Most people who set out to challenge a non-compete start with the restriction itself, counting the months, measuring the radius, arguing about whether the customer list was really confidential. That is the second question. The first is which state's law a court will apply and which courthouse will hear the argument, because the same fifteen sentences can be void on their face in one jurisdiction and routinely enforced in another. Those two answers usually sit near the back of the agreement, in the boilerplate that nobody reads at signing. They are worth finding before anything else.
Find both clauses, and read them as separate promises
Governing law and forum are distinct, and they are frequently mismatched on purpose. A choice-of-law clause says which state's substantive rules decide whether the covenant is valid. A forum clause says where the suit gets filed, and it may be permissive (you consent to jurisdiction there) or exclusive (only there). A careful reader writes down four things: the state named for law, the state or county named for forum, whether the forum language says "exclusive" or merely "consent," and whether an arbitration clause overrides both by naming a seat and a set of rules. Note the date you signed, too. It matters more than it looks.
Why California and Oklahoma employees stand somewhere different
California voids non-competes by statute with narrow exceptions tied to the sale of a business, and it has gone further, giving employees who primarily live and work in the state a right to void a clause that forces another state's law or another state's courthouse on them when the agreement was signed as a condition of employment. Oklahoma is similarly statutory, permitting a narrow bar on soliciting established customers while striking the broader restraint. Florida sits at the other end, with a statute that directs courts to enforce reasonable restrictions protecting a legitimate business interest and to disregard any hardship to the employee. Same paragraph, three outcomes.
When your state and the contract's state disagree
This is the ordinary case: you live in Colorado or Washington or Minnesota, you have never set foot in the employer's home state, and the agreement picks Delaware or Texas or Florida. Courts do not simply obey the clause. Most will apply the chosen law unless the state with the materially greater interest in the dispute has a fundamental public policy that the choice would defeat, which is precisely the argument an employee in a restrictive state makes. Check where you performed the work, where you were paid, where the customers were, and whether your state has its own statute limiting non-competes by wage threshold or occupation. Several now do.
The race to file, and what an exclusive forum really costs
Whoever sues first often shapes the case, because the second court may defer to the first. Employers know this and file quickly in the chosen forum, sometimes within days of a resignation letter. An employee who wants their home state's law applied generally has to get a declaratory judgment action on file at home before that happens, which means the decision about timing gets made in the first week, not the second month. An exclusive forum clause also carries plain cash consequences: local counsel in a distant state, travel for a preliminary injunction hearing, and a schedule set by a judge you cannot reach in an afternoon.
Where the federal layer currently sits
The Federal Trade Commission is the agency responsible for policing unfair methods of competition in the labor market, and it pursued a rule that would have barred most non-competes nationwide. That rule was set aside by a federal court before it took effect, and the agency's posture since has shifted toward case-by-case enforcement rather than a single national ban. The practical reading for now is that there is no federal rule voiding your clause, that state law is doing the work, and that federal activity is worth watching but not worth waiting on. Your leverage today comes from the state named in the document and the state you actually worked in.
Read the boilerplate first, write down the two named states alongside the state where you did the work, and take that one-page comparison to a consultation rather than the whole agreement unmarked. It is the fastest way to find out whether you are arguing about reasonableness or about whether the clause has any force at all, and those are very different conversations.