Category: Global

February 2024 Visa Bulletin: Advancement of Priority Dates for Employer-Based Petitions Remains Minimal

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of State have not indicated significant advancement in the priority dates for employer-based immigrant petitions, continuing the fiscal year (FY) 2024 trend of long wait times for immigrant visas.

Quick Hits

  • USCIS and the State Department reported minimal movement in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for Mexico, the Philippines, and all other chargeability areas except India and China.
  • USCIS authorized use of the Dates for Filing chart.
  • Continued limitations on immigrant visas particularly impact chargeability areas of India and China where employers and individuals had hoped to take advantage of shorter wait times in the EB-1 category.

The February 2024 Visa Bulletin

USCIS will continue to use the Dates for Filing chart in the February 2024 Visa Bulletin in determining eligibility for I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filings. The Dates for Filing chart reflects priority dates anticipated to become current during the fiscal year, whereas the Final Action Dates chart reflects priority dates considered current and available for the specific month. This means that while an applicant may file the I-485 based on the Dates for Filing chart, the application will not be adjudicated at least until the applicant’s priority date becomes current on the Final Action Dates chart.

In summary, there is no advancement in final action dates for China and India in all employment-based categories except that the Other Workers category for India has advanced by one month. For all other chargeabilities, Mexico, and the Philippines, the EB-1 category remains current, the EB-2 category advances by fifteen days, the EB-3 category advances by one month, and the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers category remain the same.

The Final Action Dates chart is shown below.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2024 Visa Bulletin

USCIS has confirmed its continued use of the Dates for Filing chart for adjustment of status filing purposes. However, the dates for filing remain the same as in the January 2024 Visa Bulletin in all categories for all countries.

The Dates for Filing chart for employment-based categories follows below.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2024 Visa Bulletin

Impacts of Immigrant Visa Backlogs, Slow Movement, and Retrogression: EB-1 Considerations

In the January 2024 Visa Bulletin, we saw some forward movement in certain employment-based categories, particularly in the EB-1 category. This movement aligned with the hope that all EB categories, including the EB-1 category, would advance significantly or at least steadily. USCIS and the State Department had also indicated holding this hope in the August 2023 Visa Bulletin. However, the Visa Bulletins for October 2023, November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024 showed slow movement, with the Visa Bulletin for February 2024 indicating little to no movement at all.

The lack of advancement in priority dates particularly impacts those chargeable to India and China. While those chargeable to India and China have historically experienced long green card wait times in the common categories of EB-2 and EB-3, many employers and individuals choose to pursue the EB-1 category in hopes to secure the green card in a much shorter time. The benefits to an employer if a sponsored employee receives a green card earlier is that there is a reduction in immigration costs and a reduction in time that an employer would be beholden to immigration regulations. The employer can also rest assured that their talent can be retained beyond the limits of a nonimmigrant visa status.

However, despite the retrogression of the EB-1 categories for China and India, there still stands a benefit that visa availability wait times for the EB-1 category remains much faster than any other category. Employers considering pursuing the EB-1 process for their employees may want to note that the EB-1 holds an extremely high standard. The EB-1 is generally reserved for highly talented individuals who have risen to the top of their field or individuals who will work in a managerial capacity in addition to meeting other narrow criteria.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more news on 2024 Visa and Immigration Updates, visit the NLR Immigration section.

A Holiday Gift From The State Department: Domestic Visa Revalidation Pilot Program And Visa Interview Waiver Guidance

Kris Kringle bestowed an old friend upon us for the 2023 holiday season, which, if successful, could permanently bring back stateside visa renewal.

Before biometrics were required for U.S. visas, foreign nationals (FN) legally in the U.S. on temporary (nonimmigrant) visas could renew their visa stamps through the Department of State. The process was typically efficient, resulting in a great time and expense saver for both the FN and U.S. employers. Then, biometrics became a requirement in 2002, and the State Department eliminated the program, reasoning that visa applicants’ biometrics were not available in the U.S.

History evolves, new challenges arise, and the State Department finds itself taking steps to resume this old process. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the global closure of U.S. consulates, resulting in an enormous backlog of visa processes. While the State Department has made significant progress in addressing some of these backlogs, the agency continues to struggle with lengthy wait times in many consular jurisdictions, causing considerable difficulty for individuals and businesses.

PILOT PROGRAM DETAILS
The Stateside Visa Revalidation Pilot Program was published in the Federal Register just before the Christmas holiday. However, this pilot holiday gift is limited.

Online applications will begin Jan. 29, 2024. Each week, the State Department will release approximately 2,000 application slots each for individuals whose most recent H-1B visas were issued by Mission Canada and by Mission India (approximately 4,000 combined total each week). The releases will be on Jan. 29; Feb. 5; Feb. 12; Feb. 19; and Feb. 26.

The criteria set out in the program notes:

The foreign national (FN) seeks to renew only an H-1B visa that was previously issued by Mission Canada or Mission India
20,000 renewals will be issued on a staggered schedule
To be eligible, the prior H-1B visa stamp must have been issued by Mission Canada with an issuance date from Jan. 1, 2020, through April 1, 2023, or by Mission India with an issuance date between Feb. 1, 2021, and Sept. 30, 2021
The FN is not subject to the payment of a “reciprocity fee” as part of a nonimmigrant visa issuance fee based on the country of birth
The FN is also eligible for a waiver of the in-person interview requirement based on a recent policy update
The FN submitted 10 fingerprints to the Department of State in connection with a previous visa application
An annotation of “clearance received” was not noted in prior visa stamps; this annotation will disqualify the FN for this program
No visa ineligibility that requires a waiver prior to visa issuance
Possess an approved and unexpired H-1B petition evidenced by an I-797 Notice
Most recently admitted to the United States in H-1B status
Currently maintaining H-1B status in the United States; a person on the 60-day grace period after a lay-off will not qualify
Must be in an unexpired period of authorized admission in H-1B status
Intends to reenter the United States in H-1B status after a temporary period abroad
NEW INTERVIEW WAIVER GUIDANCE
On a separate, but related, note, the State Department also published new Visa Interview Waiver guidance to replace expiring COVID-19 era policies; this guidance goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024. This guidance applies to those individuals renewing visas abroad at a U.S. Consulate and allows Consular officers to waive interviews in certain instances.

The new interview waiver guidance will also make the following individuals eligible for interview waivers:

First time H-2 visa applicants (temporary agricultural and non-agricultural workers)
Other nonimmigrant visa applicants applying for any nonimmigrant visa classification who:
Were previously issued a nonimmigrant visa in any classification, unless the only prior issued visa was a B visa
Are applying within 48 months of their most recent nonimmigrant visa’s expiration date
This new guidance is indefinite in duration, but the State Department has indicated it will review this waiver guidance annually. This authority expands access to interview waiver eligibility, while also instituting some new restrictions from the 2023 authority. All nonimmigrant categories are considered under this authority. They can be mixed and matched and still be eligible for a waiver of interview, but are no longer eligible if their only prior visa issuance was a B visa. Overall, the population of people who are eligible for the in-person interview waiver will expand.

