A physician weighs an offer across town and remembers a 2024 headline: the FTC banned non-competes. The signed contract in the drawer has a non-compete clause. The physician has not read the clause. The recruiter has not read it either. No one has opened the statute that would govern it.
This fictional composite is not an employment case. It is a headline standing in for a contract.
Neither “banned” nor “back” is the status of any individual clause. A clause has a governing law. A headline is not it.
The status is a belief about federal law. The act is reading the signed contract and the controlling state text.
Sources reviewed August 22, 2026: the May 7, 2024 Federal Register publication of the Non-Compete Clause Rule; the August 20, 2024 Northern District of Texas memorandum opinion and order in Ryan LLC v. FTC; the September 5, 2025 FTC press release acceding to vacatur; the February 12, 2026 Federal Register removal of the rule from the CFR; the Gateway Section 5 complaint and final Decision and Order; the Adamas no-hire Decision and Order (printed ISSUED February 11, 2026) and the February 12, 2026 announcement; the September 10, 2025 Ferguson letters, as a class; the April 2026 pest-control warning-letter template (Date Sent April 14, 2026); the Rollins proposed consent (April 15, 2026) and final Decision and Order (ISSUED June 22, 2026); the September 4, 2025 request-for-information press release and the underlying RFI PDF; the workshop announcements, the January 27, 2026 event page, and the Ferguson and Meador remarks PDFs headed January 27, 2026; and the official compiled Texas Business and Commerce Code §§ 15.50, 15.501, and 15.52 as amended by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 816 (S.B. 1318). This is not a legal opinion, not a contract review, not a finding about any employer, and not a state survey.
This article is not an ownership or compensation article. That question is in “There’s a Psychiatrist Shortage” Is Not a Compensation Model. It is not a workload article. That is “I Use ChatGPT Between Patients” Is Not a Workload Plan. It is not a clinical-AI article. That is “I Used the Model” Is Not a Clinical Act. The question here is narrower: once a headline has named a federal status, what has actually been read?
What the rule was, and what happened to it
On May 7, 2024, the Federal Register published the Non-Compete Clause Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 38342. The document’s action line is “Final rule.” Its dates line states: “The final rule is effective September 4, 2024.” The opened Federal Register text does not print a separate Commission vote date or a “finalized on” date. This article does not supply one.
The published rule provided that it is an unfair method of competition for persons to, among other things, enter into non-compete clauses with workers on or after the final rule’s effective date.
On August 20, 2024, in Ryan LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E (N.D. Tex.), the court concluded that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in implementing the Rule and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The memorandum opinion states that, having so concluded, “the Court must ‘hold unlawful’ and ‘set aside’ the FTC’s Rule as required under § 706(2).” Quoting the Fifth Circuit, the court wrote that setting aside agency action under § 706 has “nationwide effect,” is “not party-restricted,” and “affects persons in all judicial districts equally.” The operative order states: “The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”
On September 5, 2025, the FTC stated:
Today the Federal Trade Commission took steps to dismiss its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir.), and Properties of the Villages v. FTC, No. 24-13102 (11th Cir.), and to accede to the vacatur of the Non-Compete Clause Rule.
The same release states: “The Commission voted 3-1 to dismiss the appeal and accede to the vacatur.” Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a concurring statement. Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter issued a dissenting statement.
On February 12, 2026, the Federal Register published a final rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 that, in its non-compete portion, “is removing its ‘Non-Compete Clause Rule’ (‘Non-Compete Rule’) from the Code of Federal Regulations.” The same document states that, with the Commission having acceded to vacatur, “this final rule removes the Non-Compete Rule codified at 16 CFR part 910 from the Code of Federal Regulations (‘CFR’).” The amendatory instruction is “PART 910 [Removed and Reserved]” and “Remove and reserve part 910.” The document’s dates line states that this rule is effective February 12, 2026.
Those four dates are four events. They are not one headline.
