In Alabama, non-compete agreements are enforceable, but only under strict limits. Alabama's Restrictive Covenant Act (Ala. Code § 8-1-190 through § 8-1-197, effective January 1, 2016) starts from the rule that any contract restraining someone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business is void—then carves out narrow exceptions. The single most useful number to know is this: a post-employment non-compete lasting two years or less is presumed reasonable, while anything longer is presumed unreasonable and the employer must prove otherwise. Two other groups get special treatment: a covenant against soliciting current customers is presumed reasonable for up to 18 months, and certain licensed professionals cannot be bound by a non-compete at all. Those presumptions, not vague "reasonableness" talk, are what Alabama courts actually apply.
The starting point: restraints of trade are void
Section 8-1-190 declares that contracts restraining a lawful business are void as a matter of public policy unless they fit a listed exception. The most common exception is an agreement between an employer and an employee (or a buyer and seller of a business, or partners). So a non-compete in your offer letter or employment contract is not automatically valid in Alabama—it is presumptively void unless the employer can show it falls within the statute and protects a legitimate interest.
This matters because the burden runs against the employer for overbroad terms. If a covenant sweeps too far in time, geography, or the scope of work it bars, an Alabama court can decline to enforce it or narrow it rather than rewrite it generously in the company's favor.
What the employer must prove: a "protectable interest"
Under Ala. Code § 8-1-191, a non-compete is enforceable only if it protects a recognized protectable interest. The statute lists categories such as:
- Trade secrets, as defined by the Alabama Trade Secrets Act;
- Confidential information that does not rise to a trade secret but still has commercial value;
- Commercial relationships or connections with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, vendors, or clients;
- Customer, patient, or client goodwill associated with a business, its trade name, or trademark; and
- Specialized and unique training involving substantial business expenditure tailored to that employer.
An ordinary desire to avoid competition is not a protectable interest. If the only thing the agreement protects is the employer from a former worker competing fairly, it should fail.
Who cannot be bound at all: professionals
Alabama has a long-standing rule, carried into § 8-1-190, that agreements restraining the practice of a profession are void. Alabama courts have applied this to licensed professionals such as physicians, attorneys, veterinarians, accountants, and similar licensed practitioners. If you practice a learned profession in Alabama, a traditional non-compete barring you from practicing is generally unenforceable—though related agreements (like non-solicitation of patients, or repayment provisions) may still be tested separately.
Note what Alabama does not have: unlike states such as California (which bans nearly all non-competes) or states with salary-threshold bans for low-wage workers, Alabama does not set a dollar wage cutoff exempting low-wage employees. Its main categorical exemption is the professional rule, not an income line. That makes the two-year and 18-month presumptions, plus the protectable-interest test, the practical guardrails for most Alabama workers.
The reasonableness presumptions in plain terms
Section 8-1-191 sets rebuttable presumptions about duration:
- Post-employment non-compete: up to two years is presumed reasonable; longer is presumed unreasonable.
- Non-solicitation of customers/clients: up to 18 months is presumed reasonable.
- Sale of a business: a duration tied to the sale (often longer) may be reasonable to protect the goodwill bought and sold.
- Protection of confidential information: a restriction can last as long as the information remains confidential.
"Presumed" cuts both ways. A one-year covenant is presumptively fine, but you can still attack it if it covers an unreasonable geographic area or bars work you never did. A three-year covenant is presumptively bad, but the employer gets a chance to justify it. Geography and the range of restricted activities must also be no broader than needed to protect the legitimate interest.