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

by: Tejas Shah , M. Mercedes Badia-Tavas of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more news on Domestic Visa Revalidation, visit the NLR Immigration section.

All I Want for Christmas is Effective Sports Governance

At the start of this year, following his appointment as Chair of the UK’s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (“DCMS”), Damian Green MP put sports governance firmly on the agenda.

This commitment came after the publication of the Whyte Review in June 2022 (the “Review“), which was an independent report into allegations of mistreatment in the sport of gymnastics led by Anne Whyte KC.

Sport England’s CEO Tim Hollingsworth and UK Sport’s CEO Sally Munday, the two individuals who commissioned the report, provided a joint statement following the Review, which included a commitment to “not rest until [we] have a sporting system that fully champions and enables participant and athlete wellbeing”.

Sports governance is a multi-faceted issue; systematic failings cannot be solved overnight. Effective and comprehensive investigations are needed to uncover the existing issues before remediation can take place.

As such, this blog will lay out five top tips for ensuring that all goes to plan when conducting a sports investigation.

Tip 1: Have Policies In Place

Terms and conditions, policies and procedures are rarely updated and often overlooked. However, when issues arise, it is these terms and conditions, policies and procedures that are an immediate source of authority for standards of behaviour; they are your “dos” and “don’ts”.

Therefore, first and foremost, it is essential to have robust, fair and proportionate policies and procedures in place to guide the investigative process.

During a recent sport investigation it quickly became apparent that the sport had no definition of “bullying” even though that was the accusation levelled at an athlete. Some of the practical issues with this included uncertainty as to:

  1. whether an imbalance of power was a necessary ingredient of bullying;
  2. whether intent was a requirement of bullying; and
  3. what amounted to a “course of conduct”.

In the end, those investigating the allegations relied on a combination of the athlete code of conduct, analogous previous investigations, and the governing bodies’ social media guidance to piece together a definition.

This investigation into bullying is not an isolated incident and most of the recent complaints raised with Sport Integrity (UK Sport’s confidential reporting line and independent investigation service) relate to bullying, so to not have a universal definition of “bullying” was and is particularly troublesome.

Since this investigation, we have worked with National Governing Bodies (“NGBs”) to devise a uniform definition of “bullying”. Of course, some NGBs will require bespoke definitions to reflect the nature of their sport, but a reference point (and, over time, a precedent bank) will help both individuals and NGBs.

We would caution that, in an attempt ‘do the right thing’, sporting governing bodies can sometimes overcommit, leading to policies that are too onerous. An example includes allowing an automatic right to appeal if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, rather than requiring them to establish a basis for appeal. It comes from a good intention but can often be costly and time consuming.

Tip 2: Identifying the Right People to Handle the Investigation

A key issue to consider at the start of an investigation is not only (i) who is going to undertake the investigation; but also (ii) who will advise the governing body in respect of the investigation report.

In determining issue (i), thought must be given to whether the investigator has appropriate experience and whether they are, of course, truly independent.

But once the investigation has ended, the commissioning governing body does not just put the report into the top drawer, the recommendations within the report will need to be actioned. But often those recommendations may have legal consequences such as employment issues, data protection considerations, and defamations risks, to name but a few. We believe it is advisable for a governing body to instruct an external law firm from the outset so that they are able to receive independent advice while remaining separate from the investigation.

Tip 3: Nail the Terms of Reference

The terms of reference (“ToR”) set out the parameters of an investigation and provide something of a roadmap. Investigations often uncover facts or events which were not in contemplation at the outset, and so it is crucial that the ToR provides for such eventualities.

For an international rugby referee, it is standard practice to consider the “what if” situations. What if there is a thunderstorm? What if the crossbar falls down? What if the ball is stolen by a streaker? Referees want to be as prepared as possible when people turn to them for an answer – the same is true in an investigative setting.

Essential features of the ToR include:

  1. what will be investigated and what won’t;
  2. what happens if you discover something that isn’t covered;
  3. how do you amend the ToR; and
  4. who will provide what material and when.

Some less obvious matters for inclusion:

  1. how many times do you email someone before concluding that they have refused to comply;
  2. what are acceptable methods of contact;
  3. who is allowed to attend the meeting with the individual being interviewed;
  4. will you produce transcripts of meetings; and
  5. who will see the report.

Doing the legwork beforehand saves time, stress, and distress down the track.

Tip 4: Specialist Support to the Investigating Team

During one of our sporting investigations, it became clear that athletes in that particular sport liked technical jargon even more than lawyers. To ensure that key information is not hidden in opaque terminology, we have found it useful to involve people with relevant experience who can put factual sporting matters in layman’s terms.

Contact sports is a good example of this. Physical intimidation during training sessions seems at odds with most places of work, but when athletes are competing for a single spot at the Olympic Games, this can be part and parcel of their world.

Interviewing ex-athletes as part of the initial stages of an investigation not only allow us to understand the jargon, but also to understand the realities of the sport, the difference between male and female athletes, and when aggression transgresses into bullying.

Tip 5: Involve Data Privacy Experts

Data Privacy is a fast-moving area of law which requires careful consideration in the context of sports investigations. The approach to data is two-fold: how and what can I collect, and with who and how can I share it.

You must have a clearly identified purpose and an appropriate lawful basis for processing personal data, or be able to show that your processing fits within one of the narrowly defined statutory exceptions. Be aware that sharing personal data is a form of “processing”, so ensure that you have a clear purpose and lawful basis for sharing, and that the recipient (for example an expert) has a clearly stated purpose and lawful basis for receiving that data.

From a UK perspective, you (or someone with the relevant expertise) will need to be familiar with the relevant provisions of the UK General Data Protection Regulation 2018 and the Data Privacy Act 2018 to ensure compliance. Reference should also be made to any policies which may set out how employee data may be processed. In the first instance, you will need to ensure that you have a lawful basis for collecting and processing data. Additional care should be taken when you are processing criminal offences data – as is often the case in investigations – or any “special category” data revealing factors such as racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health, sex life or sexual orientation.

Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) and Legitimate Interests Assessments (LIA) are now a reality of sporting investigations that should not be overlooked. Helpfully, in relation to “special category” and criminal offence data, UK data protection laws make express provision for processing where it is necessary to protect the integrity of a sport or a sporting event against dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct, or failure by a person participating in the sport or event in any capacity to comply with standards of behaviour set by a body or association with responsibility for that sport or event. However, in each case it is essential that you involve experts to check that the factual situation justifies reliance on those provisions.

Summary

Sports organisations would be well served to address the issues highlighted above, particularly as their feet are often held to the fire by governments, sponsors, participants, and the general public on whether they have done enough to identify or remedy high profile matters.

This article was co-authored by Molly Mckenna.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more news on Effective Sports Governance in the UK, visit the NLR Entertainment, Art & Sports section.

2023 Foreign Direct Investment Year End Update: Continued Expansion of FDI Regulations

As previously reported, regulations and restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) have expanded quickly in the United States and in many of its trading partner countries around the world. FDI has been further complicated in the U.S. by the passage of individual State laws – often focused the acquisition of “agricultural land,” and in Europe by the passage of screening regimes by the individual Member States of the European Union (E.U.).

