Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
IL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill The Illinois House passed a bill ( HB 228 ) that would amend the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit businesses from...
Anthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public The artificial intelligence company Anthropic—recently in the headlines for demanding that the Pentagon agree to certain limitations on the use of...
CT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment A bill (SB 435) before Connecticut’s legislature would require employers to disclose to job applicants when they are communicating with artificial intelligence...
On March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303 . The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous...
ND Regulators Approve Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use North Dakota’s Industrial Commission approved the use of the state bank’s planned stablecoin, the Roughrider Coin, for bank-to-bank transactions...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that federal law preempts a California law that allows private lawsuits on behalf of groups of workers, even if they had agreed to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration. In an 8-1 vote, the justices said the Federal Arbitration Act supersedes the California statute, the only one of its kind in the country. By doing so, the court said, employees were illegally allowed to escape binding arbitration agreements they signed at hiring.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) called the ruling “disappointing,” but said employees could still bring suits on behalf of others if they did not sign such an agreement. (LOS ANGELES TIMES, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICES)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said a tech industry-backed ballot question to change how gig workers are classified in the Bay State is unconstitutional because it contains “vaguely worded provisions” buried deep in a proposal that, in effect, melded two unrelated subjects under a single question.
Under the proposal, companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and others would have provided workers with some new benefits while continuing to classify their drivers and deliverers as independent contractors rather than employees. But the court ruled the proposal contained at least two “substantively distinct” issues, one of which was masked by “obscure language” that went far beyond just establishing a worker’s employee vs. contractor status. (BOSTON GLOBE)
--Compiled by RICH EHISEN