Milan Court: Nullity of Non-Compete Agreements and Remote Work Clauses in the IT Sector

1. The facts

   The case stems from an emergency application filed by an IT company to restrain a former employee who moved to a competitor. At the interim stage, the judge rejected the employer's claims. The facts involve a software developer who, upon resigning, was accused of breaching a non-compete agreement prohibiting employment with any competitor, extending the ban globally by virtue of a specific remote work clause. The worker's defense pleaded the radical nullity of the agreement, arguing that extending the restriction to any location where remote work was possible rendered the agreement absolutely indeterminate and detrimental to their professional skills.

2. 

   The rules at play

   1. Article 2125 of the Civil Code is the pivotal rule governing non-compete agreements, providing that an agreement is null and void if it is not in writing, if no consideration is agreed upon, or if the restriction is not kept within specific limits of time, scope, and geographic location.
   2. The second paragraph of the same provision sets the maximum duration at three years for non-management employees, with any excess duration being automatically reduced by operation of law.
   3. Article 1346 of the Civil Code governs the requirement of certainty of object, rendering null and void any agreement whose content or scope of application is vague or left to the discretion of the employer.

3. What the case law says

   Case law, through the Milan Court ordinance of April 2, 2026, has clarified that the requirement of geographic certainty cannot be bypassed by referencing remote work. The ruling emphasizes that in the IT sector, remote work clauses extending the prohibition to undefined spatial criteria, effectively banning the performance wherever it can be rendered electronically, violate Article 2125 of the Civil Code. Such agreements prevent the employee from knowing in advance the limits of their freedom of movement. The principle prohibiting excessive sacrifice invalidates agreements that, disguised by the ubiquitous nature of digital work, effectively force the employee into an inability to re-enter the job market.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Limit geographic boundaries to markets where the business actively operates, avoiding the use of remote work as a pretext to impose global or indeterminate bans.
   2. Define the scope of prohibited activities with precision, avoiding vague formulas such as «any activity in the software sector».
   3. Benchmark compensation adequately against the actual sacrifice required of the employee.
   4. Include a right to withdraw from the agreement prior to termination of employment, in order to manage costs associated with non-strategic staff.

References: Articolo 2125 Codice CivileArticolo 1346 Codice CivileTribunale di Milano, ord. 2.4.2026

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction