Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
Chatbot Bills Near Passage in CA A pair of bills aimed at protecting minors from harm by chatbots are nearing passage in California. Of the two, tech groups favor SB 243 , which would allow citizens...
NM Gov Calls Special Session to Bolster Safety Net New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) announced a special session in October to bolster safety net programs in response to the federal spending...
Political “debanking,” the practice of banks restricting or closing customers’ accounts for political or religious reasons, has once again become a hot topic , thanks to President Donald...
CO Lawmakers Tweak Last Year’s First-In-Nation AI Law In a special session that began last week, Colorado Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez (D) introduced legislation ( SB 4 a ) that would...
States Seek Ways to Replace Expiring Federal Health Subsidies Policymakers in California, Colorado, Maryland and other states are considering ways to backfill pandemic-era federal health insurance subsidies...
* 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