Business Law Journal

In a pivotal 2025 decision, the California Supreme Court confirmed that businesses can be held to forum selection clauses even if doing so means waiving the procedural right to a jury trial under California law. This holding underscores a critical consideration for contract formation: what may seem like a routine contract clause can significantly alter your legal rights. Businesses must be vigilant during negotiations to ensure dispute resolution terms do not unintentionally undermine their position in future litigation.

According to two significant back-to-back rulings from the Northern District of California, using copyrighted books to train large language models (LLMs) qualifies as fair use under the Copyright Act, but the opinions differ on the impact of whether the copyrighted works were legally obtained or pirated on finding fair use.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized how businesses create, communicate, and market.  For trademark owners and AI-utilizing businesses, however, AI brings not only opportunity but also significant risk.  

In Zackary Diamond v. Scott Schweitzer, et al., California Court of Appeal recently addressed whether a broad release and waiver of liability form, signed by a patron to a racing event as a prerequisite to gaining access to the pit area, released the racetrack’s owners from alleged negligence claims arising from an injury sustained as a result of a punch by a third party.  The Court of Appeal confirmed that the waiver and release protected the racetrack’s owners from such claims and affirmed summary judgment in their favor.

On March 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court rendered a decision in Madrigal, et al v. Hyundai Motor America (S280598) regarding the following question: “Does a plaintiff who has rejected a 998 offer or allowed it to be deemed withdrawn for want of timely acceptance, but later agrees to settle before trial, necessarily avoid the postoffer cost-shifting effects of section 998?”  The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff does not necessarily avoid section 998’s cost-shifting effects.

In Amundson v. Catello, the California Court of Appeal reversed an order for the partition of property by sale, emphasizing that a clear ownership interest is required for standing to initiate a partition action. The recent decision also examined the limitations on an heir’s ability to act on an expected inheritance, reinforcing that property rights remain uncertain until probate and administration are finalized. 

Over the last several months, AALRR has tracked and reported on the changes to the Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements.  On March 2, 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a statement providing that it will not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the reporting requirements under the current deadlines. Additionally, Treasury will also not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners even after FinCEN’s upcoming rule changes take effect.  Click here to read our full alert.

An old advertising jingle urged consumers to “look for the union label.”  A union label, or “bug,” typically consists of a union symbol and a number which identifies a specific employer.  However, using a bug without permission can have legal repercussions. 

For those following recent developments regarding the Corporate Transparency Act, and its Beneficial Ownership Information reporting requirements, the last month has been a dizzying rollercoaster. As of the date of this alert, the nationwide injunction preventing the enforcement of the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements has been reinstated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, meaning that “Reporting Companies” (as defined in the CTA) are currently not required to file BOI reports. However, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) continues to accept voluntary BOI submissions.