“Banned” is not the law
The first conflation is to treat the 2024 publication as a standing federal ban. The rule was published as a final rule. It was set aside. The Commission dismissed the appeals and acceded to the vacatur. The rule was then removed from the CFR. A nationwide non-compete ban is not current federal law.
Restoring a federal non-compete rule to the CFR would require new rulemaking, or an act of Congress. That is the legal path. It is not a prediction that either will occur.
The status word is a belief about that federal sequence. It is not the completed act of reading a signed clause.
The rule is gone; the agency is not
The second conflation is the inverse: that because the rule died, the clause lives. The rule’s removal is not a finding that any particular covenant stands. Enforceability was always a state-law question. It remained one after the set-aside. A headline about the rule does not decide a clause.
Case-by-case federal enforcement continues by other means. Each of the following is a dated agency action, not a substitute rule.
On September 4, 2025, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc., alleging that Gateway imposed noncompete agreements on almost all of its employees, typically prohibiting work in the pet cremation service industry anywhere in the United States for one year after leaving Gateway, and charging those agreements as unfair methods of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The complaint press release states that the agreements bind “nearly 1,800” employees, “ranging from highly compensated executives to hourly, facility laborers.” The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent for public comment was 3-1, with Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter dissenting.
On November 25, 2025, the Commission issued the final Decision and Order in that matter, Docket C-4825. The order PDF prints “ISSUED: November 25, 2025.” The case page states that the FTC finalized the consent order on November 25, 2025. A press release dated November 26, 2025 announced that finalization and stated that the Commission voted 2-0 to approve the final order. November 26 is the announcement. It is not the issuance date.
The November 26 release states that, under the final order, Gateway is required to stop enforcing existing noncompete agreements specified in the order and is prohibited from entering into similar agreements moving forward.
On September 4, 2025, in a separate action, the FTC issued a press release titled “Federal Trade Commission Issues Request for Information on Employee Noncompete Agreements.” That release states: “Today the Federal Trade Commission launched a public inquiry to better understand the scope, prevalence, and effects of employer noncompete agreements, as well as to gather information to inform possible future enforcement actions.” The underlying RFI PDF is titled “Request for Information Regarding Employer Noncompete Agreements.” The two titles are not the same. The press release states that the public will have 60 days to submit comments, “no later than November 3, 2025.”
On September 10, 2025, the FTC stated that Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson “sent letters to several large healthcare employers and staffing firms urging them to conduct a comprehensive review of their employment agreements—including any noncompetes or other restrictive agreements—to ensure they are appropriately tailored and comply with the law.” That is what the letters are: a class-wide urging to review. The opened press release, template, and warning-letters index do not name the addressees. The template states that similar notifications are being distributed to “many large employers and staffing firms in the healthcare sector,” and that “your receipt of this letter is not intended to suggest that you have engaged in illegal conduct.”
That September 10, 2025 healthcare-letter action is the first of at least two rounds (April 2026 pest-control letters; official Date Sent April 14, 2026 on the template; announced April 15).
On September 17, 2025, the FTC announced a workshop titled “Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements,” stating that the event “will be held on October 8, 2025 from 2:00pm to 6:00pm, at the FTC’s Constitution Center.” On December 16, 2025, the FTC announced a new date: the workshop “will be held on January 27, 2026 from 1:00pm to 5:00pm, at the FTC’s Headquarters.” The workshop occurred January 27, 2026, 1:00PM–5:00PM, under that official title. Chairman Ferguson’s prepared remarks PDF and Commissioner Meador’s remarks PDF are headed January 27, 2026. This article does not treat October 8, 2025 as the date the workshop occurred.
