Apparently for employers a significant benefit is that it actually requires courts to issue an injunction against the covered employee. The injunction in turn

Apparently for employers a significant benefit is that it actually requires courts to issue an injunction against the covered employee. The injunction in turn can only be modified or dissolved if the covered employee – or prospective employer – proves by clear and convincing evidence (which must be based on non-confidential information) that: the employee will not perform similar work during the restricted period or use confidential information or customer relationships; the employer failed to pay the salary or benefits required under a covered garden leave agreement, or failed to provide consideration for a non-compete agreement, after the employee provided a “reasonable opportunity” to cure the failure; or the prospective employer is not engaged in (or preparing to engage in) a similar business as the covered employer within the restricted territory.[0] The "clear and convincing standard" (which is an intermediate burden of proof between the standard civil "balance of probabilities" and the strict "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard) coupled with the requirement of providing only non-confidential information to oppose the injunction will likely make this a slam dunk for employers. [0] https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/florida-enforcing-non-compete-agreements.html https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/florida-enfo...