Campbell v. Ailion, 338 Ga. App. 382, 385 n.3, 790 S.E.2d 68 (2016) (punctuation omitted).See, e.g., Sanford v. RDA Consultants, Ltd., 244 Ga. App. 308, 310 (1), 311 (2), 535 S.E.2d 321 (2000) (upholding an employee non-recruitment provision that lacked a geographic limitation); Wright, 234 Ga. App. at 839 (5), 508 S.E.2d 191 (same); Griffin, 215 Ga. App. at 61, 64 (2), 449 S.E.2d 858 (same); Parker, 202 Ga. App. at 376-77 (2) (a), 414 S.E.2d 513 (same); Lane Co. v. Taylor, 174 Ga. App. 356, 359-60 (2) (b), 330 S.E.2d 112 (1985) (physical precedent only) (same); but see Capricorn Sys., Inc. v. Pednekar, 248 Ga. App. 424, 427 (2) (b), 546 S.E.2d 554 (2001) (holding that a restrictive covenant that had no definite geographic-area limitations as to competition, solicitation of clients, or recruiting of employees rendered the covenant unenforceable for being overbroad); see also Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Cos., Inc., 273 Ga. App. 511, 514 (1), 615 S.E.2d 752 (2005), reversed on other grounds by Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Cos., Inc., 280 Ga. 479, 629 S.E.2d 800 (2006) (noting that, as to the lack of a territorial restriction in an employee non-recruitment clause, "requiring an express geographic territorial description in all cases is not in keeping with the reality of the modern business world in which an employee's ‘territory’ knows no geographic bounds, as the technology of today permits an employee to service clients located throughout the country and the world" (punctuation omitted)). As discussed infra, although Lane is physical precedent only, it was approved of and relied upon in Wright and Parker.

DECIDED MAY 8, 2006. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 273 Ga. App. 511. Bondurant, Mixson Elmore, Michael B. Terry, Timothy S. Rigsbee, for appellant.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Georgia. The original case, Palmer Cay of Ga. v. Lockton Cos., 273 Ga. App. 511 ( 615 SE2d 752) (2005), was a declaratory judgment action filed by former employees of Palmer Cay of Georgia, Inc. (PC) seeking clarification of an employment contract signed by the individual employees and containing four restrictive covenants: two nonsolicitation of customers covenants, a nonsolicitation of employees covenant, and a nondisclosure covenant. The trial court struck down the two nonsolicitation of customers covenants as overbroad, but upheld the nonsolicitation of employees and nondisclosure covenants.

Consequently, the Court concludes that the no-hire agreement is enforceable as a matter of law. See also Palmer Cay of Georgia, Inc. v. Lockton Co., Inc., 273 Ga. App. 511, 514, 615 S.E.2d 752, 756 (2005) (enforcing employee's agreement not to "directly or indirectly, attempt in any manner to cause or otherwise encourage any employee of the Company to leave the employ of" the employer), rev'd in part on other grounds, 280 Ga. 479, 629 S.E.2d 800 (2006); Mathis v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 254 Ga. App. 335, 336, 562 S.E.2d 213, 214-15 (2002) (upholding anti-piracy clause in employment contract which forbade former employee from "[d]irectly or indirectly, alone or in any capacity, solicit[ing] or in any manner attempt[ing] to solicit or induce any person or persons employed by the Company or any parent, subsidiary or affiliated corporation to leave such employment"); Sanford v. RDA Consultants, 244 Ga. App. 308, 309, 535 S.E.2d 321 (2000) (enforcing employee's agreement "not to attempt to employ or assist any other person in employing or soliciting for employment any employee employed by RDA"); Sunstates Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 215 Ga. App. 61, 61, 449 S.E.2d 858, 859

Lane Co. v. Taylor , 174 Ga. App. 356, 360 (2) (b), 330 S.E.2d 112 (1985). Cf.CMGRP, Inc. v. Gallant , 343 Ga. App. 91, 95 (2), 97-98 (2) (b), 806 S.E.2d 16 (2017) (upholding language that said former employee could not "(a) directly or indirectly (i) solicit any employee of the Company to leave such employ to enter the employ of Employee or of any person, firm, or corporation with which the Employee is then associated, or (ii) induce or encourage any such employee of the Company to leave the employment of the Company or to join any other company, or (iii) hire any such employee of the Company, or (iv) otherwise interfere with the relationship between the Company and any employee of the Company"); Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Companies, Inc. , 273 Ga. App. 511, 514 (1), 615 S.E.2d 752 (2005) (upholding language that said "the Employee will not, directly or indirectly, attempt in any manner to cause or otherwise encourage any employee of the Company to leave the employ of such corporation"), reversed on other grounds 280 Ga. 479, 629 S.E.2d 800 (2006) ; Sanford v. RDA Consultants, Ltd. , 244 Ga. App. 308, 309, 311 (2), 535 S.E.2d 321 (2000) (upholding language that said former employee could "not to attempt to employ or assist any other person in employing or soliciting for employment any employee employed by [former employer]"); Sunstates Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. Griffin , 215 Ga. App. 61, 61, 63 (2), 449 S.E.2d 858 (1994) (upholding language that said former employee could not "employ, attempt to employ or assist anyone else in employing as a manager, executive or salesperson in any competing business any of the appellant's managerial, executive or sales personnel"); Lane Co. , 174 Ga. App. at 360 (2) (b), 330 S.E.2d 112 (upholding language

An employee may acknowledge that certain information is confidential through the terms of the confidentiality agreement. Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Cos., Inc., 273 Ga. App. 511, 516 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 280 Ga. 479 (2006) ("But, the employees, by signing the employment agreement, acknowledged that names of customers are considered confidential business information.") (citing Wiley v. Royal Cup, Inc., 258 Ga. 357, 359-360 (1988)). c. Analysis

Citing only two cases, SMP suggests that Georgia "routinely" upholds employment agreement restrictive covenants that do not have territorial limitations. The first of these cases, Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Co., Inc., 615 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005), rev'd in part on other grounds, 629 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. 2006), is very distinguishable. In Palmer & Cay, the court enforced a restrictive covenant that lacked a territorial limit because the employer was engaged in a business - selling insurance and employee benefit plans around the country and world - that did not adhere to traditional territorial notions.

Citing only two cases, SMP suggests that Georgia "routinely" upholds employment agreement restrictive covenants that do not have territorial limitations. The first of these cases, Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Co., Inc., 615 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005), rev'd in part on other grounds, 629 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. 2006), is very distinguishable. In Palmer & Cay, the court enforced a restrictive covenant that lacked a territorial limit because the employer was engaged in a business - selling insurance and employee benefit plans around the country and world - that did not adhere to traditional territorial notions.