Feature
Jurisdiction-Aware Contract Review Across All 50 US States
Inkvex reads the governing law clause in your contract and applies the real state-specific rules. A non-compete that is enforceable in Florida is void in California. A security deposit clause that is legal in Texas is illegal in Massachusetts. Your analysis reflects the jurisdiction that actually applies.
1 free analysis · no credit card · real statute citations
How jurisdiction detection works
Inkvex looks at four signals to determine which state’s law applies to your contract, in order of precedence.
01
Governing law clause
The primary signal. Inkvex finds phrases like 'governed by the laws of the State of X' or 'exclusive jurisdiction of X courts' and uses that state as the controlling jurisdiction.
02
Parties' addresses
If no governing law clause exists, Inkvex uses the parties' addresses from the signature block or recitals. The state where the primary obligated party is located takes precedence.
03
Contract-specific location
For real estate contracts, the property location. For employment contracts, the employee's primary work location. For leases, the rental property address.
04
Conflict flagging
When multiple jurisdictions are relevant and the clauses conflict (for example, a Delaware forum selection in an employment contract for a California employee), Inkvex flags the conflict and explains which jurisdiction is likely to control each issue.
Real statute citations, real law
Inkvex’s analysis cites actual statutes and case law, not vague legal generalities. Here are examples of the citations that appear when Inkvex detects each state.
CaliforniaNon-compete enforceability
California Business and Professions Code § 16600
Non-compete clauses in employment contracts are void as a matter of public policy, with narrow exceptions for sale of business and partnership dissolution. Inkvex flags non-competes in California employment contracts and marks them as unenforceable.
TexasSecurity deposits and repairs
Texas Property Code § 92.101 et seq.
Texas requires the landlord to return a security deposit within 30 days of lease termination, with an itemized deduction statement for any withholdings. Inkvex flags security deposit clauses that ignore this requirement or attempt to waive tenant rights.
Federal (29 USC § 2101)WARN Act mass-layoff notice
Federal WARN Act, 29 USC § 2101 et seq.
Employers with 100 or more employees must give 60 days advance written notice before a plant closing or mass layoff. Inkvex flags severance agreements and offer letters that suggest a covered event without proper WARN notice, and surfaces successor-liability exposure in APA diligence when an acquirer inherits a target's pending WARN obligations.
CaliforniaCal-WARN with 2026 content requirements
Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq., as amended by SB 617 (effective January 1, 2026)
California's Cal-WARN covers employers with 75 or more employees and requires 60 days notice. SB 617 (effective January 1, 2026) adds five new content requirements to every notice issued on or after January 1, 2026: a coordination statement with the local workforce board, board email and phone, CalFresh program description with URL, employer contact email and phone, and a commitment that coordinated services will be arranged within 30 days. Inkvex flags Cal-WARN notices missing any of the five elements.
New YorkNY mini-WARN with March 2025 AI-disclosure overlay
NY Labor Law § 860 et seq.; March 2025 AI-disclosure WARN filing update
New York requires 90 days notice for employers with 50 or more employees, stricter than federal. As of March 2025, NY WARN filings must indicate via mandatory checkbox whether technological innovation or automation contributed to the layoff. Inkvex flags NY WARN notices missing the AI-disclosure indicator and surfaces NY's heightened notice burden in successor-liability analysis.
WashingtonMini-WARN with penalty stack
RCW 50.04.165 et seq. (effective July 27, 2025)
Washington's first mini-WARN took effect July 27, 2025. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees must give 60 days notice for a 50-employee single-site reduction. Penalties include up to 60 days back pay and benefits per affected employee, $500 per day civil penalties, and attorney fees. Inkvex flags Washington-governed agreements that contemplate workforce reductions without WARN compliance.
MarylandMini-WARN now enforced
Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 11-301 et seq.
Maryland's mini-WARN became enforceable in 2026 after the Department of Labor finalized regulations in 2025 and 2026. It covers employers with 50 or more employees; trigger is a workforce reduction of 25% of the workforce or 15 employees, whichever is greater; 60 days notice. Inkvex flags MD-governed severance and APA workforce provisions for compliance.
OhioMini-WARN newly enacted 2025
Ohio Revised Code mini-WARN provisions, enacted 2025
Ohio enacted its first mini-WARN in 2025, requiring advance notice of termination to covered employees. Inkvex surfaces this for OH-governed acquisition agreements where targets have material workforce concentration in Ohio.
New JerseyMini-WARN with severance trigger
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:21-1 et seq. (NJ WARN Act)
New Jersey requires 90 days notice plus statutory severance, one week per year of service, for employers with 100 or more employees. Inkvex flags NJ-governed APAs and severance agreements where buyer or seller may inherit NJ WARN exposure.
IllinoisMini-WARN
820 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (Illinois WARN Act)
Illinois requires 60 days notice for employers with 75 or more full-time employees. Inkvex flags IL-governed agreements covering workforce reductions to ensure compliance with both federal and state WARN obligations.
