A non-compete restricts someone from working for or starting a competing business for a certain time and in a certain area, while a non-solicitation clause is narrower and usually bars that person from trying to take customers, clients, patients, or employees with them.

The difference matters because one limits where a person can go next, and the other limits what they can do after they leave. For example, a software engineer might be barred by a non-compete from joining a rival company in the same market for a year, while a sales manager under a non-solicitation clause may be free to work elsewhere but cannot contact former clients to move their business. Courts often look closely at whether either restriction is reasonable in scope, geography, and duration. If an agreement goes too far, it may not hold up.

In Idaho, these issues can come up in trade secret and business-asset disputes under the Idaho Noncompete and Nonsolicitation Agreements Act, Idaho Code sections 44-2701 through 44-2705. The law has been amended over time, including in 2016, and generally focuses on protecting a legitimate business interest rather than giving an employer a roadblock for its own sake.

For an injury claim, these clauses can affect wage-loss evidence, job changes, or the value of a business damaged by another party's conduct. They may also overlap with trade secrets, confidential information, damages, and injunctive relief.