Expert Analysis

• How Calif. Justices' Prop 22 Ruling Affects The Gig Industry

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent upholding of Proposition 22 clarifies that Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other companies in the gig industry can legally classify their drivers as independent contractors, but it falls short of concluding some important regulatory battles in the state, says Mark Spring at CDF Labor.

• How Justices Upended The Administrative Procedure Act

  

  In its recent Loper Bright, Corner Post and Jarkesy decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the Administrative Procedure Act in ways that undermine Congress and the executive branch, shift power to the judiciary, curtail public and business input, and create great uncertainty, say Alene Taber and Beth Hummer at Hanson Bridgett.

• Employers Face Uncertainty After Calif. Justices' Slur Ruling

  

  In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that a singular use of a racial slur may be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim, leaving employers to speculate about what sort of comments or conduct will meet this new standard going forward, says Stephanie Roeser at Manatt.

• Considerations As State AGs Step Up Privacy Enforcement

  

  As new state privacy laws take effect, businesses are facing an increasingly complex patchwork of compliance obligations and risk of scrutiny by attorneys general, but companies can gain a competitive edge by building consumer trust and staying ahead of regulatory trends, say Ann-Marie Luciano and Meghan Stoppel at Cozen O’Connor.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Flags Work Harassment Risks Of Social Media

  

  The recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Okonowsky v. Garland, holding an employer could be liable for a co-worker's harassing social media posts, highlights new challenges in technology-centered and remote workplaces, and underscores an employer's obligation to prevent hostile environments wherever their employees clock in, say Jennifer Lada and Phillip Schreiber at Holland & Knight.

• Lessons From Rising Fake Discount Consumer Class Actions

  

  Ellen Robbins and Scott Allbright at Akerman discuss the rise of false reference price consumer class actions and outline key strategies to minimize legal risk and protect businesses.

• Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Is My Counterclaim Bound To Fall?

  

  A Pennsylvania federal court’s recent dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaims in Morgan v. Noss should remind attorneys to avoid the temptation to repackage a claim’s facts and law into a mirror-image counterclaim, as this approach will often result in a waste of time and resources, says Matthew Selmasska at Kaufman Dolowich.

• Daubert Motion Trends In Patent Cases Reveal Damages Shift

  

  A review of all 2023 Daubert decisions in patent cases reveals certain trends and insights, and highlights the complexity and diversity in these cases, particularly in relation to lost profits and reasonable royalty damages opinions, say Sherry Zhang and Joanne Johnson at Ocean Tomo.

• Why The SEC Is Targeting Short-And-Distort Schemes

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's recent crackdown on the illegal practice of short-and-distort trades highlights the urgent need for public companies to adopt proactive measures, including pursuing private rights of action, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• How High Court Ruling Is Shaping Homelessness Policies

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson to allow enforcement of local ordinances against overnight camping is already spurring new policies to manage homelessness, but the court's ruling does not grant jurisdictions unfettered power, say Kathryn Kafka and Alex Merritt at Sheppard Mullin.

• Series

  Playing Dungeons & Dragons Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing Dungeons & Dragons – a tabletop role-playing game – helped pave the way for my legal career by providing me with foundational skills such as persuasion and team building, says Derrick Carman at Robins Kaplan.

• Gilead Drug Ruling Creates Corporate Governance Dilemma

  

  If upheld, a California state appellate court's decision — finding that Gilead is liable for delaying commercialization of a safer HIV drug to maximize profits on another drug — threatens to undermine long-standing rules of corporate law and exposes companies to liability for decisions based on sound business judgment, says Shireen Barday at Pallas.

• Class Action Law Makes An LLC A 'Jurisdictional Platypus'

  

  The applicability of Section 1332(d)(10) of the Class Action Fairness Act is still widely misunderstood — and given the ambiguous nature of limited liability companies, the law will likely continue to confound courts and litigants — so parties should be prepared for a range of outcomes, says Andrew Gunem at Strauss Borrelli.

• 3 Notes For Arbitration Agreements After Calif. Ruling

  

  After last month's California Supreme Court decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications invalidated several arbitration clauses in the company's employee contracts as unconscionable, companies should ensure their own arbitration agreements steer clear of three major pitfalls identified by the court, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Jarkesy Ruling May Redefine Jury Role In Patent Fraud

  

  Regardless of whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jarkesy ruling implicates the direction of inequitable conduct, which requires showing that the patentee made material statements or omissions to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the decision has created opportunities for defendants to argue more substantively for jury trials than ever before, say attorneys at Cadwalader.