Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Dentists and Dental Staff in California?

No — non-competes are void for every role on a California dental team: associate dentists, hygienists, assistants and front-office staff alike.

Business and Professions Code § 16600(a) voids every contract restraining anyone from a lawful profession, trade or business, except as the chapter provides — and because it says "anyone," there is no dentist carve-out to draft around.

Three more rules close the escape routes: in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen (2008), the California Supreme Court held non-competes invalid even when narrowly drawn; since January 1, 2024, it has been unlawful to include a non-compete clause in an employment contract at all; and a non-compete void in California is unenforceable regardless of where and when it was signed.

What survives looks different — sale-of-practice covenants, partnership dissolutions and the tools below.

For the other states, see non-competes for dental staff nationally; if you are the one being asked to sign, our dentist non-compete guide covers the employee's side.

The rule is statutory: Business and Professions Code § 16600(a) provides that, except as this chapter allows, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to that extent.

The controlling case is Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008): non-competes are invalid under § 16600 even if narrowly drawn, unless a statutory exception applies, and the court rejected the "narrow-restraint" exception.

Two newer statutes add teeth: § 16600.1 (AB 1076, effective January 1, 2024) makes it unlawful to include a non-compete clause in an employment contract, and employers had to notify affected employees by February 14, 2024 that such clauses are void; and § 16600.5 makes a void non-compete unenforceable regardless of where and when it was signed, with entering into or trying to enforce one a civil violation; an employee who prevails can win an injunction, actual damages and attorney's fees.

California has no dentist-specific non-compete statute and no healthcare carve-out.

Section 16600 voids restraints on "anyone" engaging in a lawful profession, putting associate dentists, hygienists, dental assistants and office staff in the same position: void for each of them, subject only to the statutory exceptions for a sale of a business and a partnership or LLC dissolution.

The contrast is a state that built a dentist-specific rule.

Texas makes a non-compete unenforceable against a Texas-licensed dentist unless it has a buyout no greater than the dentist's total annual salary and wages at termination, expires within one year after termination, covers no more than a 5-mile radius from where the dentist primarily practiced, and states its terms clearly and conspicuously in writing — conditions that apply only to covenants entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025.

California has no equivalent, and a covenant copied from another state's associate agreement does not just fail — it creates the civil-violation exposure above.

In a state that enforces non-competes, the fight is over reasonableness — months, miles, legitimate business interest.

Texas, for example, enforces one only if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement and reasonable in time, geographic area and scope of activity, imposing no greater restraint than necessary to protect goodwill or another legitimate business interest.

California courts do not run that analysis on employee covenants: under § 16600 and Edwards, the only question is whether the contract fits one of the chapter's statutory exceptions (§§ 16601–16602.5).

If it does not, the covenant is void, however narrow it is.

The exception you are most likely to meet is § 16601: a person who sells the goodwill of a business — or an owner selling all of their ownership interest — may agree with the buyer not to carry on a similar business within a specified area where the practice operated, so long as the buyer carries on a like business there — the classic practice-sale covenant.

Section 16602 is the partnership analogue for covenants made on or in anticipation of dissolution; the chapter treats LLC dissolutions in parallel.

Each is an ownership event — none reaches the employment of an associate, hygienist or assistant.

This is where a practice might assume a backstop exists, and get burned.

The agreement struck down in Edwards barred the employee for a year from "soliciting" the former office's clients — "soliciting" defined as providing professional services to them — and the court voided it anyway.

California customer non-solicitation clauses are generally treated as void restraints — in a dental office, a clause stopping a departing associate or hygienist from treating, or "soliciting," your patients walks into the same rule.

Whether a narrow clause barring only staff recruitment survives is open — Edwards did not address one — so treat it as untested and ask employment counsel first.

Protecting trade secrets remains a separate legal route — Edwards expressly did not decide whether a "trade secret exception" to § 16600 exists.

Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, business information such as a patient list is a trade secret only if you took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it has independent economic value from not being generally known.

The remedy has a ceiling: a DTSA injunction cannot prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship, and any conditions on it must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows.

For the drafting options that remain, see our guide to patient and staff non-solicits.

Strip the covenant; rebuild from what California law does allow:

• Start from at-will employment and a notice term. Labor Code § 2922 makes employment with no specified term terminable at the will of either party on notice, and a written notice period for an associate is an ordinary contract term — your runway to introduce a successor.
• Run a clean departure protocol. Business and Professions Code § 1680(u) makes it unprofessional conduct for a California dental licensee to abandon a patient without written notice that treatment will be discontinued and before the patient has ample opportunity to secure another dentist or hygienist. Written notice, coverage for ongoing treatment and a records handoff belong in your offboarding.
• Check every repayment term against the stay-or-pay ban. AB 692 added Business and Professions Code § 16608 and Labor Code § 926: for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027 — the original 2026 start was delayed, and the provisions as they existed on January 1, 2026 are inoperative through December 31, 2026 — "stay-or-pay" terms requiring a worker to repay you or pay a penalty if employment ends are unlawful, subject to listed exceptions. Retraining fees, replacement-hire fees, quit fees and liquidated damages are prohibited; one door left open is tuition repayment for a "transferable credential" — an accredited third-party degree not required for the current job — in a separate contract, amount stated up front, prorated, and waived if the worker is terminated without misconduct. A prohibited term costs the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per worker, plus attorney's fees. Our training repayment agreements guide covers the drafting.
• Put covenants where they belong — in ownership deals. In a practice sale or partnership dissolution, a § 16601 or § 16602 covenant can restrict a former owner in a way no employment contract can.
• Hire well instead. Confirm credentials before the start date — our guide to dentist licensure in California covers what that involves — and lean on working interviews and reference checks.