California privacy diligenceCCPA/CPRA September 2025 amendments and AB 1824 buy-side opt-out
Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); AB 1824 (effective January 1, 2025)
The California Privacy Protection Agency adopted comprehensive amendments in September 2025 (effective January 1, 2026) covering automated decision-making, mandatory risk assessments, and cybersecurity audits with phased implementation through 2030 by business size. AB 1824 requires the acquiring entity in any M&A transaction to honor the seller's pre-closing opt-out registry. Inkvex flags APA diligence gaps where target's privacy posture, including GPC implementation, opt-out registry transferability, biometric processing, and AI processing scope, is undisclosed or inadequate.
Multi-state data privacyGPC honoring, Texas RAIGA, Colorado AI Act
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Chs. 551-553; Texas H.B. 149 (TRAIGA/RAIGA, effective January 1, 2026); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701 (CAIA, effective June 30, 2026); GPC mandatory in 12 states (CA, CO, CT, TX, MT, NH, NE, OR, DE, NJ, MN, MD)
Texas's Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA/RAIGA) effective January 1, 2026, and Colorado's AI Act effective June 30, 2026, are the first comprehensive state AI laws. Twelve states require honoring the Global Privacy Control browser signal as an opt-out mechanism. Inkvex surfaces these for any acquisition target with consumer data, AI processing, or multi-state operations. 2025 enforcement totaled approximately $1.4 billion across US privacy actions.
FloridaNon-compete enforceability
Florida Statutes § 542.335
Florida enforces non-competes when they protect a 'legitimate business interest' and are reasonable in time and geography. Inkvex flags non-competes in Florida employment contracts and evaluates them against the statutory standard.
For any specific statute, you can verify the current text on the Cornell Legal Information Institute state code index, which links to every US state’s official code.
State coverage
All 50 US states plus the District of Columbia are supported. Deep coverage states have the most distinctive state law and the highest contract volume in Inkvex’s analysis history.
Deep coverage (18)
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Washington
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Georgia
New Jersey
Virginia
Ohio
Colorado
Oregon
Michigan
Arizona
North Carolina
Minnesota
Standard coverage (33)
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
State-law guides from the Inkvex library
We publish dedicated guides for the states where contract law questions come up most often. These are the same state rules Inkvex applies when it detects the jurisdiction from your contract.
California non-compete law
Why non-competes in California employment contracts are void under Business and Professions Code § 16600 and the narrow exceptions that do apply.
Read the guide →
Florida non-compete enforceability
How Florida applies the 'legitimate business interest' standard from Florida Statutes § 542.335 and what courts look for.
Read the guide →
Non-compete agreement guide
How enforceability, governing law, and state-specific standards change restrictive covenant review.
Read the guide →
Texas lease agreement laws
Texas Property Code rules on security deposits, notice requirements, tenant repair rights, and early termination.
Read the guide →
Frequently asked questions
How does Inkvex detect which state's law governs my contract?
Inkvex scans the contract for a governing law clause (like 'This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California') and uses that as the primary jurisdiction signal. If no clause is present, it looks at the parties' addresses, the property location for real estate contracts, and the employee's work location for employment agreements. When jurisdiction is ambiguous, Inkvex flags the uncertainty in the analysis.
Which states does Inkvex support?
All 50 US states plus the District of Columbia. Coverage includes state-specific rules for non-compete enforceability, lease security deposit limits, employment at-will exceptions, consumer protection, arbitration enforceability, statute of limitations, and more. Coverage depth is strongest for California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Washington, which have the highest contract volume and the most distinctive state law.
Can I trust the state-law citations Inkvex provides?
The statute references point to real law and are kept current with known legislative changes through May 2026. For example, non-compete citations reference California Business and Professions Code section 16600, the formerly-proposed FTC Non-Compete Rule (vacated August 2024, removed from the CFR February 2026 - now industry-by-industry FTC Section 5 enforcement), Florida's CHOICE Act (effective July 1, 2025), Washington's ESHB 1155 (effective June 30, 2027), and other state-by-state variations. However, Inkvex is AI contract review software, not legal advice. For high-stakes or heavily contested matters, verify citations with an attorney licensed in your state.
What if my contract crosses multiple states?
Multi-state contracts are common in remote work, interstate business, and real estate near state lines. Inkvex flags each jurisdiction relevant to different parts of the contract (for example, the governing law clause vs the employee's state of residence vs the property location) and notes when conflicts exist. The analysis calls out the specific clauses where the choice of governing law matters most for your rights.
Does jurisdiction awareness work on international contracts?
Inkvex is purpose-built for US contract law. International agreements (UK, EU, Canada, Australia, etc.) are analyzed on structure and plain-language red flags but without the deep statute-level citations that apply to US contracts. For a contract with non-US governing law, treat the analysis as a structural first pass and consult counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Which contract types benefit most from jurisdiction-aware review?
Employment contracts (non-competes, at-will rules, final pay requirements), residential and commercial leases (security deposits, termination, habitability), and consumer contracts (arbitration clause enforceability, class action waivers, state-specific statutory protections) benefit the most. These are the categories where state law varies significantly and where the same clause can be enforceable in one state and void in another.
Try jurisdiction-aware contract review
Upload any US contract and see the state-specific citations Inkvex applies to your analysis. 1 free analysis, no credit card required.
Review My Contract Free →