In the United Kingdom, CNCs are characterized as restrictions on trade clauses and can only be used if the employer is able to demonstrate a legitimate commercial interest that they can protect when the clause in the contract is concluded. Simple competition is not a legitimate business interest.  A leading court decision that discusses the dispute between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 decision of Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. to Hunter, a Maryland company that required its Maryland employee to accept a one-year non-competition agreement. The contract stipulated that it must be regulated and interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. A Maryland employee then went to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in the California State Court to have the Confederacy invalidated from not competing, the California court agreed and ruled that the California non-compete clause was invalid and unenforceable.
Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Act reflects a “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in enforcing its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire employees of their choice. California law therefore applies to non-California workers looking for work in California. [Citation required]  Samantha Monkamp, Illinois AG Sues Jimmy Johns Over Non-competes Pact; Chain “Disappointed,” Chi. Trib., June 9, 2016. Full disclosure: The author was one of the lawyers who represented the State of Illinois in this complaint. When their landlord was slow to ask them to sign a non-compete agreement that would have delegitimized their ancillary sales, they both gave up instead of signing the non-competition agreement. (Employers should bear in mind that an invitation to a worker to sign a non-compete after having previously worked has potential consequences, as this employer learned when it lost two estimated employees.) In a New York lawsuit against sandwich chain Jimmy Johns, the court ruled that the company`s non-compete bans, which prevented employees from working in a similar sector, which mainly worked with sandwiches for two years, were void. In response to this case, legislation prohibiting the use of a non-compete clause for workers earning less than $15 per hour (US$31,200 per year) or the minimum wage in force in the worker`s commune is currently being proposed. Check again and again to determine the status of this legislation.  Thus, last year, Google finally received requests (both direct and temporary) from walkouts and very public campaigns asking the company to no longer force employees to resolve their sexual harassment claims.
Jeanna McGregor, Google and Facebook have ended forced mediation for sexual harassment claims. Why other companies might follow, Wash. Position (November 12, 2018). Another common feature of some of the most recent national legislation is the requirement to inform workers that they are invited to sign a non-competition clause.