Bettis Law Group, LLP drafts, reviews and enforces restrictive covenants for South Carolina employers. The FTC’s non-compete rule never took effect and was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026, so state law decides enforceability. South Carolina courts enforce a non-compete only when every element holds and will not rewrite an overbroad one.
A restrictive covenant limits what an employee may do during or after employment: compete with the business, solicit its customers or coworkers, or use and disclose its confidential information. The practical questions for an employer are which covenant fits which role and how it is worded. For the full case law on whether a particular non-compete will hold, read our guide, Are Non-Competes Still Enforceable in South Carolina?
What South Carolina Courts Enforce
South Carolina’s rules on employment non-competes come from its appellate courts. In Rental Uniform Service of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674 (1983), the Supreme Court of South Carolina said that covenants not to compete “are generally disfavored and will be strictly construed against the employer.” Enforceability depends on whether the covenant is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interest, is reasonably limited in time and place, is not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the employee’s efforts to earn a living, is reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy, and is supported by valuable consideration. Every element has to hold.
The interest the covenant serves
We name that interest in the agreement itself, such as the customer relationships or the confidential information the employee will handle, so each restriction can be measured against it.
Time
Duration is judged on the facts. Dudley held a three-year restriction reasonable under the circumstances of that case, citing Sermons v. Caine & Estes Insurance Agency for the point that a limit of two or three years “may not be obnoxious,” while the restraint “at any time” in Sermons could not be justified. That is not a safe harbor, so we set each period by what the role requires.
Territory
Dudley also set the yardstick for place: “A geographic restriction is generally reasonable if the area covered by the restraint is limited to the territory in which the employee was able, during the term of his employment, to establish contact with his employer’s customers.” The covenant the Court found reasonable there reached only the six-county area in which the employee worked or to which he was assigned, not the company’s whole fourteen-county territory. We draw territory role by role.
No blue pencil
South Carolina courts will not trim an overbroad restriction down to a reasonable one. In Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583 (2010), the Court held that “the restrictions in a non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties’ agreement, but must stand or fall on their own terms.” Each restriction has to be drafted to stand on its own.
Consideration for current employees
At hire, the job itself can support a covenant (Riedman Corp. v. Jarosh, 1986). Later is different. In Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc., 345 S.C. 378 (2001), the Court adopted the rule that “when a covenant is entered into after the inception of employment, separate consideration, in addition to continued at-will employment, is necessary in order for the covenant to be enforceable.” What is enough turns on the facts, so for current employees we build in separate consideration and document what was given and when.
The Federal Picture: The FTC Rule Is Gone
The FTC published its Non-Compete Clause Rule on May 7, 2024 (89 FR 38342), with an effective date of September 4, 2024. On August 20, 2024, before that date arrived, a federal court set the rule aside in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (N.D. Tex. 2024), concluding that the FTC had issued it in excess of its statutory authority and that it was arbitrary and capricious. On September 5, 2025, the Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals and accede to the vacatur, and a final rule effective February 12, 2026 (91 FR 6507) removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations. Templates and handbooks that still cite it describe a rule that is not in effect.
Federal scrutiny did not end with the rule. In June 2026 the FTC finalized a consent order requiring Rollins Inc. to stop enforcing noncompete agreements against more than 18,000 employees nationwide. At the National Labor Relations Board, the Acting General Counsel rescinded the two General Counsel memos on non-compete agreements, GC 23-08 and GC 25-01, on February 14, 2025 (GC 25-05). Our labor relations lawyers follow the Board’s positions.
Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality: The Narrower Tools
Customer and coworker non-solicitation
A non-solicitation clause limits whom a former employee may approach, not where the employee may work. South Carolina has enforced a non-solicitation agreement precluding a former employee from “selling to the accounts or in the territory” in which he had been performing his duties as a sales representative (Standard Register Co. v. Kerrigan, 1961, as described in Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, 395 S.C. 237 (Ct. App. 2011)). Team IA declined to decide whether a clause reaching a former employer’s prospective customers is overbroad on its face, so we tie customer clauses to the accounts the employee actually served or solicited.
Confidentiality and trade secrets
Confidentiality duties run on different rules. Under S.C. Code § 39-8-30(D), a contractual duty not to disclose a trade secret “must not be considered void or unenforceable or against public policy for lack of a durational or geographical limitation.” Section 39-8-30(B) gives every employee who is informed of, or should reasonably have known of, an employer’s trade secret a duty not to use or disclose it without permission, independent of any agreement. Information qualifies only if it is also “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy” (§ 39-8-20(5)(a)(ii)), so access controls and offboarding steps are part of the legal case.
