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

Since July 29, 2026, Maine employers may not require or permit a non-compete with a health care practitioner employed by an entity in which the practitioner has no ownership interest.

That is new §599-A(3)(C), added by Public Law 2026, chapter 718 — aimed at employed clinicians, not owners.

A health care practitioner is anyone qualified or licensed under Maine law to perform or provide health care services.

The Board of Dental Practice licenses dentists, hygienists, expanded function dental assistants and radiographers — so an employed licensee is very likely covered.

Our research found no Maine agency guidance applying the definition to dental licenses: confirm with the board or counsel before relying on it.

Pay already mattered: the 2019 law bars a non-compete with an employee earning wages at or below 400% of the federal poverty level.

How other states handle dental non-competes is covered in our guide to non-competes for dental staff nationally.

Maine's rule is statutory, not case law: since 2019, 26 M.R.S. §599-A has made noncompete agreements contrary to public policy and enforceable only to the extent reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential information or goodwill.

The healthcare ban sits inside that statute: LD 2200 was approved by the Governor on April 15, 2026 and became Public Law 2026, chapter 718, effective July 29, 2026 — the general effective date for nonemergency laws of the 132nd Legislature's Second Regular Session.

It applies to agreements entered into or renewed on or after that date.

Maine pairs §599-A with 26 M.R.S. §599-B, which bars no-poach agreements between employers that restrict soliciting or hiring each other's employees.

And there is no federal backstop: the Federal Trade Commission's non-compete rule never took effect — a federal court set it aside — and the agency removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations on February 12, 2026.

The 2019 law's one healthcare-specific provision was the physicians' exception to the delayed start; Public Law 2026, chapter 718 replaced it with an exception for all health care practitioners and added the ownership-based ban.

Coverage turns on the definition: under 32 M.R.S. §18302, a Maine dentist holds a valid license issued by the Board of Dental Practice, and the board licenses dental hygienists, expanded function dental assistants and dental radiographers the same way — so employed licensees are very likely covered.

That is an interpretation, not a settled rule: ask the board or an employment attorney before relying on it.

Unlicensed dental assistants are not addressed by the new ban: their covenants fall under the general §599-A rules — the wage floor, the notice requirements, the delayed start.

Ownership is the dividing line for practitioners: an associate dentist without equity is covered, a practitioner who holds an ownership interest is not.

Any practitioner non-compete that remains enforceable must also recognize the individual's right to choose their own health care practitioner.

Maine writes the test into the statute: a non-compete is enforceable only to the extent reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential information or goodwill — presumed necessary only if a non-solicitation or confidentiality agreement cannot adequately protect the interest instead.

Before a court weighs any of that, §599-A installs gates:

On time and area: the verified provisions set no years-and-miles formula — breadth is judged against the interest you need protected, so take the shortest term and smallest area that protect it.

The statute points here first: §599-A presumes a non-compete necessary only if the interest cannot be adequately protected through an alternative restrictive covenant — it names non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements.

Expect any dispute to turn on why the narrower tool was not enough.

Patient and staff non-solicits restrict who a departing employee may contact — rather than where they may work.

Our guide to patient and staff non-solicits covers how to structure them.

One boundary: the §599-B no-poach ban runs between employers — you cannot contract with a staffing firm or a neighboring practice to restrict soliciting or hiring each other's employees.

For the patient list, federal trade-secret law is the route: under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 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.

A DTSA injunction cannot stop a former employee taking a new job — conditions there must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows.

What survives the 2026 amendment, starting with the alternatives the statute names:

• Lead with confidentiality and non-solicits — Maine presumes a non-compete necessary only when a non-solicitation or confidentiality agreement cannot adequately protect the interest.
• Fix the process for any covenant that remains: disclose before the offer, deliver the copy at least 3 business days before signature, calendar the delayed start — one year of employment or 6 months from signing.
• Mind renewals: the 2026 ban reaches agreements entered into or renewed on or after July 29, 2026.
• Where you fund a course or credential, our guide to training repayment agreements covers a different tool and its limits.
• Write operational terms into the agreement — notice period, patient-record custody, schedule handover — so continuity never depends on winning a covenant dispute.
• Check the license before the replacement starts: dentist licensure in Maine covers what an associate needs before day one.

Have a Maine employment attorney review any covenant before the offer goes out — and if you are the one being asked to sign, dentist non-compete agreements covers the worker's side nationally.