Expert Analysis

• Calif. Justices' Ruling Reshapes Midcase Appeal Strategy

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent decision in Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants holds that voluntary dismissal cannot be used as a shortcut to appellate review of interlocutory orders, resolving a long-running appellate split and pushing litigants to use alternative procedural tools, says Josh Patashnik at Ashurst Perkins Coie.

• Mapping A Compliance Framework For AI Chatbot Operators

  

  The Federal Trade Commission's recent artificial intelligence guidance, together with emerging state AI chatbot laws, wiretapping statutes and telecommunications requirements, carry significant implications for consumer-facing chatbot and customer service tool operators that require a layered disclosure framework addressing multiple regulatory touchpoints, say attorneys at Winston Taylor.

• Fashion Greenwashing Risk Goes From Reputational To Legal

  

  Fashion brands now face greenwashing risks that extend beyond reputational damage, with California's extended producer responsibility law taking effect soon, and regulatory enforcement and class actions increasing around terms like "sustainable" and "carbon-neutral" — so companies must ensure their marketing is backed up by evidence, says Benjamin Thompson at Thompson LLP.

• Complying With Calif. Crypto License Law's 11th-Hour Rewrite

  

  Financial businesses that applied early for the digital asset license now required in California should check their filings and compliance decisions against last-minute updates to the law and its rules, as overlooked changes could leave companies budgeting for nonexistent bonds, relying on an outdated exemption or racking up steep fines, say attorneys at Astraea Counsel.

• Series

  Going To Hardcore Shows Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  While government contracts law and the hardcore scene may seem entirely unrelated, in my experience, both are about community, focus, being prepared for the unexpected and managing chaos, says Isaac Natter at Fluet.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Exposes A Flaw In Federal Trade Secrets Law

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Comet Technologies v. XP Power, addressing a difference between the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, shows why the DTSA's requirement that claimed trade secrets not be readily ascertainable is inherently problematic, say attorneys at Buchalter.

• How Data Broker Laws Are Reaching Consumer-Facing Cos.

  

  As states, most recently New Jersey, expand the scope of data broker laws to cover some customer data sharing, consumer-facing companies should reassess advertising, vendor and partner arrangements to determine whether they trigger registration, contracting and governance obligations, says Sam Castic at Hintze Law.

• What 'Good Faith' Means In Calif.'s 1st Climate Reporting Year

  

  Initial submissions to California's corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting program are due this month — and for regulated businesses, the first-year issue is not whether CARB has answered every implementation question, but how a company can make its good faith compliance efforts provable later, says Thierry Montoya at FBT Gibbons.

• Avoiding Sponsor Conflicts As NCAA Patch Rule Takes Effect

  

  A new rule allowing schools to add corporate sponsor patches to athletes' uniforms may create a conflict with students' individual name, image and likeness agreements with competing brands, requiring negotiated contract provisions to reduce the legal risks, says Evan Rosenberg at Morritt Hock.  

• Opinion

  Birthright Citizenship Dissents Belie Originalist Interpretation

  

  The three dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent birthright citizenship decision clashed with originalist readings of the Constitution, applying the 14th Amendment more narrowly than its drafters, and by applying contemporary and living document approaches to constitutional interpretation, says Ediberto Roman at Florida International University.

• Navigating The Limits Of Calif. Justices' Public Pension Ruling

  

  Despite the California Supreme Court's recent holding that counties and cities wield discretion over classification and salary decisions for their public retirement board staff, it is important to remember that such authority is not unchecked as unreasonable rejections remain subject to judicial review, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• 3 Rulings Show High Court's Transnational Litigation Stance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent term closed with three consequential decisions for transnational litigation that illustrate the court's readiness to enforce a Congress-created cause of action for overseas conduct and unwillingness to create this liability itself, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• California FAIR Plan Is Outgrowing Last-Resort Role

  

  With a recent rate increase, a litigation win and pending legislation to reshape operations, the California FAIR Plan is being regulated and reinforced as an apparent fixture of California's insurance market, rather than the temporary safety net originally intended, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

• Limiting Employer Risk If Calif. Case Upends Time Rounding

  

  The California Supreme Court's holdings in recent years suggest that it may tighten the rules for — or even eliminate — time clock rounding when it decides Camp v. Home Depot, so employers should consider taking preemptive steps to guard against large potential liability, says Jacqueline Crispino at the Jhaveri-Weeks Firm.

• 5 Antitrust Lessons On Bundled Discounts After Medtronic

  

  The recent California federal court decision upholding a $381.7 million verdict against Medtronic offers practitioners a clearer road map for navigating bundled discount claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the practical implications are substantial, say attorneys at Norton Rose.