In 2023, fifteen U.S. States enacted some form of FDI restrictions on real estate. Some States elected to incorporate U.S. Federal regulations regarding who is prohibited from acquiring certain real estate, while other States have focused on broadly protecting agricultural lands. State laws also vary from those that prevent foreign ownership, to those that only require reporting foreign ownership.

Thus far Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed laws related to FDI in real estate.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Ohio and Texas all currently require foreign investors to disclose acquisitions of certain real estate, much like the U.S. Federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, and Wisconsin, actually allow acquirers to fulfill their reporting requirements by simply submitting a copy of applicable federal AFIDA reports. Texas currently only limits Direct Foreign Investment in certain “critical infrastructure.”

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin limit foreign investment in real estate based on the number of acres; while Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban foreign ownership of certain land completely.

The Alabama Property Protection Act (“APPA”), which went into effect in 2023, is one of the most expansive of the U.S. State laws, and which also incorporates U.S. Federal law. The APPA restricts FDI by a “foreign principal” in real estate related to agriculture, critical infrastructure, or proximate to military installations.

The APPA broadly covers acquiring “title” or a “controlling interest.” The APPA also broadly defines “foreign principal” as a political party and its members, a government, and any government official of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, as well as countries or governments that are subject to any sanction list of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The APPA defines “agricultural and forest property” as “real property used for raising, harvesting, and selling crops or for the feeding, breeding, management, raising, sale of, or the production of livestock, or for the growing and sale of timber and forest products”; and it defines covered “critical infrastructure” as a chemical manufacturing facility, refinery, electric production facility, water treatment facility, LNG terminal, telecommunications switching facility, gas processing plant, seaport, airport, aerospace and spaceport infrastructure. The APPA also covers land that is located within 10 miles of a “military installation” (of at least 10 contiguous acres) or “critical infrastructure.”

Notably, APPA does not specifically address whether leases are considered a “controlling interest,” nor does it specify enforcement procedures.

U.S. Federal Real Estate FDI

Businesses involved in the U.S. defense industrial base have been historically protected from FDI by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) expanded those historic protections to include certain Critical Technologies, Critical Infrastructure, and Sensitive Data – collectively referred to as covered “TID.”

FIRRMA specifically expanded CFIUS to address national security concerns arising from FDI impacting critical infrastructure and sensitive government installations. Part 802 of FIRRMA established CFIUS jurisdiction and review for certain covered real estate, including real estate in proximity to specified airports, maritime ports, military installations, and other critical infrastructure. Later in 2022, Executive Order 14083 further expanded CFIUS coverage for certain agricultural related real estate.

Covered installations are listed by name and location in appendixes to the CFIUS regulations. Early this year, CFIUS added eight additional government installations to the 100-mile “extended range” proximity coverage of Part 802. The update necessarily captured substantially more covered real estate. Unlike covered Section 1758 technologies that can trigger a mandatory CFIUS filing, CFIUS jurisdiction for covered real estate currently remains only a voluntary filing. Regardless, early diligence remains critical to any transaction in the United States that may result in foreign ownership or control of real estate.

U.S. Trading Partners FDI Regimes

The U.S. is not alone in regulating FDI, or the acquisition of real estate by foreign investors. Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union have legislative frameworks governing foreign investment in business sectors, technology, and real estate. Almost all European Union Member States have some similar form of FDI screening.

Key U.S. trading partners that have adopted FDI regimes include, Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Germany, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden. What foreign parties, economic sectors, or technologies are covered vary from country to country. They also vary as to the notification and approval requirements.

The UK National Security and Investment Act (NSI Act) came into effect on 4 January 2022, giving the UK government powers to intervene in transactions where assets or entities are acquired in a manner which may give rise to a national security risk. There were over 800 notifications under the NSI during the previous 12-month reporting period. In November 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden published a call for evidence on the legislation which aims to narrow and refine the scope of powers to be more ‘business friendly’, given that very few notified transactions have not been cleared within 30 working days. We will revisit developments on this in 2024.

The UK has continued to implement other reforms to improve transparency of foreign ownership of UK property. Part of the UK Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 requires the register of overseas entities. The register is maintained by Companies House and requires overseas entities which own land in the UK to disclose details of their beneficial owners. Failure to comply with the new legislation will impact any registration of ownership details at the UK Land Registry (and thus the relevant legal and equitable ownership rights in any relevant property) and officers of any entity in breach will also be liable to criminal proceedings.

Recommendations

Whether a buyer or a seller, all transactions involving FDI should include an analysis of the citizenship of the interested parties, the nature of the business, land and products, and the applicability of laws and regulations that can impact the parties, timing, or transaction.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Foreign Direct Investment Updates, visit the NLR Global law section.

EU to Ban Carbon Offset Claims Entirely?

Responding to pressure from activists who have argued that “[c]arbon neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple,” the European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional agreement to ban all carbon-neutral claims in member states. If the Parliament approves the deal, member states will have 24 months to enact legislation to implement it. So, a new set of laws could become effective in 2026. Corporations will have some lead time to come into compliance.

The EU provisional agreement, if made final, will be the latest blow to carbon neutrality claims and is particularly unfortunate in not distinguishing between credible and non-credible offsets. This could also hurt voluntary carbon markets, which have been jarred by the recent demise of the giant, offset-producing African Kariba Project.

Commentators have also speculated that the EU Parliament and Council action is an effort to “put a thumb on the scales” of the FTC Green Guides revision process, currently underway in the United States. If the FTC were to follow suit, carbon reforestation projects worldwide could be jeopardized. Of course, the FTC is bound by the First Amendment and would be reluctant to “ban” a statement. However, it could erect onerous substantiation and disclosure requirements that render such claims much more difficult to make.

The ill-fated Kariba Project has become an unfortunate bellwether for carbon neutrality claims based on credits generated from reforestation or forest preservation. The episode may say more about financial speculation in carbon markets than it does about the science of reforestation. Replanting trees is a surefire way to sequester carbon – at least for a while – and financial incentives to do so should be encouraged, not discouraged.

These realities aside, the clear upshot is that carbon neutrality claims are increasingly under attack by activists who seemingly lump all carbon offsets together as “harmful” – whether generated by reforestation, carbon capture, or voluntary carbon reduction. That’s too bad, as any credible financial incentive to remove carbon from the atmosphere should be encouraged, if not financially incentivized. The role of independent certifiers is to ensure that the carbon offsets are real and not overstated. A flat ban seems counterproductive to environmental protection and greenhouse gas reduction.

The sad reality is that many companies will begin to migrate away from reliance on carbon offsetting. It is simply becoming too risky. Meanwhile, voluntary carbon trading markets will suffer greatly, and a crucial green development mechanism will be lost.

