Category: Uncategorized

I Have an Easement for Lake Access. Am I a Riparian?

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently said no. In Wenners v Chisholm, the plaintiffs owned property on Portage Lake in Washtenaw County. The defendant owned a back lot, but she and the previous owners of her property had accessed the lake using a strip of land located between the plaintiffs’ properties for more than 30 years.

The trial court found that the defendant had established a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to the lake. However, the easement did not include riparian rights, and the defendant was barred from installing a dock or mooring any watercraft in the lake.

The defendant argued that the trial court could not grant her a prescriptive easement for lake access without also giving her riparian rights. The Court of Appeals rejected her arguments. It concluded that since the defendant could not show that she and the previous owners of her property had exercised riparian rights for a 15-year period, the prescriptive easement did not include riparian rights.

Had the defendant presented evidence showing that she and the previous owners of her property had installed a dock and moored a boat in the lake for at least 15 years, perhaps the outcome might have been different. But without that, the defendant’s easement to access the lake did not include riparian rights.

© 2020 Varnum LLP

ARTICLE BY Bradley S. Defoe of Varnum LLP.
For more easement access issues, see the National Law Review Real Estate law page.

Coronavirus Spreads from China, Increasing Risks

Originating in the Chinese city of Wuhan, a coronavirus known as 2019-nCoV has spread quickly this month, migrating to multiple other countries as international health officials rush to contain its spread and calm fears. But the spread of the virus—and China’s response—is already having major impacts on businesses both within the country and around the world.

A member of the same family as SARS and MERS, the virus presents similar symptoms as flu or pneumonia. So far, the coronavirus outbreak has killed 17 people and has sickened at least 600 people across China alone. This week, a man in Washington State returning from a visit to Wuhan became the first identified case in the United States. He is reportedly in stable condition and in isolation. Other cases have been reported in Hong Kong, Macao, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam.

On Tuesday, the Chinese government upgraded the classification of the virus to a Class B infectious disease, giving the government the power to take more serious steps to limit its spread. These include imposing travel restrictions in and out of Wuhan and several nearby cities, with more restrictions pending, which could effectively impose a quarantine over 25 million people. Wuhan’s railway stations, buses and subway were shut down this week, as were several highways out of the city, and hundreds of flights from the city’s international airport were reportedly cancelled.

Additionally, China has begun banning all large gatherings and cancelling public events in major cities, including Beijing. As the country prepares to celebrate the Lunar New Year—when millions travel home out of major cities and/or attend large public celebrations for the holiday—this will likely cause major disruptions for people and businesses. China’s largest investment bank, CITIC Securities, even told its employees in the Hubei province (of which Wuhan is the capital) not to travel home for the holiday, and if they did, that they would be forced to work remotely for two weeks before they could return to the office. Macao—which has one documented case of the coronavirus thus far—has cancelled a public New Year’s festival, and is considering shutting down its casinos (a huge part of the region’s economy) if more cases are discovered.

When outbreaks like the coronavirus occur, companies can protect their business and employees by reviewing existing policies and looking into additional coverage to fill gaps. As Risk Management previously wrote, even limited disease outbreaks can have major impacts on businesses, especially those in the health care industry or operating overseas. Companies may have particular cause for concern about the risks of business interruption and supply chain issues stemming from quarantines, travel disruptions and major event cancellations. For example, many U.S. pharmaceutical companies have moved their drug and medical supply manufacturing to China, and these operations can be affected by health crises.

As the disease has spread internationally, staff operating in areas with documented cases and traveling employees may also face risk of infection. In addition to the travel restrictions China has instituted in various regions, airports around the world have started instituting special screening for passengers from China, possibly further complicating travel. In fulfilling their duty of care to traveling employees, companies have a number of insurance options including foreign voluntary workers compensation or business travel accidental death and dismemberment coverage, and should take the opportunity to review existing coverage and assess any potential gaps moving forward. Pre-trip preparation and training can also help. Ensuring that employees have the resources and knowledge to find in-country medical care or a concrete evacuation plan prior to traveling can also help protect them in a crisis.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2020 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

For more global health issues, see the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care section.

Proposed Washington State Law Would Create 32-Hour Workweek

New legislation recently introduced in the Washington State Legislature seeks to implement a 32-hour workweek for nonexempt Washington-based workers. If the proposal were to become law, employers would be required to pay overtime compensation to nonexempt employees whose workweeks exceed 32 hours.

