O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56 (2019)

(For effective date, see note.) Reasonableness determinations restricting competition; presumptions

✓ 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

In determining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant that limits or restricts competition during the course of an employment or business relationship, the court shall make the following presumptions: (1) A time period equal to or measured by duration of the parties’ business or commercial relationship is reasonable; (2) A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties’ commercial relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive covenant, is reasonable provided that: (A) The total distance encompassed by the provisions of the covenant also is reasonable; (B) The agreement contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time after the term of employment or a commercial or business relationship; or (C) Both subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph; (3) The scope of competition restricted is measured by the business of the employer or other person or entity in whose favor the restrictive covenant is given; provided, however, that a court shall not refuse to enforce the provisions of a restrictive covenant because the person seeking enforcement establishes evidence that a restrictive covenant has been violated but has not proven that the covenant has been violated as to the entire scope of the prohibited activities of the person seeking enforcement or as to the entire geographic area of the covenant; and (4) Any restriction that operates during the term of an employment relationship, agency relationship, independent contractor relationship, partnership, franchise, distributorship, license, ownership of a stake in a business entity, or other ongoing business relationship shall not be considered unreasonable because it lacks any specific limitation upon scope of activity, duration, or geographic area as long as it promotes or protects the purpose or subject matter of the agreement or relationship or deters any potential conflict of interest.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-56, 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 18 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 906 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 906 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 8× “For example, under OCGA § 13-8-56 (2), the geographic scope of a restrictive covenant is presumed reasonable if, among other things, it “includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties’ relationship” and “contains a list of particular…”
Fine v. Commc'n Trends, Inc., 699 S.E.2d 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “8 The Georgia legislature has recently enacted OCGA § 13-8-56, setting forth principles that are intended to prospectively govern the determinations of reasonableness of restrictive covenants.”
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The covenant’s prohibition on competition by Baldwin within a five-mile radius of any location operated by Express or its affiliates does not satisfy any of § 13-8-56(2)’s three prongs; thus, it is not presumptively reasonable.”
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 13-8-56 (2). Additionally, "[a]ny restrictive covenant not in compliance with [ OCGA § 13-8-50 through 13-8-59 ] is unlawful and is void and unenforceable; provided, however, that a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the…”
Patricia Kennedy v. the Shave Barber Co., LLC, 822 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 13-8-56 (2) (A). In determining whether a particular restriction is reasonable, OCGA § 13-8-53 (c) (1) provides that "[w]herever a description of activities, products, and services, or geographic areas, is required by this Code section, any description that provides fair…”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 14× “See OCGA § 13-8-56(1). Two rebuttable presumptions are at issue in the present case.”
North Am. Senior Benefits, LLC v. Alisha Wimmer (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 13-8-56 (4) (setting out a different rule for restrictions that operate during the term of a business relationship).”
USI Ins. Servs. LLC v. Tillman (S.D. Ga. 2024). · cites it 4× “See O.C.G.A. §§ 13-8-56(4), 53(a). Georgia courts have concluded the same.”
Pence (M.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 4× “Integrity states that § 13-8-56(4) applies here and prevents the First Agreement from being overbroad.”
FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Secretariat Advisors, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 3× “” § 13-8-56(2). Moreover, “[t]he 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 .”
Total Sys. Servs. LLC v. Green (M.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). Here, the four non-compete covenants are restricted to the areas where TSYS does business—North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia.”
Refresco Beverages Us, Inc. v. Califormulations, LLC (M.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The post-2011 law also provides that “[a]ny 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…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 13-8-56(1) — 1 case
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “See OCGA § 13-8-56(1). Two rebuttable presumptions are at issue in the present case.”
— 13-8-56(2) — 7 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The covenant’s prohibition on competition by Baldwin within a five-mile radius of any location operated by Express or its affiliates does not satisfy any of § 13-8-56(2)’s three prongs; thus, it is not presumptively reasonable.”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “See OCGA § 13-8-56(1). Two rebuttable presumptions are at issue in the present case.”
Total Sys. Servs. LLC v. Green (M.D. Ga. 2020). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). Here, the four non-compete covenants are restricted to the areas where TSYS does business—North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia.”
Refresco Beverages Us, Inc. v. Califormulations, LLC (M.D. Ga. 2021). “” O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The post-2011 law also provides that “[a]ny 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…”
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021).
— 13-8-56(2)(A) — 2 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The covenant’s prohibition on competition by Baldwin within a five-mile radius of any location operated by Express or its affiliates does not satisfy any of § 13-8-56(2)’s three prongs; thus, it is not presumptively reasonable.”
FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Secretariat Advisors, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2025). “” § 13-8-56(2). Moreover, “[t]he 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 .”
— 13-8-56(2)(B) — 1 case
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-56(2). The covenant’s prohibition on competition by Baldwin within a five-mile radius of any location operated by Express or its affiliates does not satisfy any of § 13-8-56(2)’s three prongs; thus, it is not presumptively reasonable.”
— 13-8-56(4) — 3 cases
USI Ins. Servs. LLC v. Tillman (S.D. Ga. 2024). “See O.C.G.A. §§ 13-8-56(4), 53(a). Georgia courts have concluded the same.”
Pence (M.D. Ga. 2025). “Integrity states that § 13-8-56(4) applies here and prevents the First Agreement from being overbroad.”
Card Isle Corp. v. Farid (N.D. Ga. 2023).
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.