Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.62
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.030 (2026)

When void and unenforceable against independent contractors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 1155-S.SL) ***
(1) A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable against an independent contractor unless the independent contractor's earnings from the party seeking enforcement exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. This dollar amount must be adjusted annually in accordance with RCW 49.62.040.
(2) The duration of a noncompetition covenant between a performer and a performance space, or a third party scheduling the performer for a performance space, must not exceed three calendar days.
[ 2019 c 299 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2021–2023 · leading case: Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Univ. Ins. LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 4× “6 But it argues that the provision was void under a Washington statute, RCW 49.62.030. 7 Id. ¶ 15. Because the provision was void, University alleges that Allstate had no cause to 8 terminate the Agency Agreement in the first place.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “25 Defendants argue that reading the term “employee” to mean employees and independent 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 contractors would vitiate RCW 49.62.030, making it “meaningless” or “nonsensical.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). “The Court refers to the two versions of the Affiliate Agreement in the singular unless there is a 1 law makes noncompetition provisions void and unenforceable against an independent contractor 2 unless he or she earns more than $250,000 per year (RCW 49.62.030(1)), “the…”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Although there were undoubtedly Tori Belle customers and Affiliates watching those accounts, interpreting the use of personal friends and follower lists 26 as “solicitation” in the circumstances presented here would effectively bar Affiliates from working at any other direct…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.62.030(1) — 3 cases
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2022). “25 Defendants argue that reading the term “employee” to mean employees and independent 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1 contractors would vitiate RCW 49.62.030, making it “meaningless” or “nonsensical.”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. McKnight (W.D. Wash. 2022). “The Court refers to the two versions of the Affiliate Agreement in the singular unless there is a 1 law makes noncompetition provisions void and unenforceable against an independent contractor 2 unless he or she earns more than $250,000 per year (RCW 49.62.030(1)), “the…”
Tori Belle Cosmetics LLC v. Meek (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Although there were undoubtedly Tori Belle customers and Affiliates watching those accounts, interpreting the use of personal friends and follower lists 26 as “solicitation” in the circumstances presented here would effectively bar Affiliates from working at any other direct…”
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.