scope, real geography, short duration, and tied to something the client genuinely needs to protect.

What actually holds up

Narrow it, or swap it for something fairer

Most clients do not actually need to bar you from your entire trade. They need two things: their clients not poached, and their confidential information kept quiet. Both have narrower tools.

Push the scope down to a named competitor or a specific client list. Shorten the time to months, not years. Limit the geography if it is relevant at all. Better still, offer a non-solicit (you will not chase their named clients or staff) or an NDA (you will not share their confidential information). Those usually give the client what they actually want without freezing your livelihood, and they are far easier to enforce. The same scope trap shows up with IP, which we cover in work for hire vs a license.

The clause worth rewriting

The trap: "Contractor shall not provide similar services to any competitor for two years."

The fair version: "For 6 months, Contractor will not solicit Client's named accounts. Contractor remains free to work in the wider industry."

None of this is legal advice, and enforceability really does turn on local law. If a client is threatening to enforce a non-compete, or the money at stake is real, talk to a lawyer where you are. For the wider set of clauses worth a second look, see contract red flags before you sign.