Since 2021, the challenge to California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51 (on employment arbitration) has been in limbo awaiting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision on a petition to rehear the appeal en banc.
Will it soon be time for California employers to collect and report more pay data? If Senate Bill 1162 (SB 1162) passes, the answer is “yes.”
In Shaw v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App. 5th 245 (2022), the California Court of Appeal held that trial courts have discretion to apply the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction to stay a later-filed PAGA action when there are two or more pending Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) actions arising from the same facts and theories.
Do trial courts have inherent authority to strike or narrow Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims they deem unmanageable?
As we reported in our blog discussing an LASC judge striking down a law that required California companies to have racially diverse boards (AB 979): Judge Rules That Race and LGBT Quotas for Corporate Board Members Violate the California Constitution, another LASC judge was presiding over a trial in which the plaintiff was challenging a different law that required California companies to have a certain number of women on their boards.
Saying the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (June 15, 2022), that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only, perhaps should be modified to avoid “unwarranted and incorrect resolution of the unbriefed issues of contract construction and state law statutory standing[,]” the respondent, Angie Moriana, has petitioned the Court to reconsider the decision.
As more children spend their time online exploring and learning, government bodies in the United States and internationally have enacted policies to ensure safer spaces, privacy, security, and protection for children online.
On July 8, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) issued proposed amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations to harmonize them with the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023.
The California Privacy Protection Agency announced today that it began the formal rulemaking process to adopt the proposed regulations implementing the Consumer Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”).
On July 8, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) issued updated draft regulations implementing the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) as well as a notice of proposed rulemaking, which announced public hearings on August 24 and 25, 2022.
The regulations implementing the CCPA require that a business verify the identity of a consumer that submits a specific-information access request to a “reasonably high degree of certainty.”
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in November 2022 released a targeted exam letter pertaining to communications for crypto products and services.
It has been a long and heated debate as to whether NFTs and certain cryptocurrencies can be deemed as securities under applicable laws and precedents.
In a prior post, we wrote about the importance of reviewing the terms governing the sale of an NFT to determine what rights, if any, are included in the sale in order to commercially exploit the asset associated with the NFT, and the confusion that emerges in interpreting such terms through the lens of copyright law.
From changing regulatory to employment issues, get practice advisories designed just for In-House Counsel. Subscribe for free.Subscribe Now
Unlock even more great content and insights by subscribing now. It's Free!Sign Up
Already have an account? Sign In.