The sad reality is that many companies will begin to migrate away from reliance on carbon offsetting. It is simply becoming too risky.
©2023 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
by: Christopher A. Cole of Katten 
For more news on Carbon Offsetting in the EU, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Algorithmic Pricing Agents and Price-Fixing Facilitators: Antitrust Law’s Latest Conundrum

Are machines doing the collaborating that competitors may not?

It is an application of artificial intelligence (“AI”) that many businesses, agencies, legislators, lawyers, and antitrust law enforcers around the world are only beginning to confront. It is also among the top concerns of in-house counsel across industries. Competitors are increasingly setting prices through the use of communal, AI-enhanced algorithms that analyze data that are private, public, or a mix of both.

Allegations in private and public litigation describe “algorithmic price fixing” in which the antitrust violation occurs when competitors feed and access the same database platform and use the same analytical tools. Then, as some allege, the violations continue when competitors agree to the prices produced by the algorithms. Right now, renters and prosecutors are teeing off on the poster child for algorithmic pricing, RealPage Inc., and the many landlords and property managers who use it.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LITIGATION

A Nov. 1, 2023 complaint filed by the Washington, DC, Attorney General’s office described RealPage’s offerings this way: “[A] variety of technology-based services to real estate owners and property managers including revenue management products that employ statistical models that use data—including non-public, competitively sensitive data—to estimate supply and demand for multifamily housing that is specific to particular geographic areas and unit types, and then generate a ‘price’ to charge for renting those units that maximizes the landlord’s revenue.”

The complaint alleges that more than 30% of apartments in multifamily buildings and 60% of units in large multifamily buildings nationwide are priced using the RealPage software. In the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan Area that number leaps to more than 90% of units in large buildings. The complaint alleges that landlords have agreed to set their rates using RealPage.

Private actions against RealPage have also been filed in federal courts across the country and have been centralized in multi-district litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee (In re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation [NO. II], Case No. 3:23-md-3071, MDL No. 3071). The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest and a Memorandum in Support in the case urging the court to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Even before the MDL, RealPage had attracted the Antitrust Division’s attention when the company acquired its largest competitor, Lease Rent Options for $300 million, Axiometrics for $75 million, and On-Site Manager, Inc. for $250 million.

The Antitrust Division has been pursuing the use of algorithms in other industries, including airlines and online retailers. The DOJ and FTC are both studying the issue and reaching out to experts to learn more.

JOURNALISTS AND SENATORS

Additionally, three senators urged DOJ  to investigate RealPage after reporters at ProPublica wrote an investigative report in October 2022. The journalists claim that RealPage’s price-setting software “uses nearby competitors’ nonpublic rent data to feed an algorithm that suggests what landlords should charge for available apartments each day.” ProPublica speculated that the algorithm is enabling landlords to coordinate prices and in the process push rents above competitive levels in violation of the antitrust laws.

Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Dick Durban (D-IL) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) wrote to the DOJ concerned that the RealPage enables “a cartel to artificially inflate rental rates in multifamily residential buildings.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) also wrote to the Federal Trade Commission with concerns “about collusion in the rental market,” urging the FTC to “review whether rent setting algorithms that analyze rent prices through the use of competitors’ private data … violate antitrust laws.” The Ohio senator specifically mentioned RealPage’s YieldStar and AI Revenue Management programs.

THE EUROPEANS

The European Commission has enacted the Artificial Intelligence Act, which includes provisions on algorithmic pricing, requiring algorithmic pricing systems be transparent, explainable, and non-discriminatory with regard to consumers. Companies that use algorithmic pricing systems will be required to implement compliance procedures, including audits, data governance, and human oversight.

THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM

An essential element of any claimed case of price-fixing under the U.S. antitrust laws is the element of agreement: a plaintiff alleging price-fixing must prove the existence of an agreement between two or more competitors who should be setting their prices independently but aren’t. Consumer harm from collusion occurs when competitors set prices to achieve their maximum joint profit instead of setting prices to maximize individual profits. To condemn algorithmic pricing as collusion, therefore, requires proof of agreement.

It may be difficult for the RealPage plaintiffs to prove that the RealPage’s users agreed among themselves to adhere to any particular price or pricing formula, but not impossible. End users are likely to argue that RealPage’s pricing recommendations are merely aggregate market signals that RealPage is collecting and disseminating. The use of the same information service, their argument will go, does not prove the existence of an agreement for purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The parties and courts embroiled in the RealPage litigation are constrained to live under the law as it presently exists, so the solution proposed by Michal Gal, Professor and Director of the Forum on Law and Markets at the University of Haifa, is out of reach. In her 2018 paper, “Algorithms as Illegal Agreements,” Professor Gal confronts the agreement problem when algorithms set prices and concludes that it is time to “rethink our laws and focus on reducing harms to social welfare rather than on what constitutes an agreement.” Academics have been critical of the agreement element of Section 1 for years, but it is unlikely to change anytime soon, even with the added inconvenience it poses where competitors rely on a common vendor of machine-generated pricing recommendations.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence that autonomous machines, just like humans, can learn that collusion allows sellers to charge monopoly prices. In their December 2019 paper, “Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing and Collusion,” Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolo, and Sergio Pastorello at the Department of Economics at the University of Bologna showed with computer simulations that machines autonomously analyzing prices can develop collusive strategies “from scratch, engaging in active experimentation and adapting to changing environments.” The authors say indications from their models “suggest that algorithmic collusion is more than a remote theoretical possibility.” They find that “relatively simple [machine learning] pricing algorithms systematically learn to play collusive strategies.” The authors claim to be the first to “clearly document the emergence of collusive strategies among autonomous pricing agents.”

THE AGREEMENT ELEMENT IN THE MACHINE PRICING CASE

For three main reasons, the element of agreement need not be an obstacle to successfully prosecuting a price-fixing claim against competitors that use a common or similar vendor of algorithmic pricing data and software.

First, there is significant precedent for inferring the existence of an agreement among parties that knowingly participate in a collusive arrangement even if they do not directly interact, sometimes imprecisely referred to as a “rimless wheel hub-and-spoke” conspiracy. For example, in Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. F.T.C., 221 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2000), the court inferred the necessary concerted action from a series of individual agreements between toy manufacturers and Toys “R” Us in which the manufacturers promised not to sell the toys sold to Toys “R” Us and other toy stores to big box stores in the same packaging. The FTC found that each of the manufacturers entered into the restraint on the condition that the others also did so. The court found that Toys “R” Us had engineered a horizontal boycott against a competitor in violation of Section 1, despite the absence of evidence of any “privity” between the boycotting manufacturers.

The Toys “R” Us case relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939), in which movie theater chains sent an identical letter to eight movie studios asking them to restrict secondary runs of certain films. The letter disclosed that each of the eight were receiving the same letter. The Court held that a direct agreement was not a prerequisite for an unlawful conspiracy. “It was enough that, knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it.”

The analogous issue in the algorithmic pricing scenario is whether the vendor’s end users that their competitors are also end users. If so, the inquiry can consider the agreement element satisfied if the algorithm does, in fact, jointly maximize the end users’ profits.