Senate Bill (SB) 6516 proposes to amend RCW 49.46.130, the Washington law that establishes a 40-hour workweek in the state. Because the proposal would amend but not replace the existing law, the current exemptions would remain applicable—and none have been amended by the proposed bill. Instead, the bill’s proposed changes merely—but monumentally—revise the references in RCW 49.46.130 from a 40-hour workweek to a 32-hour workweek.

The lead cosponsor of SB 6516 is Washington State Senator Joe Nguyen. In several interviews, Senator Nguyen seems to view the proposal as a “conversation” starter and a “concept” to begin discussing. Because it appears to be a preliminary measure, we do not expect the proposal to pass, but, we will continue to follow SB 6516 closely and provide legislative updates as necessary.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more on workweek hour legislation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

High School Female Athletes Fail to Score on Class Certification

The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii recently denied female student-athletes’ motion for class certification under Title IX even though it rejected the defendants’ attacks on mootness and standing as well as Rule 23(a)’s requirements for commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Instead, the court found that the proposed class failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement that joinder would be impracticable.

The underlying case centered on Title IX allegations by female athletes at James Campbell High against defendants Hawaii State Department of Education and the Oahu Interscholastic Association. The athletes claimed that the defendants violated Title IX by failing to take remedial actions to meet Title IX’s anti-discrimination provisions and failed to provide Campbell female athletes with equivalent, athletic-participation opportunities. The athletes’ motion proposed the following class: “All present and future James Campbell High School female students and potential students who participate, seek to participate, and/or were deterred from participating in athletics at Campbell.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ records showed 366 Campbell female student-athletes in the 2018–2019 school year alone.

The court first addressed the issue of mootness after the defendants argued that two of the named plaintiffs had already graduated. The court found, however, that those athletes’ claims fit under the “inherently transitory” exception to mootness, given the necessarily finite duration of a high school student’s time as a student-athlete and the potential for repetition of the claims from similarly situated students.

The court next addressed the defendants’ argument that the named plaintiff — a ninth-grade water polo player — did not have standing because the water polo season had not yet begun at the time the motion was filed, and thus she had yet to experience the alleged discriminatory conduct. The court found that the defendants’ argument was erroneously narrow-focused and that the ninth-grade athletes had allegedly experienced discriminatory events generally suffered by the female student-athlete populations, which would apply even if a particular student’s athletic season had not yet started. Specifically, those student-athletes are forced to make plans around a discriminatory sports schedule or are exposed to a lack of publicity for female athletics programs, which are the types of harm that Title IX was implemented to prevent and remedy.

The court then turned its focus to Rule 23(a)’s requirements. While the court found that the athletes satisfied the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements, the court’s decision ultimately depended on the athletes’ inability to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Although the defendants did not appear to challenge numerosity, including that the class exceeded 300 members, the court found that the athletes had failed to demonstrate that joinder was impracticable and that the future members of the proposed class were reasonably identifiable. The court observed that the proposed class members were limited to the female population from a single high school and were geographically tied to one area of Hawaii and identifiable through school and athletic records. Thus, the court held that joinder of the current students within the class in a single lawsuit was not impracticable. The court also found that, with regard to the future and potential students, those subgroups were not reasonably identifiable and, thus, would not be considered in any numerosity determination.

As uncommon as it may be for a class of more than 300 members to fail the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a), any case can offer distinct circumstances that allow a court to reject an otherwise presumed, accepted argument. The unique geographic facts here were sufficient for this court to reject certification. Ultimately, the facts always matter.

A.B. v. Haw. State Dep’t of Educ., Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00477 (D. Haw. Dec. 31, 2019).

©2011-2020 Carlton Fields, P.A.

For more on Title IX issues, see the National Law Review Public Education & Services section.

Union Launches National Organizing Effort in Gaming and Tech Industries

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has begun a nationwide union-organizing campaign targeting game and tech industry employees, in partnership with Game Workers Unite! (GWU), a so-called “grass-roots” worker group founded in Southern California in 2018 to spur unionization in the gaming industry. As here, such groups typically are founded and funded by established labor organizations.

The idea for the organizing effort is the result of discussions between the CWA and GWU over the past months. In addition, CWA Canada is partnering with the GWU chapter in Toronto. The CWA has used similar partnerships with other activist groups, most recently teaming up with the Committee for Better Banks to attempt to organize banking sector employees.

