Non-Compete and Restrictive Covenant Tracking
Non-compete and non-solicit clauses get signed as part of the employment agreement and then sit unreviewed for years, while the legal landscape around their enforceability keeps shifting — several states have banned or sharply restricted non-competes since some of these agreements were signed, others impose compensation thresholds below which a non-compete simply isn't enforceable, and a federal rule attempting a nationwide ban has been contested and revised more than once. A company relying on a non-compete portfolio it hasn't reviewed against current law is either trying to enforce clauses that are actually void, or believes it has protection it no longer legally has, and either way nobody finds out until enforcement is actually attempted and it fails.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 3-5 hrs per portfolio review cycle for employment counsel, plus reduced risk of relying on or attempting to enforce a covenant that's no longer valid.
How the automation works
We track every employee's restrictive covenant terms — non-compete, non-solicit, and their specific scope and duration — against the current enforceability rules for their employment jurisdiction, flagging any clause that appears to have become unenforceable due to a law change, or that never met the jurisdiction's requirements in the first place, such as a compensation threshold. This is a continuous monitoring function, not a one-time audit, since enforceability rules in this area have changed meaningfully and repeatedly across multiple jurisdictions in recent years. Every flagged clause is reviewed by employment counsel to confirm current enforceability status before any decision is made about whether to rely on it, renegotiate it, or treat it as void — the tracking surfaces the legal landscape shift, counsel makes the determination.
Process flow
- 01
Employee restrictive covenant entered into tracking trigger
Each employee's non-compete and non-solicit terms, along with their employment jurisdiction, are entered into the tracking system from the employment agreement.
- 02
Monitor enforceability rules by jurisdiction integration
Current non-compete and restrictive covenant enforceability rules are monitored on an ongoing basis across every jurisdiction where the company has employees under a tracked covenant.
- 03
Check covenant terms against current rules ai
Each employee's specific covenant scope, duration, and any applicable compensation threshold is checked against the current enforceability requirements for their jurisdiction, not the rules in effect when the agreement was originally signed.
- 04
Flag covenants affected by a law change or requirement gap ai
Covenants that appear to have become unenforceable due to a jurisdiction's rule change, or that never met a requirement like a compensation threshold, are flagged with the specific rule that creates the issue.
- 05
Employment counsel confirms enforceability status output
Employment counsel reviews every flagged covenant and confirms its current enforceability status before any decision is made about relying on it, renegotiating it, or treating it as effectively void — the automation flags the legal landscape change, it never determines enforceability on its own.
- 06
Report portfolio status to HR and legal output
A portfolio-level view of covenant status by jurisdiction gives HR and legal visibility into how much of the current restrictive covenant portfolio may need attention, supporting a proactive review rather than discovering the gap only when enforcement is attempted.
Inputs
- Employee restrictive covenant terms and employment jurisdiction
- Current non-compete and non-solicit enforceability rules by jurisdiction
- Compensation threshold and other jurisdiction-specific requirements
- Employment counsel confirmation of enforceability status
Outputs
- Flagged covenants affected by a jurisdiction rule change
- Portfolio-level enforceability status report by jurisdiction
- Counsel-confirmed determination log per flagged covenant
- Input for HR and legal on affected employee populations
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Enforceability rules for restrictive covenants are genuinely unsettled in several jurisdictions right now, with legislation, regulatory rulemaking, and court challenges all moving at different paces and sometimes in different directions — the monitoring needs active, frequent maintenance against current legal developments, and any flag needs to be treated as a signal for counsel review, not a final determination, given how fluid this area currently is.
- A compensation threshold requirement for non-compete enforceability, where one applies, needs to be checked against the employee's actual current compensation, not their compensation at the time of signing — an employee whose pay has changed since the covenant was signed may have moved across an enforceability threshold in either direction, and stale compensation data will produce a wrong determination.
- A non-compete that's unenforceable doesn't necessarily mean a non-solicit or confidentiality provision in the same agreement is also unenforceable — these are often analyzed separately under the same jurisdiction's law, and flagging needs to distinguish which specific covenant type is affected rather than treating the whole restrictive covenant package as uniformly void or valid.
- This tracks and flags potential enforceability issues based on jurisdiction and rule monitoring; it does not represent a legal opinion on any specific employee's covenant, and no decision to stop enforcing, renegotiate, or continue relying on a covenant should be made without employment counsel's direct confirmation, especially given how actively contested this area of law currently is.
Frequently asked questions
How current does the enforceability rule tracking need to be?
As current as possible given how actively this area of law is changing — teams using this typically pair it with a defined review cadence from employment counsel rather than treating the automated monitoring alone as sufficient without periodic human verification of the underlying rule data.
Does this automatically void or cancel a non-compete clause?
No — it flags a covenant whose enforceability may be affected by a rule change, and employment counsel makes the actual determination and any resulting action, which the company then needs to communicate appropriately if it decides not to rely on a specific covenant.
How does it handle employees who relocate to a different jurisdiction?
A jurisdiction change should trigger a re-check of that employee's covenant against the new jurisdiction's rules, since enforceability is generally assessed based on where the employee actually works, not where the agreement was originally signed.
Does it distinguish between non-compete, non-solicit, and confidentiality provisions?
Yes, since these are frequently treated differently under the same jurisdiction's law, and a flag identifies specifically which provision type is affected rather than treating the entire restrictive covenant package as one unit.