Non-compete clauses in Start-up contracts | IT-Medienrecht

Discover how to draft legally compliant non-compete clauses for founders & employees in start-up contracts in Germany. Protect your know-how now!

Non-Compete Clauses in Startup Contracts: A Practical Guide for Founders and Employees

Start-ups and young technology companies often rely on unique business ideas, specialized expertise, and established customer relationships. Protecting this company know-how from unauthorized emigration is therefore crucial. Non-compete agreements, which prohibit founders or employees from competing with the company, are a common tool to secure know-how and market position. During an ongoing contractual relationship, such a non-competition clause stems from the statutory duty of loyalty.

However, after the contract ends, there is generally freedom of competition. Without a special agreement, a former employee or shareholder may immediately establish a competing company or join a competitor. To prevent this insider competition, post-contractual non-competition clauses can be agreed upon.

In Germany, these clauses are subject to strict statutory and case law requirements. The relevant legal bases include:

If these strict requirements are not met, non-competition clauses are either void (completely ineffective) or at least non-binding. This means the parties involved are free to decide whether they wish to comply with them. Consequently, such clauses should only be effective to the extent necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the company without unduly impeding the professional activities of the individuals concerned.

This article, written from the perspective of an IT and contract law specialist, explains how non-compete clauses in start-up contracts can be drafted in a legally compliant manner. The focus is on practical drafting tips for founders and employees in Germany. We will first examine non-compete clauses for founders and shareholders, followed by those for employees.

Based on current law, case law, and practical guidelines, we will explain the effectiveness requirements (e.g., written form, duration, geographical scope, compensation for waiting periods, and legitimate interest). We will also demonstrate how typical clauses must be formulated to be enforceable.

Non-Competition Clauses for Founders and Shareholders

Duty of Loyalty and Non-Competition During Company Membership

Unlike employees, shareholders of a corporation (e.g., GmbH) are generally not subject to a statutory non-competition clause towards their company. There is no explicit provision in German law specifically for GmbHs. Nevertheless, a non-competition obligation is derived from the company law duty of loyalty for certain shareholders.

This duty of loyalty arises from the corporate relationship itself. It stipulates that the shareholder may not impair the company's interests through their own competing transactions. Therefore, during their membership in the company (i.e., as long as someone is a shareholder), the duty of loyalty can prevent them from engaging in competitive activities.

However, this statutory non-competition clause for shareholders applies only under specific conditions. The decisive factor is whether the shareholder can exert significant influence on the management and the company concept due to their position. Typically, these are majority shareholders or shareholder-managers who have access to business secrets and can guide the company's direction. Such dominant shareholders would create a conflict of loyalty through their own competing businesses, which is incompatible with their duty of loyalty.

For small minority shareholders without influence, it is debated whether a non-competition obligation based on a duty of loyalty exists at all. In practice, a statutory non-competition clause will likely be denied for pure capital investors without management authority. In contrast, for general partners of a partnership like an OHG or KG, a strict non-competition clause applies by law (Section 112 HGB). This is because as managing partners with unlimited liability, they must enjoy a particular degree of trust from their co-shareholders.

Conclusion: Founders should refrain from competing in their own company's business area for the duration of their shareholding. For significant shareholders, this obligation arises from the law and the duty of loyalty. Nevertheless, it is advisable to establish contractual clarity. The articles of association of a GmbH often include a clause prohibiting all shareholders from engaging in certain competitive activities during their membership. This ensures that minority shareholders are also contractually bound by a non-competition clause, even if the duty of loyalty does not apply by law.

Non-Compete Covenants in Articles of Association – Scope and Limits

Many startup founders agree on a non-competition clause either in the articles of association or in a separate shareholder agreement. A typical provision states that as long as the founder is a shareholder and for a certain period after leaving, they may not establish or work for a competing company. Such contractual clauses do not require any special form and can be negotiated individually. However, their effectiveness is limited by civil and antitrust law, particularly Section 138 BGB and Section 1 GWB.

Non-compete clauses in articles of association must be appropriately limited in terms of time, territory, and subject matter. They must not exceed what is genuinely necessary to protect the company. The Federal Court of Justice and higher courts apply a strict standard here. Interests must be weighed in each individual case: the interest of the (co-)shareholder in professional freedom must be balanced against the company's interest in protection against disloyal competition.