The second factor overcoming the agreement element is related to the first. Whether software that recommends prices has interacted with the prices set by competitors to achieve joint profit maximization—that is, whether the machines have learned to collude without human intervention—is an empirical question. The same techniques used to uncover machine-learned collusion by simulation can be used to determine the extent of interdependence in historical price setting. If statistical evidence of collusive pricing is available, it is enough that the end users knowingly accepted the offer to set its prices guided by the algorithm. The economics underlying the agreement element in the first place lies in prohibition of joint rather than individual profit maximization, so direct evidence that market participants are jointly profit maximizing should obviate the need for further evidence of agreement.

A third reason the agreement element need not stymie a Section 1 action against defendants engaged in algorithmic pricing is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in American Needle v. NFL, 560 U.S. 183 (2010). In that case the Court made clear that arrangements that remove independent centers of decision-making from the market run afoul of Section 1, if the net effect of the algorithm is to displace individual decision-making with decisions outsourced to a centralized pricing agent, the mechanism should be immaterial.

The rimless wheel of the so-called hub-and-spoke conspiracy is an inadequate analogy because the wheel in these cases does have a rim, i.e., a connection between the conspirators. In the scenarios above in which the courts have found Section 1 liability i) each of the participants knew that its rivals were also entering into the same or similar arrangements, ii) the participants devolved pricing authority away from themselves down to an algorithmic pricing agent, and iii) historical prices could be shown statistically to have exceeded the competitive level in a way consistent with collusive pricing. These elements connect the participants in the scheme, supplying the “rim” to the spokes of the wheel. If the plaintiffs in the RealPage litigation can establish these elements, they will have met their burden of establishing the requisite element of agreement in their Section 1 claim.

© MoginRubin LLP
For more news on AI in the context of Antitrust Law, visit the NLR’s Communications, Media & Internet section.

US Consulate in Tel Aviv Resumes Limited Operations for US Citizens and Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants

This post provides the latest update with respect to consular section operations in Israel. After closures caused by the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel and subsequent security concerns, the U.S. consular posts in Israel have resumed essential U.S. citizen services and limited nonimmigrant visa services.

The U.S. Citizen Services Unit has established daily walk-in times for U.S. citizens with immediate travel plans to obtain emergency passports. This includes emergency U.S. passport applications for first-time applicants. Furthermore, appointments can be made for all other purposes, including non-emergency travel. Appointments for renewal of lost or expired passports, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, and notarial services are made available for the following week every Wednesday at 3 p.m. local time. Additionally, the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has warned that escalated levels of violence and danger in the West Bank may make it difficult for U.S. citizens to access the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and Consular Branch in Tel Aviv, so U.S. Services will be providing regular outreach to the West Bank for affected individuals.

Additionally, limited visa services have resumed and visa appointments can be scheduled for nonimmigrant work visas such as E-1, E-2, L-1, and H-1B; dependent visas; and student visas, such as F-1 and M-1. B visitor visa appointments and immigrant visa services continue to be unavailable. Importantly, Israeli citizens are eligible for visa-free visitor entries to the United States through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for up to 90 days, subject to ESTA enrollment and approval.

Additionally, limited visa services have resumed and visa appointments can be scheduled for nonimmigrant work visas such as E-1, E-2, L-1, and H-1B; dependent visas; and student visas, such as F-1 and M-1. B visitor visa appointments and immigrant visa services continue to be unavailable. Importantly, Israeli citizens are eligible for visa-free visitor entries to the United States through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for up to 90 days, subject to ESTA enrollment and approval.

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more news on US Visa Services in Israel, visit the NLR Immigration section.

DHS Publishes List of Countries Eligible for H-2A, H-2B Visa Programs

The Department of Homeland Security has published lists of countries whose nationals will be eligible for the H-2A and H-2B visa programs in the upcoming year.

‌Key Points:

  • The lists are mostly unchanged from last year, with one addition, Bolivia, to both lists.
  • All nationals who were eligible for the H-2A and H-2B visa programs last year will remain eligible this year.
  • Nationals of Mongolia and the Philippines will remain eligible for the H-2B visa program but not the H-2A program. Nationals of Paraguay will remain eligible for the H-2A program but not the H-2B program.
  • Nationals of countries that are not on the lists may be eligible for H-2A or H-2B visas on a case-by-case basis if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services makes a determination that issuing a visa would be in the national interest.

Additional Information: The countries whose nationals are eligible for the H-2A and H-2B visa programs are as follows.

Andorra The Kingdom of Eswatini Madagascar Saint Lucia
Argentina Fiji Malta San Marino
Australia Finland Mauritius Serbia
Austria France Mexico Singapore
Barbados Germany Monaco Slovakia
Belgium Greece Mongolia* Slovenia
Bolivia Grenada Montenegro Solomon Islands
Bosnia and Herzegovina Guatemala Mozambique South Africa
Brazil Haiti Nauru South Korea
Brunei Honduras The Netherlands Spain
Bulgaria Hungary New Zealand St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Canada Iceland Nicaragua Sweden
Chile Ireland North Macedonia Switzerland
Colombia Israel Norway Taiwan***
Costa Rica Italy Panama Thailand
Croatia Jamaica Papua New Guinea Timor-Leste
Republic of Cyprus Japan Paraguay** Turkey
Czech Republic Kiribati Peru Tuvalu
Denmark Latvia The Philippines* Ukraine
Dominican Republic Liechtenstein Poland United Kingdom
Ecuador Lithuania Portugal Uruguay
El Salvador Luxembourg Romania Vanuatu
Estonia

*Mongolia and the Philippines are eligible to participate in the H-2B program but are not eligible to participate in the H-2A program.

**Paraguay is eligible to participate in the H-2A program but is not eligible to participate in the H-2B program.

©2023 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Visa Program Eligibility, visit the NLR Immigration section.

China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Typical Cases on Film Intellectual Property Protection

On November 3, 2023, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Typical Cases of Film Intellectual Property Protection by the People’s Courts (人民法院电影知识产权保护典型案例). The SPC stated, “In order to strengthen the publicity of the rule of law in the film field, further stimulate the innovation and creativity of the film industry, and promote the prosperity of socialist culture, the Supreme People’s Court issued typical cases on the protection of film intellectual property rights. Typical cases include both criminal cases and civil cases, involving pirated recordings and dissemination of theatrical movies, protection of the integrity rights of works, adaptation rights, information network dissemination rights, reasonable use of copyrights, protection of trade secrets, etc., which are important for promoting the rule of law. It is of positive significance to speed up the construction of a powerful film country.”

8 Typical Cases as explained by the SPC follow:

1. Copyright infringement cases involving Ma XX, Ma YY and others [Criminal Judgment of Yangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province （2020）苏10刑初11号]

[Basic case facts] From June 2016 to February 2019, the defendants Ma XX, Ma YY, Wen Jie, and Lu collaborated with others for the purpose of profit, colluded with theater staff to illegally obtain movie masters and keys, and then copied hundreds of movies such as “The Wandering Earth” and “Crazy Alien” with high-definition equipment, and sold the pirated and copied movies to “movie bar” operators to gain illegal profits.

