The Billion Dollar Proposal for Tech Companies to Move to Florida
An op-ed by Tripp Scott's Paul Lopez, Jake Blumstein and Luis Duran as published in:
In 2025, the Florida Legislature enacted the Choice Act which further bolsters a company’s ability to enforce noncompete agreements with their high-ranking employees which offers tech companies a level of predictability, stability, and contractual strength that could translate into billions in preserved enterprise value.
The Florida Legislature has made it clear that it is “open for business” when it comes to technology companies and it has enacted legislation to prove it. In the midst of an unprecedented global race for artificial intelligence supremacy, where elite researchers command compensation packages that rival corporate acquisitions, Florida has positioned itself as a jurisdiction uniquely situated to safeguard the competitive interests of technology companies by enacting laws designed to enforce employees’ restrictive covenants. This is in stark contrast to states like California which refuse to recognize the validity of such agreements. In 2025, the Florida Legislature enacted the Choice Act which further bolsters a company’s ability to enforce
noncompete agreements with their high-ranking employees which offers tech companies a level of predictability, stability, and contractual strength that could translate into billions in preserved enterprise value.
Florida has long cultivated a reputation as a haven for business interests, particularly for employers seeking predictable and enforceable contractual protections. Nearly three decades ago, in 1996, the Florida Legislature enacted Florida Statute Section 542.335—Florida’s noncompete statute—thereby codifying lawful restraints on trade. Under this statutory framework, noncompete agreements and other restrictive covenants—such as non solicitation and non recruitment provisions—are generally enforceable so long as they are supported by legitimate business interests and are reasonable in temporal and geographic scope. The Legislature expressly enumerated these protectable interests, including trade secrets; confidential business information falling short of trade secret status; substantial customer relationships; customer goodwill; and extraordinary or specialized training. Once a legitimate protectable interest is demonstrated, both the statute and the overwhelming judicial precedent typically uphold employee noncompete agreements lasting two years or less following separation of employment, provided they remain reasonable in their geographic reach.
This past year, the Legislature expanded Florida’s employer friendly statutory arsenal. Effective July 3, 2025, the Legislature enacted the Choice Act, expressly intending to strengthen contractual protections between employers and certain contract personnel by encouraging optimal information sharing and investments in training and development. As the Legislature noted, “predictability in the enforcement of contracts described in this part encourages investment in this state.” The Choice Act further broadened an employer’s ability to protect its investment in key employees within the company.
Under the Choice Act, employers may extend noncompete restrictions for up to four years through a “Garden Leave Agreement” with qualifying high earning employees. The statute requires employers to furnish specific written notice before such an agreement becomes effective. Once statutory notice is provided, an employee may be restricted from competing for a period of up to four years—so long as the employer continues paying the employee the same salary and benefits he or she received during the final month before the notice period commenced. The notice period, as defined by the Choice Act, begins upon written notice from either party of the intent to terminate employment.
Separately—and more pertinent to most employers—the Choice Act broadens enforceability of typical noncompete agreements for high earning employees, referred to as “covered noncompete agreements.” If an employee’s compensation equals or exceeds twice the annual mean wage of the Florida county in which the covered employer maintains its principal place of business, the employer may enter into such an agreement with: an employee whose principal place of work is in Florida; or an employee outside of Florida, provided the agreement is expressly governed by Florida law. Fla. Stat. Section 542.45(1)(a)–(b). The statute further provides that where any provision of this section conflicts with other law—including the law of another state—the Choice Act prevails.
The Choice Act also significantly curtails judicial discretion to deny preliminary injunctive relief. Indeed, the Act requires courts to impose a preliminary injunction prohibiting competition unless the covered employee proves, by clear and convincing evidence based solely on non confidential information, that:
The employee will not perform, during the noncompete period, any work similar to the services provided to the employer during the preceding three years, nor will the employee use confidential information or customer relationships of the employer;
The employer failed to pay consideration owed under the agreement and, after reasonable opportunity, failed to cure; or
The prospective employer or contracting entity is neither engaged in nor preparing to engage in business activity similar to that of the covered employer in the geographic area identified in the agreement.
There have been countless articles chronicling the aggressive, high stakes recruiting wars among Meta, Microsoft, Google, Open AI, and other key players—each deploying extraordinary compensation packages to lure elite AI researchers from competitors.
These episodes illustrate a stark reality: if a company is in the wrong state and makes recruiting missteps—or fails to deter strategic poaching—it can cost that company billions. The specialized AI researchers at the forefront of the superintelligence race are deeply immersed in invaluable trade secrets and proprietary knowledge. Without meaningful noncompete protections, companies—particularly those anchored in California, where restrictive covenants remain largely unenforceable—risk catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge and competitive advantage at the hands of rivals equipped with near limitless recruiting budgets.
For tech companies leading the AI race, relocating headquarters to Florida will yield immense financial protections. The Choice Act empowers employers to enforce noncompete agreements, and Florida’s broader restrictive covenant framework enables employers to restrict solicitation of customers and employees for years following separation, regardless of whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary. Florida’s Legislature—passing the Choice Act contemporaneously with California’s AI talent raids—emphasized its commitment to supporting contractual frameworks that encourage robust information sharing and professional development.
As legal and regulatory changes reshape the competitive landscape, companies considering a move to Florida will need to make sure their employment agreements, policies, and structures align with the state’s statutory requirements. Handling that transition carefully helps maintain the advantages Florida’s legal framework offers, and reliable legal guidance is of paramount importance to achieving that alignment. At the end of the day, technology companies can save billions of dollars and protect their trade secrets by moving to Florida with relatively simple legal guidance.
