Business Law Journal

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.

We have yet to realize the full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the global economy. According to recent reports from China’s National Bureau of Statistics, nearly 20% of Chinese citizens, aged 16 – 24, are unemployed.[1]  University graduates are likely to be more affected in China this year than at any point in China’s history with over 10-million Chinese graduates fighting their way into a job market with the worst-prospects ever.[2]  The Chinese government’s strict adherence to a zero-tolerance Covid policy has devastated major manufacturing activities throughout the country, leading to an overall decline in China’s sustained economic momentum coming out of the pandemic.[3] 

[1] China’s National Bureau of Statistics – Unemployment Report as of July, 2022.

[2] Pollard M., 2022, June 23. Analysis: Record numbers of Chinese graduates enter worst job market in decades. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/china/record-numbers-chinese-graduates-enter-worst-job-market-decades-2022-06-23/

[3] Mayger J., Ma A., Liu Y. Hancock T., 2022, September 14. China Braces for a Slowdown That Could Be Even Worse Than 2020. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-14/china-economic-growth-forecasts-keep-sinking-as-risks-multiply

With the looming economic downturn, clients, retailers and small businesses are looking to cut costs wherever possible.  Lately, these cost cutting measures have had a significant impact on warehouse operators or companies that store goods, who are caught in the middle of these cost cutting attempts. 

Since its passage in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has required “places of public accommodation” to make modifications to promote accessibility for disabled persons.  But what about websites?  We previously discussed the practical and legal complications of the ADA and California’s corresponding Unruh Civil Rights Act with an earlier post here.  Although they can be accessed by the public, a website is not a physical location, even though it may sell physical goods and services.  This question has split Federal Courts of Appeal for years.  Some have held that websites only exist in cyberspace and therefore are not “places” governed by the ADA.  Others have held that a website does qualify as a “place,” so long as it is advertising goods and services provided at a specific physical facility.  The California Court of Appeal had not addressed this issue or its implications for the Unruh Act.

A federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected a Chinese company’s attempt to invoke China’s recent Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) to limit discovery obligations in the United States.  In Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Syntronic AB, No. 21-cv-03610-SI, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero refused to limit the PIPL’s legal obligations exception to Chinese laws and China-recognized orders.  On June 24, 2022, the Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order compelling Defendant Syntronic (Beijing) Technology R&D Center Co., Ltd. (“Syntronic Beijing”) to produce computers in the possession and custody of defendants in China, for inspection in the United States.  While on its face China’s PIPL would seemingly prohibit production of these China-stored computers into the United States without the consent of current and former individual employees (who have refused to consent), the Court ruled that its order in the case created a legal obligation sufficient to invoke the legal obligation exception under PIPL Article 13.