[Judgment Result] The Intermediate People’s Court of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province held that the defendants Ma XX, Ma YY, Wen Jie, and Lu copied and distributed other people’s film works without the permission of the copyright owner for the purpose of profit, and jointly implemented the production The act of selling pirated films, with huge illegal gains and other particularly serious circumstances, constitutes a crime of copyright infringement. The four defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of four to six years, and fined from RMB 600,000 to RMB 5.5 million, and their illegal gains were recovered. After the verdict was announced, the parties did not appeal or protest, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case in which the act of stealing and distributing theater movies constitutes a crime of copyright infringement. The people’s courts perform their intellectual property trial duties in accordance with the law and severely crack down on illegal and criminal acts of infringement and piracy in the film field, which is of great significance to strengthening the copyright protection of theatrical films and promoting the healthy development of the film and television industry.

2. Liang XX’s copyright infringement case [Criminal Judgement of the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court (2021）沪03刑初101号]

[Basic Case Facts] Since 2018, the defendant Liang XX has instructed Wang YY and others to develop and operate the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and Android, IOS, Windows, MacOSX, TV and other clients, and instructed Xie ZZ and others to download unauthorized film and television works from overseas websites, translate, produce and upload them to relevant servers, and provide users with online viewing and downloading through the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and related clients operated by them. There are 32,824 unauthorized film and television works on the “Renren Film and Television Subtitle Group” website and related clients, with a total of about 6.83 million members and an illegal business amount of more than 12 million RMB.

[Judgment Result] The Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court held after trial that the defendant Liang XX copied and distributed other people’s works without the permission of the copyright owner for the purpose of profit, and there were other particularly serious circumstances, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement. Liang was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined RMB 1.5 million, and his illegal gains were recovered. After the verdict was announced, the parties did not appeal or protest, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.

[Typical Significance] There are many film and television works in this case and the rights holders are dispersed. The judgment clarified the legal application issues such as the crime of copyright infringement and the determination of the number of infringing film and television works. The criminal liability of the organizers and main participants shall be investigated in accordance with the law, and severe crackdowns shall be carried out for serious infringement of film copyright.

3. Copyright infringement dispute case between Shanghai Art Film Studio Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Yun Media Information Technology Co., Ltd. [Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People’s Court （2019）渝05民初3828号Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Shanghai Art Film Studio Co., Ltd. owns the copyrights to the film works of the cartoons “Calabash Brothers” and “Calabash Little King Kong,” as well as the copyright to the character modeling art works of “Calabash Brothers” and “Calabash Little King Kong.” Chongqing Yun Media Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yun Media Technology Company) and others based on the story clips of the characters such as Seven Calabash Babies and Calabash King Kong in the cartoon, replaced the Mandarin carried by the audio data of the characters in the original work with Sichuan and Chongqing dialects, changed the dialogue content of the characters in the original work, produced multiple short videos of “Calabash Dialect Version,” and uploaded them to websites and public accounts for dissemination. Shanghai Animation Film Studio Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court on the grounds that the above-mentioned actions carried out by Yun Media Technology Company and others constituted copyright infringement.

[Judgment Result] The Fifth Intermediate People’s Court of Chongqing held after trial that Yun Media Technology Company and others jointly produced the short video involved in the case, deliberately exaggerated the use of vulgar, negative, dark and uncivilized terms in dialects, changed the dialogue content of the characters in the original work, and vilified the original work. The character image in the work was uploaded to the Internet platform for wide dissemination, which conflicts with the core socialist values, damages the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner, and constitutes copyright infringement. It was ruled that Yun Media Technology Company and others should immediately stop the infringement, jointly publish a statement to eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate for economic losses. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.

[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case emphasizes that the derivative use of other people’s film works  must not deface the characters in the film works, and must not include cultural dross. It must vigorously promote the core socialist values, which plays a positive guiding role in establishing healthy and civilized rule of law in the film industry.

4. Copyright ownership and infringement dispute case between Yu Mouzhu and Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd. [Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province （2018）川01民初1122号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Yu Mouzhu published his novel “Wild Lily in Bloom” (盛开的野百合) on the website under the pseudonym Yu Mou, and adapted the novel into a script of the same name and sent it to Emei Film Group Co., Ltd. Since then, Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd. commissioned others to write the “Youth” movie script, and the film of the same name jointly produced with Huayi Brothers Film Co., Ltd. and others was released. Yu Mouzhu believes that the plot setting, character relationships, lines, and song and dance combinations of the “Youth” movie are highly overlapped with its novel and script, constituting substantial similarities, exceeding the boundaries of reasonable reference, and constituting an infringement of its rights to adapt and film and believes Zhejiang Dongyang Meila Media Co., Ltd., as the producer of the film “Youth” and other parties, jointly committed infringement.

[Judgment Result] The Intermediate People’s Court of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province held that there are obvious differences in the specific subject matter, story line, and theme between the “Youth” movie and Yu Mouzhu’s works. As far as the plot of the work is concerned, the multiple similar plots claimed by Yu Mouzhu are objective facts and limited expressions were not original and should not be protected. The plot of the disputed book and the character relationships advocated by Yu are obviously different from the movie “Youth.” Readers and audiences will not believe them to be similar and they do not have substantial similarities. Therefore, the all claims are dismissed. Yu Mouzhu was dissatisfied and appealed. The second-instance judgment of the Sichuan Provincial Higher People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] The judgment in this case clarified that objective facts and limited expressions are not original and are not protected by copyright law, and should be filtered when comparing infringements. The judgment also clarifies the correct comparison content and comparison method when determining whether a film work is infringing, protects the legitimate rights and interests of film copyright owners in accordance with the law, maintains a fair market competition order, and has positive significance for the prosperity of film creation.

5. Dispute case between Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Qiaojiaren Culture Media Co., Ltd. for infringement of the right to disseminate work information online [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021）京73民终2496号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. was authorized to obtain the exclusive information network dissemination rights and rights protection rights for the movie “I am not Madame Bovary.”  The APP operated by Shanghai Qiaojiaren Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qiaojiaren Company) provides online playback of the complete content of the film involved and added corresponding dubbing, sign language translation, and source subtitles on the basis of the pictures and sound effects of the video involved in this case, but no identification/prevention mechanism to limit viewership to those with dyslexia was used. Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. believes that the APP provides online playback services for the accessible version of the movie “I Am Not Madame Bovary” to unspecified members of the public, infringing on its right to information network dissemination, and filed a lawsuit in court, requesting an order against Qiaojiaren Company to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

[Judgment Result] The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the “accessible means that can be perceived by people with dyslexia” stipulated in the Copyright Law should include special restrictions on this “accessible means”, that is, it should be limited to meeting the requirements of and exclusive use of people with dyslexia.  The alleged infringement of Qiaojiaren Company is open to the unspecified public and does not meet the above conditions. It does not belong to statutory fair use and constitutes infringement. Considering that the original intention of Qiaojiaren Company was to make films accessible to people with disabilities and that the video involved had few clicks, the Court awarded economic losses of 10,000 RMB.