Organizing is being spearheaded by Emma Kinema, a co-founder of GWU, and Wes McEnany, a former organizer with the Service Employees International Union and leader of the “Fight for 15” effort. Kinema will lead the organizing on the West Coast, McEnany will focus on the East Coast. Organizers from CWA locals across the country will populate the teams. According to Kinema, the issues on which the union will focus are: “crunch,” or long hours for weeks or months to meet launch deadlines; cyclical layoffs; harassment; misogyny; gender-based pay discrimination; values and ethical issues, such as working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); climate change; AI ethics; and pay, severance, and benefits. According to Tom Smith, CWA’s lead organizer, “For a lot of folks, that’s what led them to do this work in the first place, and people are feeling a disconnect between their personal values and what they’re seeing every day in the working lives.”

With the moniker CODE – Campaign to Organize Digital Employees – the ambitious initiative seeks to organize employees across the industry, typically at individual shops or employers. According to Kinema, “We believe workers are strongest when they’re together in one shop in one union, so the disciplines can’t be pitted against each other – none of that’s good for the workers. I think in games and tech, the wall-to-wall industrial model is the best fit.” Smith said the CWA would be open to craft-based organizing – where the focus is industry-wide bargaining units composed of employees performing similar work at different employers – if that is what employees want. In an industry where workers frequently move from employer to employer, portable benefits can be attractive.

An annual survey by the International Game Developers Association, an industry group, found that gaming worker interest in unions had increased to 47 percent by 2019. Indeed, a representation petition is pending at the Brooklyn office of the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of the employees at a gaming company. About 220,000 employees work in the two-billion-dollar gaming industry.

The union has established a website — www.code-cwa.org – as well as a presence on other social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

As most union organizing is based on the presence in the workplace of unresolved employee issues, a comprehensive analysis of such matters may be valuable to employer. Also, supervisors and managers often interact frequently with employees when organizing is afoot or underway. Training regarding their rights and responsibilities under the labor laws often is essential.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020

For more on unionizing news, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Smoking Cannabis Legally in Illinois: What’s an Employer to Do?

On January 1, 2020, Illinois joined the growing number of states that allow the sale and use of marijuana for personal and recreational use. The law has been so popular that most of the cannabis dispensaries in Illinois sold out of their supply within the first week.

So, what now for employers in Illinois? May they tell workers who get stoned on a break that they must leave the workplace? Can they still maintain a drug-free workplace? Can they still do drug testing? The answer to all three questions is yes; however, as explained below, there are important steps that an employer must take should it decide to discipline an employee. While there will be much to work out as Illinois navigates its new cannabis laws, employers may maintain the same standards at work that they had before the law became effective. But they need to know and follow the new law’s requirements.

Parameters of the New Law

On January 1, 2020, the Cannabis Regulation Tax Act (CRTA), 410 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 705/10 et seq., became law, permitting personal and recreational cannabis use for all individuals 21 years of age or older. Under the CRTA, Illinois residents may possess 30 grams of cannabis flower, 500 milligrams of a THC-infused cannabis product and 5 grams of cannabis concentrate for personal use.

The CRTA will not be interpreted to diminish workplace (includes buildings, real property and parking lots under control of the employer and used by the employee to perform job duties) safety. The act identifies and allows employers to adopt certain cannabis policies relating to use, consumption, storage and impairment to further protect employee safety, such as:

  • Employers are allowed to adopt a reasonable zero-tolerance policy for its employees or require a drug-free workplace.
  • Employers are permitted to adopt employment policies relating to drug testing, smoking, consuming, storing and using cannabis while an employee is at the workplace, performing job duties or on call.
  • Employers may prohibit an employee from using cannabis or from being under the influence of cannabis while at the workplace, performing job duties or on call.
  • Employers may undertake disciplinary measures or terminate an employee’s employment for violating a reasonable workplace drug policy.

A Fine Line

One of the trickier aspects for Illinois employers will be making a determination of when an employee is impaired or under the influence of cannabis. The law provides that an employer can express a “good faith belief” that the employee manifests certain articulable symptoms that decrease or diminish the employee’s job performance and responsibilities. The CTRA identifies a number of symptoms an employer may consider in finding an employee is impaired or under the influence, such as “symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of employee or others, involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or other property; disruption of a production of manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others.”