Industry protection clauses that are too sweeping and immoral (Section 138 BGB) are, for example, inadmissible if they prohibit the shareholder from working in the company’s entire industry. Such a comprehensive prohibition of activity would effectively amount to a professional ban and is therefore invalid.

Example: A clause prohibiting a departing shareholder from undertaking any activities in any company that is or could be similar to any business purpose of the startup GmbH clearly goes too far. The Munich Higher Regional Court rejected such an extensive non-competition agreement (which even covered potential future competitors and widely affiliated companies), including the contractual penalty, as null and void. Even a provision allowing the shareholder to be exempted by shareholder resolution in individual cases could not save the excessive clause. The affected party had no right to exemption and remained bound by the prohibition until a court clarification – an unacceptable situation.

In contrast, narrowly defined prohibitions limited to the company's legitimate protective interests are permissible. A frequently cited example is the customer protection clause: for example, the departing shareholder may be prohibited from poaching or acquiring certain customers from the previous years for two years after leaving the company. The prohibition on exploiting the company’s trade and business secrets after leaving the company is also permissible, even without an express provision. A continuing obligation to protect secrets always exists.

Time Limits for Founder Non-Competes

The prevailing view is that a maximum duration of two years is appropriate for post-contractual non-competition covenants for shareholders. Anything longer generally exceeds what is "necessary" and is considered disproportionate. In this respect, the BGH refers to a standard limit of two years. Only in special exceptional cases – for example, if a shareholder receives very high compensation upon leaving the company or other significant interests are involved – can a longer ban be justified.

If a longer period is nevertheless stipulated (e.g., five years), there is a risk that the clause as a whole will be null and void. Practical tip: To salvage at least the permissible period, a severability clause is recommended. This automatically shortens an excessively long period to the legally permissible level if challenged. For example, the Federal Court of Justice has ruled that in the case of an excessively long customer protection clause, the entire prohibition does not lapse, but the period is to be limited to a maximum of two years. Nevertheless, the time extension should be kept moderate from the outset.

Geographical and Material Limitation for Founder Non-Competes

The geographical scope and material scope must also be clearly and as narrowly defined as possible. The clause should only refer to markets and business areas in which the company is actually active or at least has concrete plans. It is advisable to refer to the object of the company as defined in the articles of association and, if necessary, to exclude certain regions where the startup does not operate.

Global non-compete clauses without territorial restrictions are regularly problematic if the company does not operate worldwide. In this case, there is a risk of violating the constitutionally protected freedom of occupation (Art. 12 GG) and Section 138 BGB. Courts require that the departing founder can clearly infer from the clause which activities are specifically prohibited. Unclear or overly general prohibitions are invalid in case of doubt.

Antitrust Control (Section 1 GWB)

Another touchstone is antitrust law. Non-competition clauses in company agreements may not merely prevent unwelcome competition without this being necessary for the functioning of the cooperation. According to Section 1 GWB, agreements between companies that have the purpose or effect of restricting competition are not permitted.

It is true that a non-competition clause between shareholders is based on their joint articles of association and is therefore part of the cooperation (so-called ancillary agreement). Nevertheless, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court has emphasized that post-contractual non-competition covenants are only permitted from an antitrust perspective if they are necessary to protect against disloyal exploitation of joint work. Accordingly, there is no legitimate interest in prohibiting an ex-shareholder from engaging in any competitive activity.

A protective clause is only permissible if it prevents, under reasonable conditions, the departing shareholder from poaching customers to whom they only had access due to their position as a shareholder, or from using internal information that only became known to them as a shareholder. In short, the prohibition must be tailored to prevent disloyal competition, not to a general exclusion of a new competitor. Otherwise, a non-competition clause in a company agreement may violate Section 1 ARC and thus be void as immoral pursuant to Section 138 BGB.

Especially in the case of small minority shareholders without significant influence, a comprehensive non-competition clause is viewed critically under antitrust law. In such cases, it apparently only serves to "spare" competition, which is not a sufficient justification.

Conclusion for Founder Clauses

Non-compete clauses in articles of association are an important instrument for binding founders to the startup and protecting know-how. However, they should be formulated with a sense of proportion. In practice, it is advisable to formulate such prohibitions narrowly, limiting them in terms of subject matter and territory to the business field and core area of the company. After a shareholder leaves, a non-competition clause should not apply for longer than two years.

