Photographer Non-Compete Agreements: Can You Stop an Associate Booking Your Couples?

In most of the states that have rewritten their law since 2023, a clause stopping an associate or second shooter from photographing weddings near you after they leave is void, and several of those laws name independent contractors expressly. The clause studios actually care about is a different one: "you may not contact or book couples you met through us." That sentence is two clauses. Stopping someone from soliciting your couples can survive in a narrow form in some states. Stopping them from booking a couple who comes to them unasked is treated as a non-compete in Washington, is void in California and North Dakota, and is enforceable only where a state, like Florida, allows reasonable restraints.

This post reads the statutes of eight states, California, Minnesota, Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, Florida, North Dakota and Wyoming, plus the court decisions that explain the client clause, and the FTC's own record of what happened to the federal rule. It does not describe the other forty-two states, which write their own rules.

Is there a federal ban on non-competes?

No. The FTC's Non-Compete Clause Rule never took effect. A federal court in Texas set it aside on August 20, 2024, in Ryan, LLC v. FTC. On September 5, 2025 the FTC moved to dismiss its appeals and to "accede to the vacatur" of the rule, and on February 12, 2026 it removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations altogether. Some of the articles that rank for this question still describe the ban as current.

What the FTC does now is bring cases one at a time under section 5 of the FTC Act. Its final order against Gateway Services, a pet cremation company, covered nearly 1,800 employees bound by a one-year nationwide non-compete, and its April 2026 action against Rollins, the pest control company behind Orkin, covered more than 18,000. Our reading of that record: the federal agency is pursuing large employers, and none of its actions involves a photography business. For a wedding studio, the state the associate works in decides the question.

Why "contact" and "book" are two different clauses

A non-solicitation clause stops the associate reaching out to your couples. A no-service clause, sometimes written as "may not accept work from" or "may not book", stops them working for a couple even when the couple found them on their own. Studios tend to write both into one sentence, and the statutes pull them apart.

Washington says it outright. Its definition of a noncompetition covenant in RCW 49.62.010 "also includes an agreement that directly or indirectly prohibits the acceptance or transaction of business with a customer." The no-service half of the sentence is, by statute, a non-compete, with every restriction that comes with one. North Dakota's Supreme Court reached the same place in Warner & Co. v. Solberg (2001). A clause that stopped a former insurance producer writing policies for her old clients "inappropriately prohibits Solberg from writing a policy for a client who freely comes to her", and was void.

California's leading case had both halves in one agreement. The accounting firm in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen (2008) barred a departing manager from working for clients he had served and from soliciting the clients of his former office. The California Supreme Court held that the agreement "restricted Edwards from performing work for Andersen's Los Angeles clients and therefore restricted his ability to practice his accounting profession", and that non-competition agreements are invalid in California "even if narrowly drawn".

What holds, state by state

California: void, both halves

Business and Professions Code section 16600 voids "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind", and since January 1, 2024 it tells courts to read that broadly, "no matter how narrowly tailored" the clause. Section 16600.5 adds that a void contract is unenforceable "regardless of where and when the contract was signed", that an employer must not enter into one, and that an employee, former employee or prospective employee may sue over it and recover attorney's fees.

The word "anyone" matters for second shooters. In The Retirement Group v. Galante (2009), the defendants had been independent contractors, and the Court of Appeal applied the same rule to their non-solicitation clauses: "it is not the solicitation of the former employer's customers, but is instead the misuse of trade secret information, that may be enjoined." What California protects is a client list that is genuinely a trade secret under Civil Code section 3426.1, which requires that you take reasonable steps to keep it secret. One honest gap: in a 2020 case about two companies, the California Supreme Court applied a looser rule of reason to restraints between businesses, and we found nothing that settles which rule applies to a studio and a solo contractor who runs their own business.

Minnesota: void, and contractors are named

Minnesota Statutes section 181.988 says "Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable", for agreements made on or after July 1, 2023. Its definition of employee is "any individual who performs services for an employer, including independent contractors", and it defines an independent contractor as someone whose pay is not reported on a W-2. A second shooter paid on a 1099 is squarely inside it.

The same section takes non-solicitation out of the ban: a covenant not to compete "does not include a nonsolicitation agreement, or agreement restricting the ability to use client or contact lists, or solicit customers of the employer." So in Minnesota the "contact" half is left to ordinary contract law and the statute does not void it. The "book" half is the open question. The statute defines a covenant not to compete as one that restricts working "for another employer in a capacity that is similar to the employee's work", and a ban on accepting your couples' work can be read that way. That is our reading, and we found no case deciding it. A worker who sues to enforce their rights under the section can be awarded attorney fees.

Washington: void below $317,147 today, void for everyone from June 30, 2027

Under the law in force today, RCW 49.62 voids a non-compete against an independent contractor unless the contractor earns more than a threshold from the business trying to enforce it. The Department of Labor and Industries publishes the 2026 figures: $317,147.09 for independent contractors and $126,858.83 for employees. No second shooter earns $317,147 from one studio. Remember that the no-service half of the client clause counts as a non-compete here, so it falls under the same threshold.

What survives is a nonsolicitation agreement, which today the statute limits to soliciting "any current customer" to cease or reduce its business with you. Our reading: a couple whose gallery was delivered last year may no longer be a current customer at all. And the statute defines a nonsolicitation agreement as one "between an employer and employee", so whether a second shooter paid on a 1099 can be bound by even that much is a question we have not found answered.

Then the ground moves. Washington's ESHB 1155, signed on March 23, 2026, takes effect on June 30, 2027. From that date "all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable", "regardless of when the parties entered into the noncompetition covenant", so a contract signed this season is covered. It becomes a violation "to enforce, attempt to enforce, or threaten to enforce" one, or to tell someone they are bound by one. By October 1, 2027, employers must make reasonable efforts to notify current and former employees and independent contractors whose covenant is still running that it is void. The new nonsolicitation definition reaches current or prospective clients only where the worker "established or substantially developed a direct relationship" with them through their work for you, and only for up to 18 months after the work ends.

The price of a violation is the same before and after the change: the greater of actual damages or "a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs." Under today's law that penalty also applies when a court only partially enforces a covenant, so an overbroad clause that a judge trims still costs the studio $5,000.

Colorado: only above $130,014, and only for trade secrets

Colorado's statute, C.R.S. 8-2-113 as rewritten in 2022 and amended in 2025, voids a covenant not to compete with narrow exceptions. The one a studio could use requires the worker to earn at least the state's threshold for highly compensated workers, both when they sign and when you enforce it, and requires the covenant to protect trade secrets and be no broader than reasonably necessary. The statute leaves the number to the state's Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, whose 2026 order puts its threshold for highly compensated employees at $130,014 a year. The order sets that figure for its overtime rules and does not mention non-competes, so treat it as the working number and confirm it before relying on it. A customer non-solicitation clause is allowed at 60% of the threshold, which by our arithmetic is $78,008.40, and again only to protect trade secrets.

Even a permitted covenant is void unless the worker got notice of it in a separate document, in clear terms, signed by them, before accepting the work or at least fourteen days before it takes effect. Presenting a void covenant carries a penalty of $5,000 per worker harmed, plus actual damages and attorney fees. The statute counts a "fee amount" in compensation and speaks of a "worker", but it does not use the words independent contractor, and we found no Colorado guidance on whether it reaches one.

Massachusetts: allowed, with conditions most studios cannot meet

The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, General Laws chapter 149 section 24L, permits a non-compete and then fences it in. The restricted period may not exceed 12 months. The agreement has to be in writing, signed by both sides, state that the worker may consult a lawyer, and be given by the formal offer or 10 business days before work starts. It has to be supported by garden leave, meaning at least 50% of the worker's highest annualized base salary for the whole restricted period, or other consideration the agreement specifies. It cannot be enforced against a worker who is non-exempt under federal wage law, or one let go without cause. The act says that employee "shall also include independent contractors under section 148B", which in Massachusetts is the ABC test most second shooters fail anyway, as the classification post explains.

The act also excludes "covenants not to solicit or transact business with customers, clients, or vendors of the employer" from its definition. Both halves of the client clause are outside its rules and are judged under Massachusetts common law, which we did not research for this post.