When an employer takes any action against an employee for being under the influence of cannabis, the CTRA requires that an employee be provided a reasonable opportunity to challenge the basis of an employer’s determination. Employers should notify an employee in writing of its determination and invite the employee to state their case as to why the employer’s determination may be incorrect before it takes an adverse action against the employee. All activity in the appeal process should be documented.

Employers’ Rights and Liability

Some good news for employers is that the CTRA does not create or imply a cause of action against an employer for the actions taken relating to an employer’s reasonable workplace drug policy. IL LEGIS 101-593 (2019), 2019 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 101-593 (S.B. 1557) (WEST). Actions taken relating to an employer’s reasonable drug policy include subjecting an employee or applicant to a drug and/or alcohol test, nondiscriminatory random drug testing, disciplining employees, termination of employment or withdrawing an offer for employment because of a failed drug test. The amendments to the CTRA now expressly limit an employer’s liability for disciplining or terminating employment resulting from a failed drug test. Further, the amendments to the CTRA clarify and reinforce an employer’s ability to administer pre-employment and random drug testing policies.

Employers must be careful, however, to not take action against an employee when the use of cannabis is after work hours. The Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act was amended, effective January 1, 2020, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 55/5, to specifically prohibit employers from terminating employment because of an employee’s personal or recreational use of lawful products (including cannabis) outside of the workplace during nonworking, off-call hours. In the event an employee is disciplined or employment is terminated because of cannabis use outside of the workplace during off-duty hours, an employee may bring a discrimination cause of action under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace.

It is anticipated that there will be tension between individuals contesting an employer’s determination that he/she was impaired or under the influence of cannabis at the workplace with the contention that any use was during off-duty hours. For instance, what if an employee used cannabis four hours before starting a shift? The employee may claim protection under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace, whereas the employer may argue the employee was nonetheless under the influence in the workplace. This tension is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no test to determine how recently an individual has used, consumed or smoked cannabis. Further, there is no test that determines how high or low cannabis levels are in an individual.

Illinois employers will need to understand and follow the CTRA laws and Right to Privacy in the Workplace laws. Employers should prepare specific written policies to address these new issues.

© 2020 Wilson Elser

ARTICLE BY David M. Holmes of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, with assistance from Gabriela C Herrera (Law Clerk-Chicago).
For more on the intersection of recreational cannabis & employment law, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

How Millennial Lawyers Are Pushing Firms to Rethink the Role of PR and Messaging

Law firm management experts and industry watchers have spilled a lot of ink in the past decade about how millennial lawyers are different from the generations of lawyers who came before. The millennial perspective has shone a light on aspects of the job that older lawyers assumed could never change — the inflexible schedule, the grueling and lonely path to advancement, the lack of diversity that seemed baked in to the law firm model — and the industry has begun to change.

And while nurturing strong client relationships and providing excellent service used to be the only marketing plan a law firm needed, the values — like equity, transparency and authenticity — of millennial lawyers are one of the major pressures now forcing firms to rethink the role of PR and messaging.

Forward-thinking firms are responding to this call for change by tacking some big questions:

What’s our firm’s story?

Prospective clients and recruits respond to a compelling narrative that communicates your firm’s identity to the market. And that story must be built on the needs of the client rather than the needs of the firm, as the typical firm’s story was (even if by default) in decades past.

Crafting that story requires developing a deep understanding of what clients care about. What keeps them up at night? What challenges will they be facing a year from now that haven’t yet occurred to them? How can the particular skills and expertise of your attorneys serve these needs? And, most importantly, how can you make that case to the client? Armed with this deep knowledge of what their clients want and need, firm leaders can then harness the power of all available channels of communication to tell the story of what makes them different, and spotlight what they have to offer.

Who is our website for?

The role of websites has changed. A decade or two ago, many established firms embraced the need to simply have a website, assigned the work of maintaining it to the marketing and IT departments, and continue to spend a fortune keeping it up to date. Unfortunately, too many firms operate on automatic pilot when it comes to thinking about who visits their website and how they use it.

Modern law firm websites are not really marketing tools. They don’t “sell” the firm because the chance that the website is the primary entry point for a new client is pretty low. Instead, firm websites are communication tools, and the audience is not clients but potential recruits and laterals, opposing counsel or co-counsel, and judges and clerks. Understanding that a website is not a selling tool but a way to share information about your firm should shift your approach to the content. Your website should showcase key aspects of your firm. In addition to well-written biographies of your attorneys that feature their backgrounds and areas of expertise, the website is also the place to highlight important aspects of your firm’s culture and focus on team members of diverse backgrounds.

