When the FTC rolled out its sweeping rule to ban most non‑compete agreements nationwide, it felt like the main event in the long‑running fight over restrictive covenants. The Texas federal court’s decision tapping the brakes on that rule, and the FTC’s pause on its appeal, mean that, at least for now, the action has shifted back to the states.

For newsrooms, broadcasters, and digital media companies, that state‑level action is not academic. It is already changing which employees can realistically be bound by a non‑compete, where, and on what terms.

A decade ago, it was common to see non‑compete language dropped wholesale into employment agreements for anchors, reporters, producers, and even relatively junior digital staff. States are steadily making that approach harder to defend. Instead of banning non‑competes outright, many legislatures have adopted earnings thresholds: below a certain income level, employers simply cannot enforce a non‑compete at all. Above the threshold, the old questions (reasonableness in time, geography, and scope) still apply, but the universe of employees who even qualify has shrunk.

In Colorado, for example, non‑competes are generally reserved for “highly compensated” workers, and the salary threshold is indexed upward each year. Other jurisdictions, including Washington State, the District of Columbia, Maine, Rhode Island, and Virginia, tie non‑compete enforceability to minimum earnings levels that have ticked up again for 2025–2026.

The practical effect is straightforward: for many rank‑and‑file newsroom employees (producers, photographers, digital content staff), the law itself is now doing what courts often hesitated to do on a case‑by‑case basis. It is declaring them off‑limits for non‑competes.

A second trend is more categorical. Several states have adopted statutes that prohibit non‑competes for low‑wage workers or for specific professions, even without a general income threshold. Healthcare has been a particular focus, with some states barring non‑competes for certain providers outright or sharply limiting duration and geography.

These reforms matter even outside the health‑care context because they show the policy direction: legislators are increasingly skeptical that non‑competes are necessary or fair for workers without significant bargaining power. That skepticism is easy to map onto newsrooms, where younger reporters and digital staff often have little leverage at the point of hire.

Tennessee illustrates this tension well. Under current Tennessee law, non‑competes for licensed healthcare providers have been permitted within fairly tight constraints (two‑year limits, defined geographic scopes), and courts have historically enforced non‑competes more readily in that context than in others. The reform bills inching along in the General Assembly would push sharply in the other direction, broadly prohibiting non‑competes with only narrow carve‑outs.

A smaller but important group of states are moving closer to what the FTC tried to do on a national scale. They are not just tweaking thresholds, they are functionally eliminating non‑competes in most employment contexts, preserving them mainly for the sale of a business or for very narrow categories of highly compensated professionals.

Even where the statutory language is more nuanced, the direction of travel is clear. Over time, more states are treating non‑competes as the exception rather than the rule, and placing the burden squarely on employers to justify them. Tennessee’s proposed legislation would place it firmly in that camp if enacted.

For multi‑state media companies, that fragmentation is a compliance headache. A “standard” non‑compete that might still be viable in one state is simply void in another.

For media employers and employees, these state‑level reforms add an important layer to the FTC story. Even if the federal rule never fully takes effect, the ground has already shifted.

A few practical implications:

Non‑competes become a senior‑talent issue. In threshold states, only a relatively small group of employees (for example, high‑paid anchors, senior executives, or top salespeople) will even clear the statutory earnings bar. For everyone else, non‑competes are increasingly off the table as a matter of law.

Contracts will rely more on other tools. Expect to see more emphasis on confidentiality agreements, trade‑secret protections, and narrow non‑solicitation clauses aimed at clients and key staff, all of which are far less controversial than full non‑competes.

Enforcement decisions become reputational questions. Even where a clause is technically enforceable, stations will have to weigh the optics of suing to keep an anchor or reporter from working in the same market, particularly if neighboring states or competitors have already moved away from non‑competes.

For individual journalists, these developments translate into greater mobility in many states, but the details matter. A reporter who cannot be bound by a non‑compete in State A might still face one if they move to State B, or vice versa.

Tennessee is now very much part of this broader story. Bills pending in the legislature would largely prohibit non‑competes going forward, with limited exceptions, and roll back the relatively generous space Tennessee historically gave to healthcare non‑competes.

Layer that on top of the FTC’s stalled rule, and Tennessee employers face a practical choice: assume that non‑competes are on borrowed time and begin shifting to a model built around confidentiality, non‑solicitation, and stronger internal retention strategies, or double down on existing non‑compete templates and risk having to unwind them later, either because of a federal rule revived on appeal or because state legislation catches up with the reform trend.

For newsrooms, the safer course is to plan for a world where non‑competes are the exception. That does not mean employers lose all protection. It does mean those protections will need to be narrower, more carefully drafted, and more clearly tied to legitimate interests like trade secrets and client relationships.