A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the Workers' Right to Compete Act, bans noncompete agreements for workers who make below a certain amount of money. Under the bill, no one can enter into, enforce, or try to enforce a noncompete agreement with an employee or contractor whose actual or expected annualized cash compensation is less than $100,000. This $100,000 threshold will be adjusted every year for inflation starting after 2026. Any noncompete agreement that falls under this ban is completely unenforceable, including old agreements made before this bill becomes law. Employers must give written notice to current and former workers within 30 days stating that these noncompete agreements are unenforceable. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general are given the power to enforce these rules.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Workers earning below $100,000 are freed from restrictive noncompete agreements, giving them greater bargaining power and mobility to seek better wages.
- Scored +7
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle-income workers earning under the $100,000 threshold gain protection and the ability to pursue better career opportunities without legal barriers from former employers.
- Scored +6
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults and early-career workers frequently earn under the $100,000 threshold and will benefit from the freedom to change jobs without noncompete restrictions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a)(1): This provision makes it illegal to use or enforce noncompete agreements for workers making less than $100,000 a year. This is positive because it gives everyday workers the freedom to take a new job or switch employers without being legally blocked by their old boss.
-
Section 4: This section requires employers to send written notice to workers letting them know that their noncompete agreements are unenforceable. This is a positive step for accountability because it ensures that working people are explicitly informed of their rights.
-
Section 5(b)(1): This provision allows state attorneys general to file civil actions on behalf of state residents to stop violations, get compliance, or obtain damages and restitution. This gives local officials a clear tool to fight back against bad employer practices and protect everyday people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 7: This section states that the bill does not stop employers from making workers sign agreements to keep trade secrets or confidential business information a secret. Depending on how broadly an employer defines confidential information, this could still place burdens or restrictions on a worker's future employment options.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Workers earning below $100,000 are freed from restrictive noncompete agreements, giving them greater bargaining power and mobility to seek better wages. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-income workers earning under the $100,000 threshold gain protection and the ability to pursue better career opportunities without legal barriers from former employers. Would workers who earn tips be better off under this? — Workers in lower-wage positions, including those earning tips or hourly wages well below the threshold, are released from unenforceable noncompete agreements. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults and early-career workers frequently earn under the $100,000 threshold and will benefit from the freedom to change jobs without noncompete restrictions.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — By banning noncompete agreements for workers earning under $100,000, the bill removes barriers for individuals to switch jobs or accept new employment, promoting labor market mobility.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly preserves state powers and allows states to enforce stronger protections against noncompete agreements than those provided federally.
- 10/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Anna Paulina LunaRepublican · Florida