For decades, the widely accepted non-compete clause has been a standard fixture in associate DVM contracts. Designed to protect a clinic’s goodwill and client base, these covenants traditionally barred departing veterinarians from practicing within a specific geographic radius for a set period of time. However, a major legislative shift is occurring across the country. Driven by an acute Veterinary workforce shortage and rising concerns over the necessity of these types of contracts, the legal ground supporting Veterinary non-compete agreements is progressively eroding at the state level. Understanding this evolving policy framework is no longer optional—it is a baseline requirement for modern practice management and career planning.
Many practitioners tracking this issue closely watched the Federal Trade Commission’s historical attempt to implement a sweeping, nationwide ban on non-compete clauses in 2024. While that broad federal rule was ultimately vacated in court in 2025 and removed from code, the push to eliminate these restrictions did not stall. Instead, the battleground shifted directly to state legislatures, resulting in a highly fragmented, state-by-state regulatory patchwork.
Veterinary medicine occupies a unique position in this legislative trend. Without a unifying federal rule, a growing list of states are targeting the Veterinary sector directly. Take Maryland, which passed sweeping legislation entirely voiding non-compete agreements for veterinarians and Veterinary technicians. Or look at Utah, where a 2026 law voided most non-compete and non-solicit agreements for associate vets unless they hold a significant ownership stake in the practice. They join a growing list of states—including Minnesota, California, and Washington—that have essentially drawn a line in the sand against these types of covenants. Despite the advancement of restrictions on non-competes in multiple states, there are also many examples in the 2026 legislative session where non-compete bills were introduced and died without advancing. Over 100 non-compete bills were introduced in the 2026 session, only a small minority of which were ultimately passed. Wisconsin, for example, introduced a handful of healthcare-related non-compete bills, none of which passed. Mississippi introduced a similar healthcare-targeted non-compete bill that failed, ultimately buckling to sharp opposition from rural healthcare practitioners who rely on non-compete clauses to protect their investments. It is likely 2027 will see a similar volume of bills attempting to restrict or curtail non-compete agreements, and similar heavy opposition to any attempts to eliminate these contracts.
In jurisdictions where non-competes remain legal, judges no longer rubber-stamp them. Instead, the legal enforceability of a restrictive covenant often relies on a test of reasonableness, considering duration, geography, and scope of activity. Any restriction extending past two years will be heavily scrutinized by courts and might be struck down as punitive. A blanket “15-mile radius” that could potentially survive review in a rural area might be thrown out in an urban or suburban setting if not found to be reasonable. Finally, we’re seeing laws introduced to limit broad non-compete agreements in favor of highly specialized contracts focusing on scope of activity and highest-earning employees.
This shifting policy landscape fundamentally changes contract negotiations and practice valuations. For associate veterinarians, the decline of the non-compete offers unprecedented career leverage. Conversely, practice owners must adapt their business strategies to protect their clinics without relying on traditional restrictive covenants.