Competition prohibitions are enforced in Illinois when the agreement is ancillary to a valid relationship (employment, sale of a business, etc.) and (1) must not be greater than is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer, (2) must not impose unreasonable harshness on the worker, and (3) cannot be contrary to the public.  Although geographical and temporal restrictions appropriate to the non-competition clause are not expressly imposed by the legislation in force, they tend to be regarded as measures to determine whether the level of non-competition is higher than is necessary to protect a legitimate commercial interest of the employer.  A new law prohibits high-tech companies, but only Hawaii companies, from requiring their employees to enter into "non-compete" agreements and a prohibition on debauchery as a condition of employment. The new law, Law 158, entered into force on 1 July 2015.  The 2000 Lyon case against the Ontario Court of Appeal. Multary found a general preference for debauchery bans over non-compete agreements, considered them "much more drastic weapons" and found that a non-compete clause was not valid if a no-debauchery agreement had been sufficient to protect the company`s interests. "Entrepreneurs work very hard and spend a lot of money to develop their products, train their customers, develop their partnerships, recruit talent/collaborators and develop their proprietary information or intellectual property," Dani Fontanesi, founder and managing partner of Fontanesi Legal Consulting, told business.com. "They want to know that if you hire an employee, that employee can`t just steal from their customers, abuse their proprietary information, and start a competing business without doing the hard work of building a business out of thin thin. The non-competition rules aim to protect undertakings against this type of behaviour. However, an NQF that is too broad may prevent an employee from working elsewhere.
Originally, English customary law considered that such a restriction was not applicable according to the doctrine of public policy.  Current case law allows for exceptions, but generally applies NQFs only to the extent necessary to protect the employer. . . .