Federal law adds a drafting rule. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), an agreement entered into or updated after May 11, 2016 that governs an employee’s use of trade secrets or other confidential information must give notice of the whistleblower immunity in § 1833(b), directly or by cross-reference to the employer’s reporting policy. Without it, the employer may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under the federal statute against an employee who did not receive the notice. Contractors and consultants count as employees for this rule.
Drafting and Review
We draft and review restrictive covenants for employers across South Carolina:
- Covenants matched to each role’s territory, time and scope.
- Agreements signed at hire, when the job itself supports the covenant.
- Rollouts to current employees with separate, documented consideration.
- Non-solicitation, confidentiality and trade secret terms, with the federal immunity notice.
- Template audits: each South Carolina element tested, multi-state forms checked against the no-blue-pencil rule, and FTC-rule references removed.
When an Employee Leaves
Departures move fast. When a key employee resigns or joins a competitor, we:
- Read the covenant exactly as written, since a South Carolina court enforces it on its own terms or not at all.
- Preserve devices, accounts, email and file activity.
- Send or answer demand letters to the former employee and, where the facts support it, the new employer.
- Seek or oppose temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret “may be enjoined” (S.C. Code § 39-8-50(A)).
- Defend employers that hire from competitors, starting with a review of the candidate’s covenants before an offer.
Final pay runs on its own clock. Under S.C. Code § 41-10-50, when an employer separates an employee from the payroll for any reason, it must pay all wages due within 48 hours or by the next regular payday, which may not exceed 30 days. Our wage and hour lawyers handle final-pay and commission disputes. When a departure brings a discrimination or retaliation charge, our harassment and discrimination defense team takes that track, and our guide to responding to an EEOC charge covers the first steps.
Restrictive Covenant Services for South Carolina Employers
What Drives the Cost of Covenant Work
Cost follows scope. In drafting and audits, the drivers are the number of templates in use, the roles that need different terms, the states where employees work, and whether current employees need separate consideration. In a dispute, they are speed (a temporary restraining order compresses the work), the volume of electronic evidence and any forensic review, whether the new employer is a party, whether trade secret claims are joined, and how far the matter goes: a demand letter, a negotiated resolution, an injunction hearing or a trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are non-competes still enforceable in South Carolina after the FTC rule?
Yes, under South Carolina law, when the covenant meets every element the courts apply. The FTC rule never took effect and was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026. Our non-compete guide walks through the case law.
How long can a South Carolina non-compete last?
Courts judge the period for reasonableness on the facts rather than against a fixed number. In Dudley (1983), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held a three-year restriction reasonable under the circumstances of that case, and under Poynter (2010) a court will not rewrite an unreasonable period.
Can we ask current employees to sign a new non-compete?
Yes, but continued employment alone will not support it. Under Poole (2001), a covenant signed after employment begins needs separate consideration in addition to continued at-will employment, and what counts depends on the facts.
What happens if part of our non-compete is too broad?
A South Carolina court will not rewrite it. Under Poynter (2010), the restrictions “must stand or fall on their own terms,” so an overbroad territory or time limit can leave the employer without the covenant.
Is a non-solicitation or confidentiality agreement enough without a non-compete?
It depends on the role. A customer non-solicitation clause tied to the accounts an employee served has South Carolina case support, and under S.C. Code § 39-8-30(D) a contractual duty not to disclose a trade secret is not void for lack of a durational or geographical limitation.
What should we do when a former employee joins a competitor?
Act promptly: preserve devices and account records, read the covenant exactly as written, and involve counsel before a demand letter goes out. An action for misappropriation under the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (S.C. Code § 39-8-70).
What drives the cost of a non-compete dispute?
Speed, evidence and scope: a temporary restraining order compresses the work, forensic review of devices adds to it, and each stage from demand letter to trial adds more.
Contact Bettis Law Group, LLP
Talk with the South Carolina employment lawyers at Bettis Law Group about your covenants, a departure or a dispute. We represent management only. Call (803) 799-9311 or reach us through our contact page to speak with one of our lawyers in confidence.
This page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Federal and South Carolina employment laws change, agencies update their rules, and every situation turns on its specific facts. Consult a licensed South Carolina employment attorney about your business’s situation. Attorney advertising (S.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1).