[Typical Significance] This case is the country’s first dispute involving an accessible version of a movie that infringes on the right to disseminate work information online. The judgment clarified that “providing published works to people with dyslexia in an accessible manner that they can perceive” is limited to the exclusive use of people with dyslexia. As a “fair use,” an effective verification mechanism for “people with dyslexia” should be adopted and exclude those who do not meet the criteria. The judgment in this case is conducive to the accurate implementation of the relevant international treaties that our country has joined (the “Marrakesh Treaty”), to the comprehensive protection of the rights of copyright owners, and to the regulation of the production and distribution of accessible versions of movies.

6. Zhejiang Shenghe Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Legend IP Co., Ltd. Confirmation of Non-infringement of Copyright Dispute Case [Hangzhou Internet Court（2021）浙0192民初10369号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic Case Facts] The Korean game “Legend of Mir 2” was launched in China in 2001. The rights holder, Legend IP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Legend IP”), after learning that the movie “Blue Moon” was about to be broadcast exclusively on the platform, believed that the movie infringed on the game’s copyright and sent a letter to the platform requesting to stop distributing the movie. The film producer sent a letter of reminder to Legend IP to enforce their IP, but Legend IP neither withdrew the warning nor sued. After the movie was released, Zhejiang Shenghe Network Technology Co., Ltd., as the copyright owner of the movie, sued for a declaratory judgement that the movie did not infringe the above-mentioned game copyright.

[Judgment Result] The Hangzhou Internet Court held that the overall picture of the game involved in the case is completely different from that of the movie in terms of picture composition, picture smoothness, lens experience, and audio-visual effects, and that the specific creative elements in the selection and arrangement of the audio-visual pictures are very different. There is a substantial difference, and the judgment confirms that there is no infringement. Legend IP was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The second-instance judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case clarifies the thoughts of comparing whether the overall picture of the game and the film works are infringing, and points out that a work created later does not constitute infringement if it only refers to the theme or conception of the prior work, but specifically expresses that it has been separated from or differs from the prior work. The judgment of this case is conducive to guiding the development and prosperity of multi-style cultural innovation and promoting the high quality integrated development of the cultural industry.

7. Dispute over trade secret infringement between Xinli Media Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Paihua Culture Media Co., Ltd. [Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court(2017）京0105民初68514号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic facts of the case] Xinli Media Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinli Company) is the copyright holder of the movie “The Legend of Wukong.” It entrusted Beijing Paihua Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Paihua Company) with the audio post-production of the film. Both parties signed a contract and agreed on a confidentiality clause. During the performance of the contract, Paihua Company violated the confidentiality agreement by outsourcing some of the work to outsiders for actual completion, and transmitted the film materials to the outsiders under the title “WKZ” (the first letters of the transliteration of the film title) through Baidu Cloud. While the film material was being stored on Baidu Cloud, it was hacked by criminals, causing the film involved to be leaked through the Internet before it was released. Xinli Company sued, requesting Paihua Company to stop the unfair competition behavior of disclosing the trade secrets of the film involved, make a public statement to eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses.

[Judgment Result] The Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court held after trial that Paihua Company violated the confidentiality agreement by disclosing the film material involved to a party outside the case, and uploaded the material to Baidu Cloud, which ultimately caused the material to be leaked on the Internet. Both of these acts constituted Infringement of trade secrets. It was ruled that Paihua Company should compensate Xinli Company for economic losses of 3 million RMB and rights protection expenses of more than 300,000 RMB, and make a public statement to eliminate the impact. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of protecting materials as trade secrets during the film production process. Film materials are trade secrets, and there are many subjects involved in the film production process. All parties involved in film production have strict confidentiality obligations in all aspects of film production. Any violation of confidentiality obligations shall bear corresponding legal liability. The judgment in this case is conducive to promoting the standardization and legalization of the film production process, is conducive to protecting the rights of relevant rights holders involved in film production, and is conducive to promoting the prosperity and development of the film industry.

8. Unfair competition dispute case between Xinghui Overseas Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Zhengkai Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. [Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court（2020）粤73民终2289号 Civil Judgment]

[Basic Case Facts] The Hong Kong movie “The King of Comedy” has a high reputation and the relevant public attention is high. Guangzhou Zhengkai Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhengkai Company) and Li XX promoted the accused infringing TV series “The King of Comedy 2018” on Weibo and WeChat official accounts in 2018 as the “series #King of Comedy” , and claimed in media promotions that it was adapted from “The King of Comedy” and so on. Hong Kong film copyright owner Xinghui Overseas Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in court, claiming that Zhengkai Company and Li XX were unfair competing.

[Judgment Result] After a hearing, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that by taking into account the box office receipts of the movie involved during the theatrical release in Hong Kong, the publicity efforts conducted before and during theatrical release, the number of films played on authorized video websites, the degree of continuous media coverage of the movie, and the involvement of the relevant public in the evaluation of the movie, among other factors, it could be fully proved that the titles of the movie involved had a certain degree of influence. The acts of Zhengkai Company and Li XX constituted the act of imitating and confusing the film name and false publicity with a certain degree of influence, and Zhengkai Company and Li XX shall bear the legal liabilities for unfair competition according to law.

[Typical Significance] In this case, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is applied to protect the names of movies screened in Hong Kong in accordance with the law, and in light of the dissemination characteristics of film works, the essential requirements and considerations for determining the names of audiovisual works “having a certain impact” as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are clarified, which are of positive significance in strengthening the protection of film works, and are conducive to creating a sound market environment for the development and prosperity of the film industry.

The original announcement is available here (Chinese only).

© 2023 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on China Intellectual Property Laws, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Is ‘Freedom-Washing’ the New Greenwashing, and What Are Its Legal Consequences?

Companies will often make representations about modern slavery as part of their environmental, social and governance (ESG) measures.

In this article, we consider whether potentially false or misleading claims about modern slavery (i.e., freedom-washing) may be further called out by Australian regulatory bodies.

‘Freedom-washing’ is a term that can be used to describe a false or misleading claim by an organisation about the positive work being done to identify, assess and combat its modern slavery risks.

Even an understatement or nonstatement of an organisation’s modern slavery risks in its supply chains and operations may be considered ‘freedom-washing’ if it has the intent or effect to mislead the reader (for example, if the organisation’s responses appear overall to be more positive than they would otherwise appear in that light).

‘Freedom-washing’ will not necessarily involve an overtly false action. In some circumstances, a claim may not be entirely accurate despite being partly accurate.

An organisation required to report under the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (Modern Slavery Act) needs to carefully consider the information it releases about its modern slavery risks and responses and whether it is potentially engaging in ‘freedom-washing.’

Importantly for all current and future reporting organisations, the scrutiny continues to mount around the legislative framework combatting modern slavery (including in terms of reporting, offences and penalties).

This scrutiny is highlighted by the release of the following recent important reports and studies:

  • The statutory report of the Modern Slavery Act (see here);
  • The targeted review of Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (see here); and
  • The Modern Slavery Index (see here).

