O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53 (2019)

(For effective date, see note.) Enforcement of covenants; determining competitive status; time geographic limitations

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during the term of a restrictive covenant, so long as such restrictions are reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities, shall be permitted. However, enforcement of contracts that restrict competition after the term of employment, as distinguished from a customer nonsolicitation provision, as described in subsection (b) of Code Section 13-8-53, or a nondisclosure of confidential information provision, as described in subsection (e) of Code Section 13-8-53, shall not be permitted against any employee who does not, in the course of his or her employment: (1) Customarily and regularly solicit for the employer customers or prospective customers; (2) Customarily and regularly engage in making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for products or services to be performed by others; (3) Perform the following duties: (A) Have a primary duty of managing the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; (B) Customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees; and (C) Have the authority to hire or fire other employees or have particular weight given to suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees; or (4) Perform the duties of a key employee or of a professional. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an employee may agree in writing for the benefit of an employer to refrain, for a stated period of time following termination, from soliciting, or attempting to solicit, directly or by assisting others, any business from any of such employer’s customers, including actively seeking prospective customers, with whom the employee had material contact during his or her employment for purposes of providing products or services that are competitive

with those provided by the employer’s business. No express reference to geographic area or the types of products or services considered to be competitive shall be required in order for the restraint to be enforceable. Any reference to a prohibition against ‘soliciting or attempting to solicit business from customers’ or similar language shall be adequate for such purpose and narrowly construed to apply only to: (1) such of the employer’s customers, including actively sought prospective customers, with whom the employee had material contact; and (2) products and services that are competitive with those provided by the employer’s business. (c)(1) Activities, products, or services that are competitive with the activities, products, or services of an employer shall include activities, products, or services that are the same as or similar to the activities, products, or services of the employer. Whenever a description of activities, products, and services, or geographic areas, is required by this Code section, any description that provides fair notice of the maximum reasonable scope of the restraint shall satisfy such requirement, even if the description is generalized or could possibly be stated more narrowly to exclude extraneous matters. In case of a postemployment covenant entered into prior to termination, any good faith estimate of the activities, products, and services, or geographic areas, that may be applicable at the time of termination shall also satisfy such requirement, even if such estimate is capable of including or ultimately proves to include extraneous activities, products, and services, or geographic areas. The postemployment covenant shall be construed ultimately to cover only so much of such estimate as relates to the activities actually conducted, the products and services actually offered, or the geographic areas actually involved within a reasonable period of time prior to termination. (2) Activities, products, or services shall be considered sufficiently described if a reference to the activities, products, or services is provided and qualified by the phrase ‘of the type conducted, authorized, offered, or provided within two years prior to termination’ or similar language containing the same or a lesser time period. The phrase ‘‘the territory where the employee is working at the time of termination’’ or similar language shall be considered sufficient as a description of geographic areas if the person or entity bound by the restraint can reasonably determine the maximum reasonable scope of the restraint at the time of termination. (d) Any restrictive covenant not in compliance with the provisions of this article is unlawful and is void and unenforceable; provided, however, that a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable as long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to the employee than as originally drafted by the parties. (e) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the period of time for which a party may agree to maintain information as confidential or as a

trade secret, or to limit the geographic area within which such information must be kept confidential or as a trade secret, for so long as the information or material remains confidential or a trade secret, as applicable.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-53, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 3/HB 173.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - For information as to the effective date of this Code section, see

the delayed effective date note at the beginning of this article.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 906 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2024).
North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 906 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 73× “” OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). In this case, we focus on the requirement of geographic reasonableness.”
Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 32× “at 191 (1) (quoting OCGA §§ 13-8-53 (a), 13-8-54 (b)). In a footnote, the court distinguished Auld because that case involved “a tort that occurred in another country,” while this case was about a “contractual dispute [involving] a mutually negotiated, forum-selection clause.”
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 24× “The trial court found that the non-compete covenant was void and unenforceable because it did not contain a geographic limitation as required by OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). On appeal, Carpetcare contends that the trial court erred in finding the non-compete covenant void and…”
Patricia Kennedy v. the Shave Barber Co., LLC, 822 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 20× “OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). Even if a covenant not to compete is reasonable in these respects, its applicability is limited to employees who customarily and regularly solicit customers, customarily and regularly sell products or services, or have defined managerial, key employee, or…”
Burson Et Al. v. Milton Hall Surgical Assocs., LLC., 806 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 13-8-53 (a) ; see OCGA § 13-8-52 (a) (1).”
Murphree v. Yancey Bros. Co., 716 S.E.2d 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “We note that on May 11, 2011, the Georgia General Assembly amended OCGA § 13-8-53 to permit blue penciling, in that “a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to…”
Holland Ins. Grp., LLC v. Senior Life Ins., 766 S.E.2d 187 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “We note that in 2011 the Georgia General Assembly amended OCGA § 13-8-53 to permit blue-penciling, providing that “a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive with regard to the…”
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 8× “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). By contrast, a covenant that is unreasonable in scope, duration, or geographic area and thus violates § 13-8-53(a) “is unlawful and [] void,” id.”
Ryanne Early v. Mimedx Grp., Inc., 768 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Fraud in the Inducement against Early and ISE; Count IX —Action for Fraud against ISE and Early; Count X — Action for Fraudulent Business Expenses against ISE and Early; Count XI — Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations against Defendants; Count XII — Tortious…”
DJR Assocs., LLC v. Hammonds, 241 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (N.D. Ala. 2017). · cites it 2× “Ga. Code Ann. § 13-8-53 (e). Finally, Ga.”
North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Alisha Wimmer (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 58× “OCGA § 13-8-53 (d). Cf. OCGA § 13-8-56 (4) (setting out a different rule for restrictions that operate during the term of a business relationship).”
Am. Plumbing Professionals, Inc. v. Servestar, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 24× “In the alternative, APP argues that the trial court erred in declining to modify the terms of the non-compete covenants pursuant to OCGA § 13-8-53 (d). For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the claim at issue here and remand the case…”
— 13-8-53(4) — 1 case
— 13-8-53(a) — 11 cases
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). “The trial court found that the non-compete covenant was void and unenforceable because it did not contain a geographic limitation as required by OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). On appeal, Carpetcare contends that the trial court erred in finding the non-compete covenant void and…”
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). By contrast, a covenant that is unreasonable in scope, duration, or geographic area and thus violates § 13-8-53(a) “is unlawful and [] void,” id.”
— 13-8-53(a)(1) — 1 case
— 13-8-53(a)(2) — 1 case
— 13-8-53(a)(3) — 1 case
— 13-8-53(b) — 4 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). By contrast, a covenant that is unreasonable in scope, duration, or geographic area and thus violates § 13-8-53(a) “is unlawful and [] void,” id.”
— 13-8-53(c)(1) — 2 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). By contrast, a covenant that is unreasonable in scope, duration, or geographic area and thus violates § 13-8-53(a) “is unlawful and [] void,” id.”
— 13-8-53(c)(2) — 2 cases
— 13-8-53(d) — 8 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-53(a). By contrast, a covenant that is unreasonable in scope, duration, or geographic area and thus violates § 13-8-53(a) “is unlawful and [] void,” id.”
Boone v. Corestaff Support Servs., Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2011).
— 13-8-53(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.