Client Alerts & Insights
Don’t Forget Your Employees on Valentine’s Day (No, Really): California’s Notification Deadline for All Employees with Non-Competition Agreements is February 14, 2024
February 13, 2024
Authored By:
As previously highlighted by Benesch, California strengthened its long-standing prohibition on non-competition agreements on January 1, 2024.
In addition, and also as previously highlighted by Benesch, one of these amendments established what has commonly now been called the “Valentine’s Day Deadline” by many California employers: by February 14, 2024, employers must provide notice to all current employees in California, as well as all former employees in California who were employed after January 1, 2022, that any non-competition clauses to which they agreed are void and unenforceable. Importantly, this notice (1) must be individualized; and (2) must be sent via mail to a (current or former) employee’s last known mailing address and via email to a (current or former) employee’s last known email address. Failure to provide proper notice constitutes unfair competition under California law and can result in a penalty of $2,500 per violation. Violations can also lead to recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. It is unclear as of now whether this law applies to non-solicitation provisions, but California courts have in the past treated customer non-solicitation provisions as unenforceable non-competition provisions.
Although many might be tracking down a last-minute gift or securing a dinner reservation in the eleventh hour before Valentine’s Day, California employers (and all employers with employees in California) should ensure that they comply with California’s “Valentine’s Day Deadline” and send appropriate notices to all current employees and former employees who were employed after January 1, 2022.
For more information, contact:
Margo Wolf O’Donnell at modonnell@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4982.
Charles Leuin at cleuin@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6344.
Scott Humphrey at shumphrey@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6420.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.