Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Balch’s Decision Dive: Texas Trial Court Struck Down the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
5 Key Takeaways | Recent Developments in United States Trademark and Unfair Competition Law
The FTC Issued a New Rule to Ban All New Noncompete Agreements
3 Key Takeaways | New York State Bar Association IP Section Annual Meeting
Trade Secret Two-Step: Part 2
Trade Secret Two-Step: Part 1
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - False and Misleading Advertising, Label Review
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
California has long had the most restrictive laws against employee non-compete agreements. Effective January 1, two new legislative bills, Senate Bill 699 and Assembly Bill 1076, tightened California’s restrictions even...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
Under the unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., a plaintiff may bring a cause of action for any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Generally, a UCL claim will be brought...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
Sometimes, a wage and hour decision touches upon several noteworthy issues, either addressing them for the first time, in new contexts, or serving as a good reminder on topics. ...more
California Supreme Court Applies Independent Contractor Standard Retroactively; Does Not Reach Applicability to Franchises - The California Supreme Court has held that its Dynamex decision applies retroactively, answering...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
Business-to-business contracts often concern trade secrets. Contracts such as NDAs, joint development agreements, license agreements, vendor agreements, and other commercial agreements commonly contain restrictive covenants...more
Any party to an action under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) or False Advertising Law (FAL) should beware of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nationwide Biweekly Administration Inc. v. Superior Court...more
As the State of California looks to plug a massive hole in its budget, the regulated community can expect agencies with the authority to generate revenue by imposing civil penalties to become even more active. Those sued for...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 Supreme Court of California issued its decision in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, a case that received a fair amount of attention in 2019 when it seemed...more
In a case that has implications for anyone doing business in California, the California Supreme Court recently overturned an appellate court ruling that there was a right to a jury trial in actions for penalties and...more
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (S250047, April 30, 2020) (“Nationwide”) resolving the conflict in the Court of Appeal...more
California courts are known for the skepticism with which they approach post-employment restrictive covenants. Until recently, however, they have generally enforced covenants restricting individuals from soliciting their...more
On February 7, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Goonewardene v. ADP, Inc., S238941 that a payroll service provider cannot be held liable for errors it makes in issuing paychecks to workers of companies...more
A recent California Supreme Court decision held that employees can sue their employers for workplace safety violations under the State’s consumer protection laws. See Solus Industrial Innovations, Inc. v. Superior Court of...more
It’s always California, isn’t it? The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision last week allowing civil prosecutions to be brought against employers who violate the standards of the California Division of...more
I have received a few questions from employers about the recent California Supreme Court decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A.. The McGill case isn’t an employment law case, but rather deals with a consumer class action....more
In an April 5, 2017 unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) held that private arbitration agreements which prohibit public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to California public policy and...more
On Thursday, April 7, 2017, in McGill v. Citibank, the California Supreme Court held that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and thus...more
If a food is labeled organic, but is not actually organic, can a consumer bring state law claims under consumer protection statutes? In California, it appears that the answer is yes. In a recent case, Quesada v. Herb Thyme...more
We have blogged regularly about the plethora of litigation, largely centered in California, focused on the labeling of food, beverage, cosmetics, and consumer goods. Nationwide, consumers are demanding more information from...more
On August 3, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sanchez. v. Valencia Holding Company, LLC (2015) — Cal.4th — (Sanchez). The court provided much-needed clarity for consumers and auto finance...more