H1219 creates a new Part II of chapter 542, Florida Statutes, called the Florida Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act, and sets out a framework for enforcing certain high-wage employment restrictive covenants. The bill defines “covered employees” as workers or independent contractors expected to earn more than twice the county’s annual mean wage, excludes health care practitioners, and authorizes two types of agreements: covered garden leave agreements and covered noncompete agreements. These agreements may last up to four years, must be provided with advance written notice, and require written acknowledgments regarding access to confidential information or customer relationships.
Under the bill, covered garden leave and covered noncompete agreements are declared not to violate Florida public policy as restraints of trade or attempts to monopolize trade or commerce, so long as the statutory conditions are met. The bill requires courts to issue preliminary injunctions when enforcement is sought, limits when those injunctions may be modified or dissolved, allows confidential filings under seal, and permits prevailing covered employers to recover monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs. It also allows employers to reduce salary or benefits during the notice or noncompete period if the employee engages in gross misconduct, without that reduction being treated as a breach.
The bill also amends multiple existing provisions of Florida’s Antitrust Act of 1980 in chapter 542 to conform terminology and cross-references to the new CHOICE Act structure. Those changes update definitions, remedies, enforcement authority, venue, limitations, and construction rules, while preserving the general antitrust framework for conduct outside the new covered employment agreement categories. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment in the recorded votes was favorable, with the bill advancing through subcommittee and committees by comfortable margins and passing both chambers on third reading. The House vote was 91-21 and the Senate vote was 28-9, indicating substantial support but not unanimity. The pattern suggests broad backing from lawmakers who favor stronger contractual protections for employers, investment, and confidentiality, alongside meaningful opposition from members concerned about worker mobility and restrictive covenants.
The main point of contention is the bill’s expansion of enforceable post-employment restrictions, especially the long notice periods and noncompete terms for highly compensated workers. Supporters appear to view the bill as a pro-business measure that protects confidential information, customer relationships, and investment certainty, while critics likely object to its effect on employee freedom to change jobs and the breadth of mandatory injunction relief. The exclusion of health care practitioners and the bill’s focus on high earners also suggest an attempt to narrow the scope, but the core debate remains over whether the new protections go too far in favor of employers.
The bill creates a new statutory regime in chapter 542 for enforcing qualifying garden leave and noncompete agreements for certain high-compensation employees and contractors, while also conforming Florida’s antitrust statutes to that new structure. It changes the legal treatment of these agreements by expressly stating that covered agreements are not unlawful restraints of trade, establishes notice and acknowledgment requirements, and gives employers strong injunctive and monetary remedies. It also preserves existing law for restrictive covenants that do not meet the new definitions, which remain governed by s. 542.335.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support in the Legislature, as reflected in strong committee and floor vote margins in both chambers. The votes indicate that a majority of lawmakers favored the bill’s stated goals of protecting confidential information, encouraging investment, and providing predictability in enforcement. At the same time, the nontrivial number of nays in both the House and Senate shows that a significant minority remained skeptical of the bill’s impact on employee mobility and competition for talent.
The central controversy is whether the bill appropriately balances business interests against workers’ ability to leave employment and compete. Opponents are likely to focus on the length of the permissible notice and noncompete periods, the mandatory preliminary injunctions, and the bill’s strong presumption in favor of enforcement for covered employees. Supporters, by contrast, emphasize the bill’s limitation to higher-paid workers, its exclusion of health care practitioners, and its protections for confidential information and customer relationships as necessary safeguards for investment and economic growth.