I am intrigued by the framing of the 'banning' of non-competes as regulatory intervention. It seems to me like we would be asking the court to refuse to enforce a contract. But this refusal manifests as a distinct lack of intervention on the part of regulators.

I.E. prior to this 'intervention' you could be hauled to court and/or jail for failure to meet a contractual obligation. Post 'intervention' nothing happens and you simply continue to search for a new job as you always had.

I understand that in our given legal framework every change must be some kind of positive action, but it seems odd to me to frame it in conversation (as this article did) as a positive action rather than negative one which is how it actually manifests.

I'll just finish by saying that I agree with the sentiment that non-competes should be unenforceable. If you do have company secrets an NDA has long standing precedent and is less intrusive.