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

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 (2019)

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

(a) In determining the reasonableness in time of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced after a term of employment, a court shall apply the rebuttable presumptions provided in this Code section. (b) In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a former employee and not associated with the sale or ownership of all or a material part of: (1) The assets of a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise; (2) The shares of a corporation; (3) A partnership interest; (4) A limited liability company membership; or (5) An equity interest or profit participation, of any other type, in a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise, a court shall presume to be reasonable in time any restraint two years or less in duration and shall presume to be unreasonable in time any restraint more than two years in duration, measured from the date of the termination of the business relationship. (c) In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a current or former distributor, dealer, franchisee, lessee of real or personal property, or licensee of a trademark, trade dress, or service mark and not associated with the sale of all or a part of: (1) The assets of a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise; (2) The shares of a corporation; (3) A partnership interest; (4) A limited liability company membership; or (5) An equity interest or profit participation, of any other type, in a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise, a court shall presume to be reasonable in time any restraint three years or less in duration and shall presume to be unreasonable in time any restraint more than three years in duration, measured from the date of termination of the business relationship. (d) In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against the owner or seller of all or a material part of:

(1) The assets of a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise; (2) The shares of a corporation; (3) A partnership interest; (4) A limited liability company membership; or (5) An equity interest or profit participation, of any other type, in a business, professional practice, or other commercial enterprise, a court shall presume to be reasonable in time any restraint the longer of five years or less in duration or equal to the period of time during which payments are being made to the owner or seller as a result of any sale referred to in this subsection and shall presume to be unreasonable in time any restraint more than the longer of five years in duration or the period of time during which payments are being made to the owner or seller as a result of any sale referred to in this subsection, measured from the date of termination or disposition of such interest.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-57, 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 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Bearoff v. Craton, 830 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bearoff v. Craton, 830 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “equal to the period of time during which payments are being made to the owner or seller as a result of any sale [of the business].”
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 13× “12 12 The district court rooted its approach largely in pre-GRCA Georgia com- mon law, interpreting the differing presumptions in subsections (b) and (d) of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 as codifying the traditional distinction between covenants ancillary to the sale of a business and…”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 19× “The GRCA “does not specifically set or limit the duration of restrictive covenants; instead, OCGA § 13-8-57 simply identifies scenarios in which certain restraint periods are deemed presumptively reasonable or unreasonable.”
William T. Mullally v. Cu Captial Mktg. Solutions (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “” While Appellants agree that, under the circumstances present here, a restrictive covenant lasting “five years or less in duration” after the termination of the business relationship would be presumed reasonable under the GRCA, see OCGA § 13-8-57 (d), Appellants point out that…”
Janet Bearoff v. Charles Thomas Craton, III (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “Bearoff further relies on OCGA § 13-8-57 (d), which provides that when a non-compete agreement involves the owner or seller of a business, “a court shall presume to be reasonable in time any restraint .”
Total Sys. Servs. LLC v. Green (M.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57(b). The covenants are also reasonable in the scope of prohibited activities because they only prohibit Green from performing the type of activities he performed while at TSYS, and they only prohibit him from performing those activities for competitors who…”
Edmund Burbach v. Motorsports of Conyers, LLC d/b/a Falcons Fury Harley-davidson (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “However, OCGA § 13-8-57 (b) states that restraints against former employees for more than two years in duration are presumptively unreasonable.”
Wind Logistics Prof'l, LLC v. Universal Truckload, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2019). “It also says that territorial restrictions that encompass the area in which the employer conducted business is reasonable provided the “total distance is reasonable” and the agreement “contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time…”
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021). “§ 13-8-57(b). For territorial restrictions, the GRCA requires the Court to presume: A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties’ relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive…”
— 13-8-57(a) — 2 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “12 12 The district court rooted its approach largely in pre-GRCA Georgia com- mon law, interpreting the differing presumptions in subsections (b) and (d) of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 as codifying the traditional distinction between covenants ancillary to the sale of a business and…”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “The GRCA “does not specifically set or limit the duration of restrictive covenants; instead, OCGA § 13-8-57 simply identifies scenarios in which certain restraint periods are deemed presumptively reasonable or unreasonable.”
— 13-8-57(b) — 5 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “12 12 The district court rooted its approach largely in pre-GRCA Georgia com- mon law, interpreting the differing presumptions in subsections (b) and (d) of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 as codifying the traditional distinction between covenants ancillary to the sale of a business and…”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “The GRCA “does not specifically set or limit the duration of restrictive covenants; instead, OCGA § 13-8-57 simply identifies scenarios in which certain restraint periods are deemed presumptively reasonable or unreasonable.”
Total Sys. Servs. LLC v. Green (M.D. Ga. 2020). “O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57(b). The covenants are also reasonable in the scope of prohibited activities because they only prohibit Green from performing the type of activities he performed while at TSYS, and they only prohibit him from performing those activities for competitors who…”
Wind Logistics Prof'l, LLC v. Universal Truckload, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2019). “It also says that territorial restrictions that encompass the area in which the employer conducted business is reasonable provided the “total distance is reasonable” and the agreement “contains a list of particular competitors as prohibited employers for a limited period of time…”
Gallagher Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Campbell (N.D. Ga. 2021). “§ 13-8-57(b). For territorial restrictions, the GRCA requires the Court to presume: A geographic territory which includes the areas in which the employer does business at any time during the parties’ relationship, even if not known at the time of entry into the restrictive…”
— 13-8-57(d) — 2 cases
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). “12 12 The district court rooted its approach largely in pre-GRCA Georgia com- mon law, interpreting the differing presumptions in subsections (b) and (d) of O.C.G.A. § 13-8-57 as codifying the traditional distinction between covenants ancillary to the sale of a business and…”
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “The GRCA “does not specifically set or limit the duration of restrictive covenants; instead, OCGA § 13-8-57 simply identifies scenarios in which certain restraint periods are deemed presumptively reasonable or unreasonable.”
— 13-8-57(d)(5) — 1 case
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “The GRCA “does not specifically set or limit the duration of restrictive covenants; instead, OCGA § 13-8-57 simply identifies scenarios in which certain restraint periods are deemed presumptively reasonable or unreasonable.”
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.