Non-compete clause

I'm all for non-compete clauses, so long as they apply both ways. The company shouldn't be able to hire an employee to replace me. /s

We changed the title from "States Such as CA, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, Ban Non-Compete Clauses". The site guidelines ask:

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

Cherry-picking a particular detail is editorializing. If you want to say what you think is important, you're welcome to do so, but it should be via a comment in the thread explaining why you posted it. Then your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There is constant misinformation about non-compete agreements in CA, and the HN crowd show know about this, members of which might be involved in the sale of a business. If you sign a non-compete as part of an acquisition agreement, and you benefit financially from the sale, your non-compete is enforceable. CA courts have held to this, as in these cases the buyer is being deprived of the benefit of the acquisition.

Edit: the original title of this post was "States Such as CA, Montana, North Dakota and Oklahoma, Ban Non-Compete Clauses". As editorialized, the title was presenting misinformation.

Is there a source with the explicit ban rather than a link to the wikipedia page?