Test a restrictive covenant against the law that will actually apply
This page lists three turns, the messages you send to the AI one after another in the same chat, and then a check of the answer. Keep it open next to your chat. Each turn shows the next thing to paste, with the values you entered already filled in. Nothing is sent from this page, and your conversation stays in the AI tool you are using.
Paste the non-compete, both non-solicits, the confidentiality clause, and any garden-leave or notice provision.
Role, compensation, what they had access to, where they worked and lived, and the new position.
Quote the clause as written, including any forum-selection language.
Where the employee worked, where they lived, and where the new employer sits: the states a court might actually apply.
The posture drives what the analysis has to conclude.
Watch for these throughout
Restrictive-covenant law changes nearly every legislative session, and the 2024 federal rule was set aside in litigation. Treat every statutory statement in the output as a lead to verify, never as a holding.
Choice-of-law clauses are routinely displaced where they conflict with the strong public policy of the state where the employee lived and worked. Never advise a client on the strength of the chosen law alone.
Some states now provide a private right of action or fee-shifting against an employer that seeks to enforce a void covenant. Confirm the downside of sending a demand letter before sending one.
Whether a court will reform an overbroad covenant or refuse to touch it varies by state and sometimes by judge. That single question often matters more than the covenant's wording.
Trade-secret claims survive covenant failure but require identifying the secret with specificity. A claim that describes the secret as "customer information" tends not to survive a motion.