Unlike the restrictions imposed by the Non-Competition Obligations Act in some states, Bill D.C currently contains no explicit limits on agreements not to recruit clients or employees of an employer. In comparison, the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act excludes “obligations not to recruit or hire employer staff” as well as “obligations not to recruit or engage in business with customers, customers or sellers of the employer.” Similarly, the revised Washington code excludes non-competition agreements, confidentiality agreements and agreements prohibiting the use or disclosure of trade secrets from the definition of “non-competition.” On March 9, the Utah Senate made some changes to the bill and sent the amended version to the House of Representatives. The amended bill maintains the same provisions, but adds several details. First, the bill now specifies that the law only applies to non-compete agreements entered into by workers that were concluded on or after May 10, 2016. Second, it now states that certain types of competition restriction agreements should not be covered; in particular, inactivity agreements (although it is not certain that these are non-raid agreements, which are sometimes included in the term “non-acquisition”), confidentiality agreements (or confidentiality agreements); the existence of a non-compete clause resulting from a compensation agreement (reasonable and in good faith); and competition prohibitions resulting from a commercial sale (when the individual receives a value related to the sale (again perhaps a little vague) are all outside the scope of the invoice. Under the law, all new non-competition agreements that will be executed on May 10, 2016 or after May 10, 2016 are limited to one year; Any agreement contrary to this limit is not valid. Section 34-51-201. On May 16, the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, co-chaired by Senator Daniel Wolf and MP John Scibak, reported on an amended version of the non-competitive bill outlined by House of Representatives spokesman Robert DeLeo. The bill contains two essential additions: (1) the requirement that all non-competition prohibitions be treated as garden holiday agreements (i.e. the worker receives a certain amount during the term of the restriction) and (2) a shift from the current approach to reform to excessively broad non-competition obligations in the run-up to the red pencil. Here is a summary of the anti-competitive aspects of the bill: Bill to limit non-account deals contains a surprise catch. See also comments from the Associated Industries of Massachsuetts (AIM).