It includes much of a Quora answer that I wrote on this topic. Please see How does the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 compare to GDPR?
Disclaimer: This comparison, of necessity, is limited to the broadest generalizations. While the California Consumer Privacy Act or 2018 (“CCPA”) is of a respectable length, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) has 99 Articles, most with several Sub-articles – and that’s preceded by 173 lengthy paragraphs of recitals! Consequently, most of what follows is, in reality, subject to significant additional details, qualifications and exceptions that are too numerous to include here.
Now available for download: A four-page GDPR-CCPA comparison table that includes many more details than are in this post.
This post discusses a recent California Supreme Court decision by which it adopted the so-called ABC Test for misclassification of employees as independent contractors.
This post discusses when a California corporation must hold a shareholder vote.
It is based on an Avvo answer that I wrote recently. Please see Beside elections, are there corporate decisions that REQUIRE the vote of the shareholders?
California Shareholder Vote Requirements
A corporation must hold a shareholder vote to approve the following actions. Please note that this may not be a comprehensive list. Reference links are to the relevant California Corporations Code sections. (more…)
This post about California’s $800 franchise tax is based on my recent answer to a Quora question.
A.: One can cancel a California limited liability company before the 15th day of the fourth month. However, such cancellation will not eliminate the obligation to pay the $800 annual franchise tax. (more…)
This post answers the following question: May a minor be a partner (in a partnership legal entity)? It is based on my answer to an Avvo question. Please see In California, can a minor be a partner in a General Partnership?
As initially written, this answer applied solely to California. However, an update, below, discusses applicability to other states. (more…)
Moonlighting employees in California have a right to hold down their second jobs (or to work on startups in their spare time).
The right to moonlight – and to engage in other activities on one’s own time – is expressed in Labor Code Section 96(k).
Labor Code Section 96
Section 96 identifies, generally, the types of employee claims that the California Labor Commissioner is obligated to accept. These include, for example, claims pertaining to payment of wages and expenses; damages arising from misrepresented conditions of employment; claims for vacation pay; and awards for workers’ compensation benefits.
Moonlighting is addressed as follows. (more…)
In RULLCA Brings New LLC Laws to California in 2014 , I explained how California’s version of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (“RULLCA” or “CA-RULLCA” – Corporations Code Sections 17701.01 – 17713.13 ) was to take effect January 1, 2014. This post describes changes to CA-RULLCA that took effect on January 1, 2016.
Most of the changes were minor clean-up of the sort that one expects when major new legislation is adopted. However, some of the changes are noteworthy. (more…)
In California, a “work made for hire” (WMFH) provision in a contract can convert a contractor to an employee. This post describes the statutory basis for this little-known area of the law.
Before providing details, I will note that the (likely unwanted) ability to convert a contractor to an employee will arise only under narrowly-defined circumstances.
- The independent contractor must be an individual rather than a legal entity (a corporation or limited liability company).
- The relevant contract must expressly specify WMFH treatment for the contractor’s work product.
- The contractual relationship must be governed by California law. (I don’t know whether any other states have similar laws.)
This post discusses a 2014 case (Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.) which held that California employers must reimburse employees who use a personal cell phone for work.
Plaintiff Colin Cochran, as class representative, brought a class action lawsuit against Schwan’s Home Service (“Home Service”) on behalf of 1,500 service managers employed by Home Service. The suit sought, among other things, reimbursement of the managers’ work-related personal cell phone expenses. (more…)