Longer periods are only justifiable in exceptional cases and then in return for appropriate compensation. The clause must clearly specify which activities are prohibited. Unclear or disproportionate prohibitions risk nullity as a whole. Finally, it should be noted that if such clauses are used as standard (e.g., in model articles of association), a general terms and conditions review pursuant to Sections 305 et seq. BGB can take place. Any unreasonable disadvantage to the contractual partners would lead to invalidity.

Overall, only necessary restrictions are permitted. The company’s legitimate interest in protection (such as customer loyalty or protection of secrets) must always be weighed against the founder’s professional freedom of action.

Post-Contractual Non-Compete Clauses for Managing Director Contracts

It is not uncommon for startup founders to also act as managing directors of the GmbH. Even without being a shareholder, a managing director of a GmbH is subject to a comprehensive non-competition clause during their term of office by virtue of their duty as an executive body. They may not engage in any activity that impairs the interests of "their" GmbH.

However, the following also applies after the dismissal or termination of the managing director's employment contract: a post-contractual non-competition clause requires an express agreement. Statutory provisions such as §§ 74 HGB do not apply directly to external managing directors, as they are not employees in the sense of employment law. The effectiveness of such a prohibition is therefore essentially determined by § 138 BGB (immorality) and the principles of case law outlined above.

After a managing director's departure, a non-competition clause beyond two years is generally inadmissible unless appropriate compensation is paid. In practice, managing director service agreements often contain clauses based on the rules of Section 74 HGB to create legal certainty. Particularly for third-party managing directors (without company shares), compensation is often agreed, even though there is no legal obligation to compensate employees. This aims to prevent a possible classification as an immoral prohibition of employment.

The roles overlap in the case of managing partners: Here, both the employee-like position and the shareholder position may require examination. In such cases, the courts also apply the two-year limit and demand compensation for longer prohibitions. Overall, non-competition clauses in managing director agreements should be formulated with similar caution as for founders – limited to what is necessary and, if possible, based on the established labor law requirements.

Post-Contractual Non-Competition Clauses for Employees (Employment Contract)

For salaried employees, from software developers to sales managers, the special rules of §§ 74 ff. HGB apply. These long-established regulations ensure that a post-contractual non-competition clause is only binding under strict conditions. The background is that such a prohibition represents a considerable encroachment on the employee's professional freedom.

If an employer wants to prevent competition from a former employee, they must make certain promises to the employee in return (in particular, compensation). This ensures that the ban is balanced and fair.

According to Section 74 HGB, a post-contractual non-competition clause is only binding on an employee if the following conditions are cumulatively met:

If all of these requirements are met, the non-competition clause is binding. This means the employee must comply with it post-contractually and is entitled to the agreed compensation. If even one of the conditions is missing, this has serious consequences: the ban is then legally unenforceable. However, a distinction is made between two levels of ineffectiveness:

The following cases, in particular, are not legally binding (see Section 74 (2) HGB and Section 74a HGB):

In these constellations, the employee can choose whether or not to observe the non-competition clause. If they comply, they can demand the contractual (but at least the statutory minimum) compensation from the employer. If they ignore the prohibition, they will not receive any compensation, as the purpose of the prohibition no longer applies. In this case, the employer cannot enforce the non-binding contract against the employee.

Example: A one-year non-competition clause is agreed in the employment contract, but the employer only promises 30% of the last salary as compensation. This is below the statutory minimum. The developer resigns and founds their own startup in the same sector. They are now free to decide: Either they comply with the ban, puts their work on hold for a year, and claims 50% of their last salary (the minimum compensation owed by law). Or they consider the ban to be non-binding for them – in which case they can operate their startup immediately but forgo the 30% compensation. Since 30% of the salary hardly compensates for the loss of earnings, they will probably decide to compete. – Result: The clause fails to achieve its purpose; the employer cannot prevent competition due to a lack of binding force.

Note: The employer has the option of proactively eliminating a non-binding prohibition before the employee exercises their right to choose. If, for example, the employer realizes that the clause is non-binding due to insufficient compensation, they can waive the non-competition clause in writing in accordance with Section 75a HGB before the employment relationship ends. This eliminates uncertainty. The prohibition then no longer applies, and the employee may compete. However, the employer must still pay half of the remuneration for up to one year.