On February 11, 2026, the Commission issued the final Decision and Order in In the Matter of Adamas Amenity Services LLC, Adamas Building Services LLC, Adamas Concierge LLC, Adamas Parking Services LLC, and Adamas Security LLC, Docket C-4830. The order PDF prints “ISSUED: February 11, 2026.” The final complaint is dated the same day; the printed dates are not distinct. A press release dated February 12, 2026 announced that the Commission voted 2-0 to approve the final order. The December 19, 2025 vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent for public comment was 2-0. The caption lists Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Commissioner Mark R. Meador. No named dissent appears on the official press releases or the order. February 12 is the announcement. It is not the printed issuance date. The Adamas matter is a no-hire consent. It is not a finding that a non-compete clause is banned. It is a separate February 12 document from the Federal Register removal of 16 CFR part 910, 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (FR Doc. 2026-02866), which is effective February 12, 2026.
On April 15, 2026, the FTC announced a proposed consent in In the Matter of Rollins, Inc., Matter 251 0011, for public comment. April 15 is the proposed-for-comment date. It is not the issuance of a final order. The April 15 and June 22 press releases state that the order would stop enforcing noncompete agreements against “more than 18,000 employees nationwide.” The complaint states that Rollins operates “over 700 locations with over 18,000 U.S-based employees,” and that the agreements have typically taken the form of a clause that prohibited, “for two years” following the conclusion of employment, work in the pest-control industry within a predetermined distance—“usually a 75-mile radius.” The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent agreement for public comment was 2-0. No named dissent.
On June 22, 2026, the Commission issued the final Decision and Order, Docket C-4835. The order PDF prints “ISSUED: June 22, 2026.” The final complaint is dated the same day. A press release dated June 22, 2026 announced that the Commission voted 2-0 to approve the final order. No named dissent. The Decision and Order’s definitions exclude a director, officer, or other Senior Leader who is eligible for grants of equity or equity-based interests as a benefit of employment. That exclusion is order definition text. It is not a complaint allegation.
The April 15, 2026 press release states that the agency also sent warning letters to 13 other companies in the pest-control industry. The official pages give the count and a fill-in template. They do not name the 13 firms. The template prints Date Sent: April 14, 2026.
The rule is gone. The agency is not.
A case-by-case complaint, a request for information, and a letter urging review are not a replacement nationwide rule. They are also not a finding about any physician’s contract. They do not convert a headline into a governing law. The governing law of a clause is still the state text that controls it.
Texas, traced to controlling text
One state was opened: Texas. The composite above is not set there. Texas is here because its official compiled text verified, not because it governs that offer. This is not a fifty-state survey.
The controlling compilation is Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50, 15.501, and 15.52 as amended by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 816 (S.B. 1318), effective September 1, 2025, in the official Texas Constitution and Statutes Business and Commerce Code PDF rendered July 24, 2026. What follows is what that text requires or prohibits. It is not applied to any offer, any employer, or any hypothetical clause.
§ 15.50(a) states the general criterion, “subject to any applicable provision of Subsection (b) and Section 15.501”:
Notwithstanding Section 15.05 and subject to any applicable provision of Subsection (b) and Section 15.501, a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made to the extent that it contains limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than is necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.
§ 15.50(b) states additional requirements for a covenant “relating to the practice of medicine” against a person licensed as a physician by the Texas Medical Board. The covenant must, under (b)(1)(A), “not deny the physician access to a list of the physician’s patients whom the physician had seen or treated within one year of termination of the contract or employment.” Under (b)(1)(B), it must “provide access to medical records of the physician’s patients upon authorization of the patient and any copies of medical records for a reasonable fee as established by the Texas Medical Board under Section 159.008, Occupations Code.” Under (b)(1)(C), it must “provide that any access to a list of patients or to patients’ medical records after termination of the contract or employment shall not require such list or records to be provided in a format different than that by which such records are maintained except by mutual consent of the parties to the contract.”
§ 15.50(b)(2) requires that “the covenant must provide for a buyout of the covenant by the physician in an amount that is not greater than the physician’s total annual salary and wages at the time of termination of the contract or employment.”
§ 15.50(b)(3) requires that “the covenant must provide that the physician will not be prohibited from providing continuing care and treatment to a specific patient or patients during the course of an acute illness even after the contract or employment has been terminated.”
