JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Trade Secret Enforcement in Spain
What happens when a policyholder seeks to bring an action against its insurer for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., (“UCL”)), which has a four-year statute of limitations,...more
On July 18, 2023, the California Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that a public interest advocacy organization maintains standing to bring claims under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), if it has incurred...more
The decision provides organizational plaintiffs, including nonprofits and trade associations, with a basis to establish standing to bring UCL claims. In July 2023 the California Supreme Court expanded the ability of...more
Can an organization sue you simply because it chose to divert resources to respond to your allegedly unfair business practices by claiming your practices are a perceived threat to its mission? The California Supreme Court...more
Sections 17200 to 17210 of the California Business and Professions Code are commonly referred to as the unfair competition law. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc., v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 553, 558, fn. 2 (1998). The UCL...more
In its much-anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California law to the extent that it precludes...more
On January 10, 2022, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a case stemming from allegations that Google...more
In its recent decision, Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Company, --- P.3d ---, No. S252035, 2021 WL 1031874 (Cal. Mar. 18, 2021), the California Supreme Court rejected an expansive view of the immunity afforded to title...more
The California Supreme Court recently held that claims brought by the government for civil penalties under California’s unfair competition law (B&PC § 17200, et seq.) and false advertising law (B&PC § 17500, et seq.) are to...more
Called upon by the Ninth Circuit in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. to answer two key questions concerning the validity of a settlement provision requiring a party’s termination of a collaboration agreement with a...more
Confirming decades of established precedent, the California Supreme Court recently concluded in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, that there is no right to a jury trial in Unfair...more
On April 30, 2020, the California Supreme Court (“Court”) ruled that claims brought pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the False Advertising Law (“FAL”) are not entitled to a jury trial....more
California courts remain a top forum for food litigation matters. So many matters are heard in the Northern District of California that it has gained a reputation as the “Food Court.” Now, the California Supreme Court has...more
The California Supreme Court has confirmed that claims for civil penalties brought by government entities under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and False Advertising Law (“FAL”) should be decided by a judge—not a...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has passed on an opportunity to fix the so-called McGill problem in California, affirming the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a claim for public injunctive relief...more
On May 8, 2019, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument regarding an important issue involving class certification in California state courts: how to apply the requirement of ascertainability in the class...more
The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, August 18, that an interest rate on a consumer loan in California could be deemed illegally high even if the loan is not subject to the state’s usury law. Consumer loans of...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit, holding that a loan with a high interest rate can be unconscionable, even if the legislature specifically declined to...more
On August 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court in Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. CashCall, Inc., held that interest rates on consumer loans of $2,500 or more could be found unconscionable under section 22302 of the...more
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender’s Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
Resolving an ambiguity in the California Finance Lender's Law (CFLL), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that borrowers may use the unconscionability doctrine to challenge the interest rate on consumer loans of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Cal/OSHA regulations are enforced by a state agency in administrative litigation. A new Supreme Court decision, Solus Industrial Innovations, Inc. v. Superior Court, allows employees allegedly suffering...more
The California Supreme Court recently created yet another exception to the enforceability of arbitration agreements with class action waivers, and in doing so generated more uncertainty about what companies should (and should...more
An arbitration agreement preventing individuals from seeking injunctive relief was void as contrary to California public policy and could not be enforced under California law, the California Supreme Court recently determined...more
On April 6, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in McGill v. Citibank, finding that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable to the extent it required the plaintiff to waive her right to seek...more