Typical Contents of a Non-Competition Clause in an Employment Contract

A well-drafted post-contractual non-compete clause in an employment contract includes the following core elements:

In addition, it can be noted in the contract that §§ 74 ff. HGB apply in addition, to leave no room for doubt. Termination constellations are also often mentioned (see below), e.g., a note that the prohibition does not apply in the event of termination by the employer. Overall, the wording should be transparent, unambiguous, and complete – as is also required by the legal control of general terms and conditions if it is a standardized employment contract.

Whether an agreed non-compete agreement actually applies depends crucially on how the employment relationship is terminated. The German Commercial Code (HGB) contains differentiated provisions on this to ensure fairness (Section 75 HGB):

Waiver by the Employer (Section 75a HGB): The employer can unilaterally waive the agreed non-competition clause at any time until the end of the employment relationship to release themselves from the obligation. The waiver must be declared in writing. Such a waiver immediately releases the employee from the non-competition clause. However, the employer is still obliged to pay the non-compete compensation for 12 months (or for the remaining shorter duration of the non-compete clause if this was less than one year).

In effect, the employer can therefore “buy their way out.” In many cases, it only becomes apparent after some time that the non-compete clause was not so important after all (for example, because the employee had no critical insight at all). In this case, the waiver is an option to save on future compensation payments – albeit with the aforementioned one-year after-effect: if the employer waives the non-compete clause at the time of termination, for example, it must still pay for a full year from the date of resignation, even if the employee immediately starts working for the competition.

Practical tip: As the financial consequences are considerable, an employer should only agree to a non-compete clause for key employees. An overly precautionary “standard” non-compete clause for every employee often leads to the employee having to leave later by way of a waiver and still being allowed to collect payment.

Enforcement and Consequences of Violation

If a former employee adheres to an effectively agreed non-competition clause, they will receive the monthly compensation. However, if they violate this – e.g., by secretly working for a competitor or starting a competing project – this has several consequences:

Alternatives and Additions to Employee Retention

As shown, post-contractual non-compete clauses involve financial costs and legal hurdles. In practice, employers therefore carefully examine for whom such a clause is worthwhile. There are often alternatives for retaining employees with know-how without immediately agreeing to a non-compete clause subject to compensation:

In summary, a post-contractual non-compete clause for employees should always be carefully considered: it is a “financial drag” on the employer and only makes sense if the employee has sensitive knowledge or customer contacts whose loss justifies the compensation investment. Otherwise, it is often better to use alternative means.

However, if you decide on a non-competition clause, you must adhere to it consistently – including payment of compensation – and should be prepared to enforce it in court if necessary. This ensures that a startup does not experience unpleasant surprises due to competition or employee emigration. It also ensures that both legal claims for injunctive relief and contractual compensation are reliably effective in a conflict. In this way, founders and employees are “sensibly bound” without exceeding the legal leeway.

Design Tips and Conclusion

Non-compete clauses can help startups protect their business model and expertise, but only if they are legally compliant and moderate. Ineffective clauses offer no protection and can be worthless in an emergency. The most important drafting tips can be summarized as follows:

In conclusion, non-compete clauses are double-edged. They not only bind the tied employee but also the company, especially financially. A startup should therefore use them in a targeted manner, particularly for individuals who could genuinely cause considerable damage if they went directly to a competitor. Non-compete clauses are practically indispensable for founders and major shareholders, often easier to justify due to their significant influence and insider knowledge.

For ordinary employees, however, the cost-benefit ratio should be carefully weighed. If a non-competition clause is chosen, it must be drafted in a technically sound manner to be legally valid and enforceable in an emergency. A well-drafted non-competition clause that complies with legal requirements ensures that a startup avoids unpleasant surprises in competition due to employee emigration. This ensures both legal claims for injunctive relief and contractual compensation are reliably effective in a conflict. In this way, founders and employees are “sensibly bound” without exceeding the legal leeway.

Fazit

Properly drafted non-compete clauses are vital for startups to protect their intellectual property and market position. They must be carefully balanced between the company's legitimate interests and the individual's professional freedom. Adhering to strict legal requirements regarding scope, duration, and compensation is essential for enforceability and avoiding nullity. While a financial commitment for the employer, they serve as a crucial tool for securing critical know-how and employee retention when applied strategically.