Stephanie Iken, Attorney at Law

Over the past several years, courts, legislatures, and regulators have increasingly pushed back against non-compete agreements. The core concern is that broad restrictions on where and how someone can work limit economic mobility and suppress competition.

That shift affects musicians, even if they never sign something labeled “non-compete.”

What a Non-Compete Actually Is

A non-compete agreement restricts someone from working for competitors or engaging in similar work for a period of time and within a defined geographic area.

In traditional employment settings, this might mean an employee cannot work for a competitor after leaving a job. In music and performance settings, the restriction often shows up as:

• A ban on playing other venues in the same city
• A restriction on booking shows within a certain radius
• A limitation on performing before or after a specific date

Different label, similar effect.

Why Non-Competes Are Being Challenged

Non-competes have come under scrutiny for several reasons:

• They restrict a person’s ability to earn a living
• They often lack fair tradeoffs
• They are frequently broader than necessary
• They are imposed on workers with little bargaining power

Courts increasingly examine whether a restriction is reasonable in scope, time, and geography. Overly broad restrictions are more likely to fail.

The FTC’s Proposed Rule and the Bigger Picture

In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule that would ban most non-compete agreements nationwide. While that rule has faced legal challenges and is not fully settled, it reflects a clear policy direction.

Even where the rule is not in effect, courts are paying closer attention to restrictions that resemble non-competes.

This does not mean all restrictions are invalid. It means they are scrutinized more closely.

How This Applies to Musicians and Venues

Venues sometimes impose exclusivity requirements that look a lot like non-competes:

• No other shows in the city for weeks
• No competing venues within a wide radius
• Restrictions without added pay or promotion

These clauses are more likely to raise problems when:

• The restriction is broad
• The time period is long
• The venue offers little in return
• The performer is not an employee
• The restriction limits basic earning ability

Short, narrowly tailored exclusivity tied to a specific ticketed event is more defensible than blanket restrictions.

Florida’s Approach

Florida historically allowed non-competes more readily than some other states, especially in employment contexts. Even so, Florida courts still require restrictions to be reasonable and tied to legitimate business interests.

For musicians, that means:

• Exclusivity must be clearly agreed to
• The scope must make sense
• The restriction must not be excessive
• Context matters

A casual gig agreement is not the same as a negotiated employment contract.

Practical Takeaways for Musicians

Musicians should:

• Treat exclusivity clauses seriously
• Ask whether the restriction limits income
• Look at time, geography, and purpose
• Ask what the venue is offering in return
• Push back on vague or overly broad language

Just because a venue asks for exclusivity does not mean it is automatically enforceable.

Final Thought

The legal landscape is moving away from broad restraints on work. While exclusivity can still exist, it works best when it is narrow, intentional, and fair. Musicians benefit from understanding this shift before agreeing to limitations that affect their ability to perform.

Disclaimer
This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The enforceability of non-compete or exclusivity provisions depends on specific facts, agreements, and applicable law, which may change over time. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have questions about a particular restriction or agreement, you should consult a qualified attorney familiar with local, state, and federal law.