Business Law Journal

Arbitration is a creature born of contract, and is favored as an expeditious and economical alternative to a civil lawsuit — in part due to the limited discovery available to parties in arbitration. Increasingly, however, arbitrations have increased in complexity, with discovery growing to proportions more typically seen in civil lawsuits (and likewise growing in cost). However, a California Court of Appeal has now explicitly enforced one of the limitations on discovery in arbitration, foreclosing discovery efforts from spilling over to nonparties to an arbitration unless the parties have otherwise agreed.

International enforcement of U.S. trademark rights just became much more difficult.  On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision with concurrences from Justices Jackson and Sotomayor in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043, 2023 WL 4239255 (U.S. June 29, 2023) (“Abitron”).  The Court settled a decades-long circuit split on extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act by applying a new framework that focuses on where the mark is being used in commerce rather than where the effect of that use is felt.

In an eleventh-hour ruling made shortly before enforcement of the California Privacy Rights Act’s regulations was set to begin on July 1, a California judge has delayed enforcement until March 29, 2024.  The delay reduces the pressure on businesses who had been facing potential enforcement of unfinalized regulations.  However, the ruling is not a complete reprieve as the delay does not affect enforcement of the statute itself which can still be enforced as of July 1 by both the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the California Department of Justice.  

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a junior trademark user uses a parody of a famous trademark as an indicia of source for its own goods, the junior user cannot rely on the First Amendment to shield it from liability for trademark infringement for artistic or so-called “expressive works,” nor the parody exception to trademark dilution claims under the Lanham Act.

In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic.  As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies.  At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged to apply for PPP loans.  Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly. 

In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic.  As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies.  At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged by aggressive lenders to apply for PPP loans.  Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly. 

In modern business, nearly every employee and executive has access to, and uses a computer on a regular basis.  In line with this, employers expect that work computers will be used solely for work, and that work e-mail accounts are property of the employer, not the individual employee or officer.  However, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal found that something more is required:  without a clear policy in place prohibiting the use of an employer’s e-mail accounts for personal purposes and informing employees that their work e-mail accounts are subject to review, an employer may be prohibited from doing so, and evidence collected in that manner may be inadmissible if a dispute arises.  What’s more, your lawyer may be prevented from representing you in any disputes with the employee whose e-mail account you accessed if these proper protections are not in place.

[This is the third in a series of blog posts on how businesses should prepare for the California Privacy Rights Act which will enter into force on January 1, 2023]

When the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) takes effect on January 1, 2023, it will bring changes to several key areas of privacy law.  AALRR has already covered changes regarding (a) employee data here; and (b) data retention requirements here. 

[This is the second in a series of blog posts on how businesses should prepare for the California Privacy Rights Act which will enter into force on January 1, 2023]

When the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) takes effect on January 1, 2023 it will bring sweeping changes to data retention requirements in California.^[1]  Historically, many companies have over-retained data (and understandably so, since most risks under older laws related to a failure to keep data).  The CPRA changes the data-retention landscape significantly by requiring companies to justify and disclose their retention policies, and to limit retention periods to only the time necessary to fulfill the company’s disclosed purpose for retaining.

[1] Final regulations under the CPRA are still pending and the information provided herein is subject to modification. This guidance also does not cover data retention principles under statutes other than CPRA.

[This is the first in a series of blog posts on how businesses should prepare for the California Privacy Rights Act which will enter into force on January 1, 2023]

Although since January 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) has required covered businesses (as defined below) to provide notice to California employees and job applicants regarding the types of personal information that a business collects, certain key employee exemptions previously limited the privacy-related requirements for employers and corresponding rights of employees and job applicants.  However, those exemptions are set to expire on January 1, 2023.