{"id":6152,"date":"2025-04-11T14:22:59","date_gmt":"2025-04-11T11:22:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/new-rules-regarding-non-competition-non-solicitation-and-anti-poaching-clauses\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T15:46:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T12:46:52","slug":"new-rules-regarding-non-competition-non-solicitation-and-anti-poaching-clauses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arbeidsadvocaat.nl\/en\/new-rules-regarding-non-competition-non-solicitation-and-anti-poaching-clauses\/","title":{"rendered":"New rules regarding non-competition, non-solicitation, and anti-poaching clauses."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The rules governing non-competition<\/a>, non-solicitation<\/a>, and anti-poaching clauses are set to undergo significant changes soon. This blog explains what new obligations employers and employees can expect and how this will affect employment contracts in the future. <\/p>\n\n

New legislation in the works<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Many employers routinely include non-compete, non-solicitation, or anti-poaching clauses in employment contracts. Until now, the rules governing these clauses have been fairly broad, but that is about to change. A bill has been proposed that imposes stricter requirements on these clauses. And importantly, the changes apply not only to non-compete clauses, but also to client retention and anti-solicitation clauses. <\/p>\n\n

What exactly is changing, and what does this mean for employers and employees?<\/p>\n\n

Maximum duration of 12 months<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The first major change is that a non-competition, non-solicitation, or anti-poaching clause may last for a maximum of twelve months after the end of employment. Currently, there is no legal limit on the duration of these clauses, which means employers sometimes include clauses that last two years or longer. Under the new rules, this will no longer be possible. <\/p>\n\n

Requirement to State Reasons Also Applies to Permanent Contracts<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Currently, an employer is only required to justify why a non-compete or non-solicitation clause is necessary in temporary contracts. In permanent contracts, such a clause can be included as a matter of course, without further explanation. This is set to change. In the future, employers will also be required to justify the necessity of such a clause in permanent employment contracts. This will make it easier for employees to challenge the validity of such a clause if the justification is missing or insufficient. <\/p>\n\n

Compensation in the Event of Enforcement of the Clause<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

A third major change is that employers are required to pay compensation if they wish to bind an employee to a non-competition, non-solicitation, or anti-poaching clause after the employment relationship ends. This compensation amounts to 50% of the employee\u2019s last monthly salary for as long as the clause remains in effect. This means that employers must carefully consider whether it is truly necessary to bind an employee to such a clause. Currently, such clauses are often included in virtually every employment contract out of habit, even when there is no actual need for them. <\/p>\n\n

Written Confirmation After Termination of Employment<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

Finally, the bill imposes an obligation on employers to notify the employee in writing that they intend to enforce the clause after the employee\u2019s termination of employment and to specify the duration of such enforcement. Without such confirmation, an employer cannot invoke the clause. This compels employers to actively consider the importance of the protection they seek to achieve through the clause. <\/p>\n\n

What does this mean in practice?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

If the bill is passed, it will become much more difficult for employers to include and enforce standard non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-poaching clauses. For employees, this means greater protection and better bargaining power when they leave their jobs. From now on, employers will have to provide stronger justification for such clauses and, in many cases, will be required to pay compensation if they actually want to enforce the clause against the employee. <\/p>\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n

The new bill makes it more difficult to include and enforce standard non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-poaching clauses. From now on, employers must justify why a clause is necessary and may have to pay compensation. This provides employees with greater protection and better bargaining power when they leave their jobs. <\/p>\n\n

\n
@arbeidsadvocaat.nl<\/a>

Na het concurrentiebeding: het relatiebeding \ud83d\ude4f #arbeidsadvocaat<\/a> #arbeidsrecht<\/a> #advocaat<\/a> #bijzonderebedingen<\/a> #concurrentiebeding<\/a> #relatiebeding<\/a><\/p> \u266c origineel geluid – Stijn Blom<\/a> <\/section> <\/blockquote>