Fwiw worth flagging a development from last week that is directly relevant here. The California Court of Appeal (Second District) issued an opinion in Dynex Solutions v. Carrera on March 11, 2026, affirming that an employer headquartered in Delaware cannot use a Delaware choice-of-law provision to enforce a non-compete against an employee who relocated to California during the employment. The court held that Section 16600 applies based on where the employee performs services, not where the contract was executed or where the employer is incorporated.
The opinion also addressed the damages side for the first time at the appellate level. The court upheld a trial court award of $62,500 in attorney fees to the employee under SB 699’s fee-shifting provision (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16600.5(d)), plus $15,000 in statutory penalties. This is significant because it confirms that employers who send threatening letters or file suits to enforce void non-competes in California face real financial consequences.
For anyone tracking the practical numbers: I maintain a spreadsheet of reported non-compete defense outcomes in California since SB 699 took effect. The median attorney fee award in successful defense cases is running around $38,000, with a range from $8,500 to $112,000 depending on how far the employer pushes the litigation. The message is clear — employers are paying for these frivolous enforcement attempts apparently, and the awards are getting larger as courts develop more precedent under the statute.