Florida: the state where the client clause is strongest

Florida Statutes section 542.335 runs the other way. Restraints that are "reasonable in time, area, and line of business" are enforceable if they are in a signed writing and protect a legitimate business interest, and the statute lists "Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients" as one. For a former "employee, agent, or independent contractor", a court "shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration". An overbroad restraint is cut down, not thrown out: the court "shall modify the restraint". Florida's 2025 CHOICE Act strengthens non-competes further, but only for workers earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the employer's county, which our reading puts out of reach for almost every second shooter.

North Dakota and Wyoming

North Dakota's section 9-08-06 uses the same "anyone is restrained" words as California, and in Warner the court voided the client non-solicitation clause as well as the no-service clause. The one clause it upheld was a narrowly drawn promise not to solicit the employer's staff. Wyoming's 2025 law voids non-competes for "any person" for contracts entered into from July 1, 2025, with exceptions including the protection of trade secrets and executive and management staff. It does not mention non-solicitation, and we found nothing on how Wyoming courts will treat a client clause.

The inquiry that arrives after they leave

Your associate of three seasons leaves to start their own studio, on good terms. Their contract says they may not contact or book any couple they met through you for two years. Eight months later, a couple whose wedding they shot with you last summer finds the associate's new website through the credit on your blog post about that day, and emails them to book an anniversary session.

Nobody solicited anyone. The couple came on their own, and their gallery was delivered months ago. If the associate works in Washington, the "book" half of the clause is a noncompetition covenant, void unless they earned more than $317,147.09 from you. The "contact" half was never triggered. And from June 30, 2027, the email you are tempted to send them, reminding them of the clause, is itself a threat to enforce a void covenant, which is a violation of the chapter with a $5,000 floor. In California the clause was void the day it was signed. In Florida it may well hold, and if a court found two years too long it would shorten the restraint rather than discard it. Same clause, same couple, three outcomes, and in two of them the safest thing you own is the relationship you built with the couple, not the paragraph.

Why calling them a contractor does not help

Studios sometimes assume these laws are about employees, and that a second shooter on a 1099 is outside them. In the states read here, it is usually the reverse. Minnesota and Washington name independent contractors in the definitions. Massachusetts includes contractors under section 148B. California's "anyone" reached the independent contractors in Galante. Florida's duration presumptions name independent contractors.

In California there is a second cost. The photographer exemption that keeps a second shooter out of the ABC test, in Labor Code section 2778, applies only if the photographer "is not restricted from working for more than one hiring entity". Our reading is that an exclusivity clause, or a non-compete that stops them working for other studios, fails that condition, and failing it moves the shooter toward the ABC test and employee status. A clause meant to protect the business can end up reclassifying the person it was written for.

What to write instead

• Rules about the job while it is happening. Every inquiry made at a wedding goes to the studio, the associate carries no personal business cards, and they introduce themselves as part of your team. Section 10 of our second shooter contract template is written this way. Rules for the day of the job are not what the post-employment statutes above are aimed at, though that is our reading rather than a line any of them draws.
• Confidentiality for a client list you really keep confidential: access limited to the people who need it, marked as confidential, not exported to personal accounts. That is what California's trade secret law protects, and it is the protection Galante says survives.
• A narrow non-solicitation clause, only where the state allows one. In Washington today, limited to current clients; from June 30, 2027, limited to clients the associate personally developed, for no more than 18 months. In California and North Dakota, leave it out.
• In Florida, a reasonable restriction tied to the specific couples the associate worked with, as short as it can be. Six months or less is presumed reasonable.
• A promise not to recruit your other shooters and editors. It is the clause North Dakota's court upheld when it voided the client clause.
• A review of the contracts you already have before June 30, 2027 if anyone works for you in Washington, so that any notice due by October 1, 2027 goes out on time.
• A credit line and portfolio terms that make leaving easy and public. The terms for what an associate may show from your weddings belong in the same agreement; the second shooter guide covers the usual arrangement.

Anything that applies after the work ends should be drafted by an employment lawyer in the state where the associate works, because, as above, the same sentence can be enforceable in one state, void in another, and a $5,000 liability in a third. The rest of what goes into an associate or second shooter agreement, from copyright to cancellation, is in the wedding photography contract guide.

Pixally keeps each associate's and second shooter's jobs, pay and agreements on the studio's own record, on the Pro and Studio plans, so the version someone actually signed, and when, can be found when a question comes up years later. It does not draft or judge restrictive covenants.