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION (ACCC) / AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW

As previously reported by K&L Gates, the ACCC has released long-anticipated guidance on environmental and sustainability claims (Guidance—see here), which sets out eight principles that businesses should follow when making environmental and sustainability claims and to comply with the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Although the Guidance was issued in the context of making environmental and sustainability claims, in our view, its eight principles can be applied equally to guide businesses in making ‘modern slavery’ claims without breaching the ACL. The Guidance encourages businesses to:

  • Make accurate and truthful claims.
  • Have evidence to back up claims.
  • Not leave out or hide important information.
  • Explain any conditions or qualifications on claims.
  • Avoid broad and unqualified claims.
  • Use clear and easy to understand language.
  • Remember visual elements should not give a wrong impression.
  • Be direct and open.

The ACL contains a broad prohibition against businesses engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and prohibits the making of false or misleading representations about specific aspects of goods or services. As a result, claims that overstate an organisation’s modern slavery commitments generally, or inaccurately portray the working conditions within certain supply chains, may contravene the ACL.

We therefore recommend that organisations should also reflect on the Guidance when preparing a modern slavery statement or releasing information on modern slavery practices.

Breaches of the ACL incur very significant penalties. For corporations, the maximum pecuniary penalty per breach is the greater of:

  • AU$50 million;
  • Three times the value of the ‘reasonably attributable’ benefit obtained from the conduct; or
  • If this benefit cannot be determined, 30% of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period (being a minimum of 12 months).

The ACCC will consider whether the following factors apply when determining whether to take enforcement action for a breach of the ACL:

  • The conduct is of significant public interest or concern;
  • The conduct results in substantial harm to consumers and detriment to business competitors;
  • Large businesses are making claims on a national scale;
  • The conduct involves a significant new or emerging market issue, or compliance or enforcement action is likely to have an educative or deterrent effect; or
  • ACCC action will help clarify aspects of the law, especially newer provisions of the ACL.

Furthermore, the ACCC will take into account the genuine efforts and appropriate steps that were taken by the business to verify the accuracy of any information they relied on.

But is there actually any appetite in the ACCC to seek to enforce the ACL with respect to ‘modern slavery’ claims?

To date, it has not given any indication that ‘modern slavery’ claims will be an enforcement priority. However, the ACCC has demonstrated a willingness to crack down on businesses that have sought to take advantage of increasingly environmentally and socially conscious consumers (e.g. greenwashing). Combined with growing scrutiny and broadening calls for tougher responses to be taken by government and business in combatting modern slavery, the possibility of ACCC action does appear to exist, if not now, then in the not too distant future.

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION (ASIC) / FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS

General Provisions

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) both contain general prohibitions against companies:

  • Making statements or circulating information that is false or misleading; or
  • Engaging in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a financial product or financial service.1

ASIC released Report 763 earlier in the year (read it here), which expanded on its approach to ‘greenwashing’ outlined in Information Sheet 271 (read it here). It detailed ASIC’s recent interventions in response to growing claims from companies, managed funds and superannuation funds about their ESG credentials.

ASIC has expanded both its surveillance and enforcement activities in regards to ‘greenwashing.’ ASIC has pursued civil penalty proceedings and issued infringement notices to companies that are making statements that are false or misleading about ESG ‘greenwashing’ claims.

In light of these actions in the ESG space, we recommend companies be vigilant about the information they include in their modern slavery statements and be careful about the modern slavery disclosures they make in relation to a financial product or service.

Product Disclosure Statements

Under section 1013D(1)(l) of the Corporations Act, if a financial product has an investment component, its issuer must include in the product disclosure statement the extent to which labour standards or environmental, social or ethical considerations are taken into account in selecting, retaining or realising an investment. This is relevant in the modern slavery context where companies are releasing product disclosure statements that refer to modern slavery ESG considerations or make reference to previous market disclosures on modern slavery practices.

ASIC has undertaken reactive and proactive surveillance of product disclosure statements, advertisements, website and other market disclosures. ASIC is also progressing surveillance of the superannuation fund sector on ESG claims.

International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Standards for Disclosure

In addition to ASIC’s enforcement powers, the ISSB has introduced two new standards, IFRS S1 and S2. The standards are likely to be substantially aligned to the mandatory climate-related disclosures in Australia being prepared by the Australian Accounting Standards Board and the Treasury.

Relevant to modern slavery, the new standard IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information requires an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities in its general purpose financial reports (read it here).

To achieve the required fair presentation of sustainability-related financial information, an entity is required to provide a complete, neutral and accurate depiction of those sustainability-related risks and opportunities. Additionally, any material information must be disclosed. Information can be material where it omits, misstates or obscures information that could reasonably be expected to influence the decision making of readers of such reports.

‘Sustainability-related risks and opportunities’ are broadly defined as risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect an entity’s cash flows or access to finance. Anything that impacts an entity’s value chain will be an opportunity or risk to its cash flows. The entity’s work force is an example of a sustainability-related risk and opportunity. Therefore, reporting entities may have to report modern slavery in their supply chains as a material risk to their value chain, particularly if they are operating in a sector where the risk of modern slavery is heightened (for example, renewable energy projects or garment manufacturing).

While compliance with the ISSB standards remains voluntary until codified under Australian law, it is expected that the standards will be widely adopted by companies internationally.

OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF FREEDOM-WASHING

There are many other potential legal consequences of freedom-washing. These include:

  • Criminal liability under section 137.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth): This offence applies where a person knowingly gives information that is false or misleading or omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading, and the information is given to a Commonwealth entity;
  • Breach of directors duties: If directors are not appropriately managing and disclosing the company’s modern slavery risks, then they could be in breach of the duty to exercise skill, care and diligence;
  • Requisition resolutions: Shareholders may requisition a resolution at the company’s annual general meeting in regards to modern slavery and the company’s supply chain practices; and
  • Shareholder class action: Shareholders may start a class action if the company has breached continuous disclosure laws by not reporting a modern slavery issue correctly or accurately.

INTRODUCTION OF PENALTIES UNDER THE MODERN SLAVERY ACT

The report on the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act was released on 25 May 2023.

Its recommendations included that the Modern Slavery Act be amended to provide that it is an offence for a reporting entity to:

  • Fail, without reasonable excuse, to give the minister a modern slavery statement within a reporting period for that entity;
  • Give the minister a modern slavery statement that knowingly includes materially false information;
  • Fail to comply with a request given by the minister to the entity to take specified remedial action to comply with the reporting requirements of the Modern Slavery Act; and
  • Fail to have a due diligence system in place that meets the requirements set out in rules made under section 25 of the Modern Slavery Act.

The Australian Government has signaled it will now consider Professor John McMillan’s review and will consult across government and with stakeholders in formulating its response to the recommendations. Companies operating business in Australia should watch this space carefully.

We acknowledge the contributions to this publication from our graduate Harrison Langsford.

FOOTNOTES

1 See sections 1041E, 1041G and 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and sections 12DA and 12DB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates
Article by Michael Hain , Ayman Guirguis , Clive Cachia of K&L Gates
For more articles on ESG, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.