§ 15.50(b)(4) requires that the covenant “expire not later than the one-year anniversary of the date the contract or employment has been terminated”; “limit the geographical area subject to the covenant to no more than a five-mile radius from the location at which the physician primarily practiced before the contract or employment terminated”; and “have terms and conditions clearly and conspicuously stated in writing.”
§ 15.50(b-1) limits the reach of subsection (b): “For the purposes of Subsection (b), the practice of medicine does not include managing or directing medical services in an administrative capacity for a medical practice or other health care provider.”
§ 15.50(c) states: “Subsection (b) does not apply to a physician’s business ownership interest in a licensed hospital or licensed ambulatory surgical center.”
§ 15.50(d) states:
Notwithstanding any other law, a covenant not to compete relating to the practice of medicine is void and unenforceable against a person licensed as a physician by the Texas Medical Board if the physician is involuntarily discharged from contract or employment without good cause. For purposes of this subsection, “good cause” means a reasonable basis for discharge of a physician from contract or employment that is directly related to the physician’s conduct, including the physician’s conduct on the job or otherwise, job performance, and contract or employment record.
§ 15.501 is a 2025 addition covering dentists, professional or vocational nurses, and physician assistants. It is not the physician provision. It is named here only because § 15.50(a) and § 15.52 now cross-reference it.
§ 15.52, as amended in 2025, states:
The criteria for enforceability of a covenant not to compete provided by Sections 15.50 and 15.501 and the procedures and remedies in an action to enforce a covenant not to compete provided by Section 15.51 are exclusive and preempt other law, including common law.
Uncodified SECTION 4 of S.B. 1318 states the temporal reach:
The changes in law made by this Act apply only to a covenant not to compete entered into or renewed on or after the effective date of this Act. A covenant not to compete entered into or renewed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the covenant was entered into or renewed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 5 of the same act states: “This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.”
Those sentences are the statute and the session law. They are not a review of any contract.
What “governed” would require
Operational questions, not legal conclusions.
A clause that is being treated as governed would show four things. The signed clause has been read, and its duration, geography, and restricted activity have been recorded. The governing state has been identified, including any choice-of-law provision. The controlling state text has been located and cited by subsection, including the version in effect on the date the clause was entered or renewed. The federal posture being relied on has been dated, including the source and the date of that status.
A headline answers none of those.
“Banned” is not a governing law. “The ban died” is not one either. The status you read about is not the status of your clause. The clause has a governing law. The question is whether you have read it.
The companion worksheet records Present, Absent, or Unknown for those four elements. The recap page copies the four marks. The worksheet does not authorize a negotiation, does not review a contract, and does not determine whether any clause is enforceable.
Download the Psychiatric Record Non-Compete Clause Record (PDF)
Four questions
Have the clause’s duration, geography, and restricted activity been recorded? Has the governing state been identified, including any choice-of-law provision? Has the controlling state text been located and cited by subsection, including the version in effect on the date the clause was entered or renewed? Has the federal posture being relied on been dated, including the source and date of that status?
If any answer is unknown, do not negotiate against a headline.
Sources opened August 22, 2026
Federal Trade Commission. Non-Compete Clause Rule. 89 Fed. Reg. 38342 (May 7, 2024) (FR Doc. 2024-09171). ACTION: Final rule. DATES: “The final rule is effective September 4, 2024.” Official GPO Federal Register HTML and PDF opened, plus the official Federal Register API record. federalregister.gov HTML was CAPTCHA-blocked; volume, page, date, and title agree across the API and GovInfo. Used: title; publication date May 7, 2024; 89 Fed. Reg. 38342; action line; dates line; summary sentence that the rule provides it is an unfair method of competition to enter into non-compete clauses with workers on or after the effective date. Not used: a separate “date finalized” or Commission vote date. The opened text does not print one, so none is supplied. Also not used: the filing line “Filed 4-30-24” as a finalization date; 16 C.F.R. part 912; senior-executive / existing-clause mechanics as a present-tense rule. Historical rule only.
