Business Law Journal

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.  

With the growing popularity and prevalence of generative artificial intelligence, courts are increasingly being called upon to decide novel legal issues based on never-before-seen phenomena that are challenging the traditional paradigm applied to human-generated content.  And copyright law is no exception.

Following the Legislature’s 2024 amendments to Section 16600, a new spotlight has been shown down on the so-called Trade Secret Exception and the rift that has emerged over the past few years between California courts about its continued application.  Ultimately, the California Supreme Court will likely be called upon in the near future to address whether—and to what extent—an employer may include restrictive covenants in an employment agreement as necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.  Until it does, litigants may credibly argue that the legislature’s recent amendments to Section 16600 abrogated the exception, diminished the exception, or had no effect on it at all.  

Click here to read more

In an eleventh-hour ruling made shortly before enforcement of the California Privacy Rights Act’s regulations was set to begin on July 1, a California judge has delayed enforcement until March 29, 2024.  The delay reduces the pressure on businesses who had been facing potential enforcement of unfinalized regulations.  However, the ruling is not a complete reprieve as the delay does not affect enforcement of the statute itself which can still be enforced as of July 1 by both the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the California Department of Justice.  

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a junior trademark user uses a parody of a famous trademark as an indicia of source for its own goods, the junior user cannot rely on the First Amendment to shield it from liability for trademark infringement for artistic or so-called “expressive works,” nor the parody exception to trademark dilution claims under the Lanham Act.

[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.

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.