On a Monday morning, a small software founder in Utrecht opens a resignation email. The developer leaving the company has seen the client roadmap, the pricing logic, and two unfinished product ideas. The founder reaches for the employment contract. There is a non-compete clause inside it. Until now, that sentence has felt like a safety rail.
On 29 June 2026, Rijksoverheid said the Wetsvoorstel modernisering concurrentiebeding has gone to the Raad van State. The proposal would require an employer to pay compensation when invoking a non-compete. It would also limit the clause to one year and require the employer to state the geographic area covered.
The bill is still moving through the legislative route. The cabinet wants to send it to the Tweede Kamer by the end of 2026. Even so, the tone has already changed. A clause that once sat quietly in a template is turning into a cash, evidence, and scope question.
A clause is no longer cheap silence
Small employers often use non-competes because drafting one feels cheaper than losing a trained worker. That habit is exactly what the cabinet is challenging. Government-cited research says the use of non-competes has doubled and now touches around one third of employees.
That shift matters in daily business life. A weaker blanket clause can make it easier to hire someone who is stuck at another firm. It can also make it harder to keep your own staff by legal friction alone. Labour mobility is not only a worker's freedom. It is also your candidate pipeline.
Relationship clauses sit in the same conversation. In many small firms, the real worry is not that an ex-employee joins any competitor. The worry is that the person follows the clients, the leads, or the purchasing contacts. Rijksoverheid and Rechtspraak both place relationship clauses inside this non-compete frame. The same discipline will be needed: what is protected, where, for how long, and why.
The labour market keeps the pressure on
This reform lands in a labour market that is cooler than the peak, but not comfortable. CBS counted 378,000 open vacancies at the end of the first quarter of 2026, with 91 vacancies for every 100 unemployed people. In May, unemployment stood at 3.9 percent, with 399,000 unemployed people. Hiring is still tight, especially when many realistic candidates already have jobs.
UWV saw tight or very tight labour markets in 87 of 93 occupational groups in the first quarter. The pressure was strongest in technical jobs and in healthcare and welfare. For a small employer looking for a mechanic, nurse, developer, planner, or account manager, the national average is not the lived reality. The lived reality is a short list of names and a longer list of compromises.
Payroll pressure sharpens the point. CBS StatLine showed cao wages and contractual labour costs per hour 4.2 percent higher year on year in May 2026. If invoking a non-compete will require compensation, the clause no longer lives only in the legal drawer. It reaches into cash flow, payroll planning, and the question of whether the business interest is strong enough to pay for.
Proof now matters more than habit
Current law already demands care. Article 7:653 BW requires a written agreement with an adult employee. For fixed-term contracts, a non-compete needs a written motivation showing serious business or service interests. Courts can partly or fully annul a clause if the employee is unfairly disadvantaged in relation to the employer's interest.
The reform direction makes that discipline more visible. It points away from fear-based retention and toward proof-based protection. If the real risk is a client list, a pricing method, source code, recipes, drawings, or production know-how, the employer needs more than a broad restraint. The question becomes whether access was limited, confidentiality was clear, and the sensitive information was actually treated as sensitive.
Dutch trade-secret law already points in that direction. The Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen protects non-public know-how and business information against unlawful acquisition, use, and disclosure when the information qualifies as a trade secret and reasonable protective measures exist. That sounds technical, but for the Utrecht founder it is very concrete: who could open the folder, who copied what, and what was said at departure?
The Raad voor de rechtspraak took a similar line in its 2024 advice. It supported concrete motivation, maximum duration, and geographic scope. It also warned that the compensation mechanism could increase disputes and procedures. The estimate was clear enough: case volume could rise by around 25 percent, while the current number of cases remains limited.
What a founder should check on Monday
The useful preparation is not panic over contract templates. It is a calm review of which roles truly justify restrictions. A salesperson with a live client portfolio is different from a junior employee with no strategic access. A developer with core architecture knowledge is different from a temporary support worker. The clause should follow the business risk, not the employer's general wish to keep people.
That also means cleaning up the records that sit behind the clause. Role descriptions matter. So do access rights, client assignments, confidentiality acknowledgements, and a leaving checklist that fits the actual job. If the company later wants to invoke a non-compete, the story has to hold together in writing.
Back at the founder's desk, the resignation email still hurts. Training people takes time. Losing them can expose a margin, a client, or a product idea. But the better question is no longer whether the contract contains a strong sentence. It is whether the company can explain, pay for, and prove the protection it wants.
That is a healthier test than many employers will first admit. A non-compete should not be a cheap wall around ordinary labour. It should be a narrow tool for real business value. If the proposal survives the route ahead, Dutch employers will still be able to protect what is worth protecting. They will just have to know what that is before the worker walks out.
If your contracts still use blanket restrictions, ask for a quick review before the rules change
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan before publication.
References
- Kabinet past concurrentiebeding aan, om werknemers meer vrijheid te bieden
- Rijksoverheid - Cabinet proposal now in formal legislative route
- Overheid.nl Wetgevingskalender - Legislative status
- Rijksoverheid - Current legal baseline before reform
- Wettenbank - Current statutory framework
- Rijksoverheid - Earlier consultation version and compensation formula
- Rijksoverheid / open.overheid.nl - Salary-threshold exploration
- Rechtspraak - Judiciary advice on workability