Ryan LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024) (Brown, J.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF 211. Official GPO / AOUSC PDF opened (GovInfo USCOURTS-txnd-3_24-cv-00986-1). Used: docket and date; exceeded statutory authority; arbitrary and capricious; “hold unlawful” and “set aside” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); “nationwide effect” / “not party-restricted” / “affects persons in all judicial districts equally”; operative sentence setting aside 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6. Not used: 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 (the court PDF does not print it, so it is not used as our citation); July 3, 2024 preliminary-injunction opinion (Doc. 153) as the merits holding; styling the remedy as “vacatur” in the court’s voice (the court used “set aside”).
Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule. Press release, September 5, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/federal-trade-commission-files-accede-vacatur-non-compete-clause-rule. Used: the sentence naming both circuit appeals and acceding to vacatur; the 3-1 vote; who issued, joined, concurred, or dissented. Not used: the body of the Ferguson/Holyoak, Meador, or Slaughter statements; any reporter citation appearing only in those statements.
Federal Trade Commission. Removal of the Non-Compete Rule from the CFR. 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026) (FR Doc. 2026-02866). Official FR API and official GPO Federal Register HTML/PDF opened. federalregister.gov HTML was CAPTCHA-blocked. Used, non-compete portions only: the sentence that the Commission is removing the Non-Compete Clause Rule from the CFR; the recitation that the Commission voted 3-1 on September 5, 2025 to dismiss the two appeals and accede to vacatur; the sentence removing 16 CFR part 910; the amendatory instruction “PART 910 [Removed and Reserved]”; effective February 12, 2026. Not used: Negative Option Rule or CARS Rule operative text; the footnote citation Ryan, LLC v. FTC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 369 appearing in that document, as our independent cite; the other two district-court footnotes as independently opened holdings.
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Takes Action to Protect Workers from Noncompete Agreements. Press release, September 4, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-takes-action-protect-workers-noncompete-agreements. Federal Trade Commission. Decision and Order, In the Matter of Gateway Services, Inc. and Gateway US Holdings, Inc., Docket C-4825, ISSUED November 25, 2025. Case page: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/gateway-pet-memorial-services. Final-order press release, November 26, 2025, used only to date the announcement and the 2-0 vote. Used: who; Section 5 charge; alleged one-year nationwide pet-cremation restriction; nearly 1,800 employees; complaint date and 3-1 vote; order issuance date November 25, 2025; high-level order terms as stated in the November 26 release. Not used: November 26 as the issuance date; any application to a physician clause; commissioner statement text.
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Chairman Ferguson Issues Noncompete Warning Letters to Healthcare Employers and Staffing Companies. Press release, September 10, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-chairman-ferguson-issues-noncompete-warning-letters-healthcare-employers-staffing-companies. Template PDF opened. Used: date; recipient class (“several large healthcare employers and staffing firms”); what the letters are (urging a comprehensive review of employment agreements, including noncompetes); template sentence that receipt “is not intended to suggest that you have engaged in illegal conduct.” Not used: named addressees; none appear on the opened official pages; the press release’s “enjoined on constitutional grounds” characterization of the 2024 rule; commissioner-statement quotations.
Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Issues Request for Information on Employee Noncompete Agreements. Press release, September 4, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/federal-trade-commission-issues-request-information-employee-noncompete-agreements. Underlying PDF: Request for Information Regarding Employer Noncompete Agreements, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2025-Noncompete-RFI.pdf. Used: press-release date and title; “public inquiry” sentence; comment deadline “no later than November 3, 2025.” Not used: collapsing the press-release title (“Employee”) with the PDF title (“Employer”); treating the PDF as having its own issuance-date header (it does not); deputy-director quotation as agency holding.
