4 ms·
Luckily, in much of Europe, overly broad non-competes aren't enforceable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
by njs12345 11y ago
Luckily, in much of Europe, overly broad non-competes aren't enforceable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe
- chinathrow 11y agoRead the article. It's not about being enforceable. It's about having a liability if someone is under such an non-compete.
- hodgesrm 11y agoI did. :) The liability would not exist if the non-compete were unenforceable as it is in places like California.
- chinathrow 11y agoNo, even if it's unenforceable across the globe it would increase the risk of litigation. Hence a liability.
- potatolicious 11y agoThey're largely not enforceable in the US either - non-competes are thrown out in court all the time. Enforceability is only one (small) dimension of the problem - arguably the chilling effect it has on future employers (who simply don't want the show up in court, even if they will win) is larger. The threat of litigation is often stronger than the litigation itself, especially against smaller entities. Overly broad non-competes are more a bullying tactic than they are an actual contract.
- rhino369 11y agoIn 45+ states some form of non-compete is legal. Other than CA, most big states allow it. Most non-compete clauses in practice are probably unenforceable (because they are too long, cover too large an area, covers too big of a market, etc). But I'd be pretty worried about one if I wasn't in California, and I'd never except it.