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Announces Workshop on Noncompete Agreements. Press release, September 17, 2025 (announces October 8, 2025). FTC Announces New Date for Workshop on Noncompete Agreements. Press release, December 16, 2025 (announces January 27, 2026). Event page: Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements, Tuesday, January 27, 2026 | 1:00PM - 5:00PM, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2026/01/moving-forward-protecting-workers-anticompetitive-noncompete-agreements. Prepared remarks of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, January 27, 2026. Remarks of Commissioner Mark R. Meador, January 27, 2026. Used: official title; September 17 announcement of October 8; December 16 new-date announcement; occurrence January 27, 2026 on the event page and both remarks PDFs. Not used: “held on October 8, 2025” as an occurrence date; the opened pages are announcement and reschedule only. Federal Trade Commission. FTC Finalizes Consent Order in Adamas No-Hire Agreement Matter. Press release, February 12, 2026. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-finalizes-consent-order-adamas-no-hire-agreement-matter. Decision and Order, In the Matter of Adamas Amenity Services LLC et al., Docket C-4830, ISSUED February 11, 2026. Case page: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/adamas. Proposed-stage press release, December 19, 2025. Used: printed ISSUED February 11, 2026; complaint same day (not distinct); announcement February 12, 2026; docket C-4830; votes 2-0 / 2-0; Ferguson and Meador; no named dissent; no-hire consent (not a clause-is-banned finding). Not used: February 12 as the printed issuance date; collapsing the Adamas announcement with the February 12, 2026 CFR-removal rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (FR Doc. 2026-02866). Federal Trade Commission. FTC Takes Action Against Noncompete Agreements… Press release, April 15, 2026. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-takes-action-against-noncompete-agreements-securing-protections-workers. FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Pest-Control Noncompete Matter. Press release, June 22, 2026. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-approves-final-consent-order-pest-control-noncompete-matter. Decision and Order, In the Matter of Rollins, Inc., Docket C-4835, ISSUED June 22, 2026. Case page: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/251-0011-rollins-inc-matter. Warning-letter template, Date Sent April 14, 2026. Used: April 15, 2026 as the proposed-for-comment date only, not as the date of a final order; June 22 printed issuance and announcement; docket C-4835; Matter 251 0011; votes 2-0 / 2-0; no named dissent; “more than 18,000 employees nationwide” (PRs); complaint “over 700 locations with over 18,000 U.S-based employees”; typically two years, “usually a 75-mile radius”; 13 other companies, count only; Senior Leader / equity-eligible director-officer exclusion as order definition text, not complaint. Not used: naming the 13 addressees; calling the exclusion a “carve-out”; Appendix B; glass/security matters; Mortgage Connect (not opened).
Texas Constitution and Statutes. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 15.50, 15.501, 15.52. Official compilation PDF, https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/SDocs/BUSINESSANDCOMMERCECODE.pdf, rendered July 24, 2026. Enrolled S.B. 1318 (Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 816), https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB01318F.htm; official history, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB1318. Used: subsection-level physician criteria in § 15.50; § 15.50(b-1), (c), and (d); § 15.52 exclusivity sentence; § 15.501 named only to keep it off the physician provision; enrolled SECTION 4 applicability and SECTION 5 effective date September 1, 2025. Not used: application of any subsection to the composite or to any employer; § 15.51 as amended law (it was not amended by S.B. 1318); Indiana or Minnesota code (not opened); law-firm trackers and alerts.
Federal Trade Commission topic page https://www.ftc.gov/nonmerger/noncompete opened as an index only. Not used as authority.
Educational Disclaimer: The Psychiatric Record provides general educational information for psychiatric and mental-health professionals. Content does not constitute medical, legal, regulatory, compliance, billing, or other professional advice; does not establish a standard of care; and is not a substitute for independent professional judgment. Requirements and appropriate practices may vary by jurisdiction and circumstance. Verify current authoritative sources.
This article is not a contract review and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in the governing jurisdiction.