Who should speak for our firm?

You think strategically about the partners best positioned to respond to client proposals, and you should give the same consideration to whose names you’d like to see in the legal media representing your firm. Good PR should raise the profile of particular lawyers for strategic reasons and leave nothing to chance. When a reporter calls to ask about your new parental leave program, who should answer those questions, and why? Who could credibly write a thought leadership piece on the importance of sponsorship and mentoring? What about a column on a new tax incentive clients should consider taking advantage of?

The story of your firm — your culture and who you aspire to be — is shaped by which attorneys are telling it. Your top billers and client wranglers are not necessarily the same folks who should be the voice of your firm in communications. Firms must define and assign these important roles.

Is our messaging consistent?

You worked hard to develop an outward-facing message that would attract and recruit new attorneys and lateral hires. But now that they’ve joined your firm, does your internal messaging match what they saw when they were on the job market? In many firms, human resources handles internal communications. While this department may be doing a fine job distributing important information to your employees, retention and integration of millennial lawyers depends on continuing to communicate your firm’s values and goals in authentic ways. Employee communication should reflect the strategic vision of the firm’s top leadership.

An internal newsletter, for example, should be about much more than just upcoming office events and changes to your benefit plans. It should celebrate staff promotions (linking the work employees do to the greater firm mission), positive results for clients and recent business development wins. It’s also the place to feature diverse members of the firm, promote mental health initiatives, showcase a male partner taking parental leave, link to professional development and nontraditional networking opportunities inside and outside the firm, and more.

Attracting and retaining millennial recruits, and understanding how to serve millennial clients, are two of the biggest challenges today’s law firms face. But this is also an exciting opportunity. When you understand what this cohort values and communicate those values via the same kind of high-production, well-packaged content that millennials expect in all areas of their media-rich lives, your firm will be well positioned to meet the challenges of this current moment.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

For more on improving law firm PR & messaging, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

Offered Free Cyber Services? You May Not Need to Look That Gift Horse in the Mouth Any Longer.

Cyberattacks continue to plague health care entities. In an effort to promote improved cybersecurity and prevent those attacks, HHS has proposed new rules under Stark and the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) to protect in-kind donations of cybersecurity technology and related services from hospitals to physician groups. There is already an EHR exception1 which protects certain donations of software, information technology and training associated with (and closely related to) an EHR, and HHS is now clarifying that this existing exception has always been available to protect certain cybersecurity software and services. However, the new proposed rule explicitly addresses cybersecurity and is designed to be more permissive then the existing EHR protection.

The proposed exception under Stark and safe harbor under AKS are substantially similar and unless noted, the following analysis applies to both. The proposed rules allow for the donation of cybersecurity technology such as malware prevention and encryption software. The donation of hardware is not currently contemplated, but HHS is soliciting comment on this matter as discussed below. Specifically, the proposed rules also allow for the donation of cybersecurity services that are necessary to implement and maintain cybersecurity of the recipient’s systems. Such services could include:

  • Services associated with developing, installing, and updating cybersecurity software;

  • Cybersecurity training, including breach response, troubleshooting and general “help desk” services;

  • Business continuity and data recovery services;

  • “Cybersecurity as a service” models that rely on a third-party service provider to manage, monitor, or operate cybersecurity of a recipient;

  • Services associated with performing a cybersecurity risk assessment or analysis, vulnerability analysis, or penetration test; or

  • Services associated with sharing information about known cyber threats, and assisting recipients responding to threats or attacks on their systems.

The intent of these rules is to allow the donation of these cybersecurity technology and services in order to encourage its proliferation throughout the health care community, and especially with providers who may not be able to afford to undertake such efforts on their own. Therefore, these rules are expressly intended to be less restrictive than the previous EHR exception and safe harbor. The proposed restrictions are as follows2:

  • The donation must be necessary to implement, maintain, or reestablish cybersecurity;

  • The donor cannot condition the donations on the making of referrals by the recipient, and the making of referrals by the recipient cannot be conditioned on receiving a donation; and

  • The donation arrangement must be documented in writing.

AKS has an additional requirement that the donor must not shift the costs of any technology or services to a Federal health care program. Currently, there are no “deeming provisions” within these proposed rules for the purpose of meeting the necessity requirement, but HHS is considering, and is seeking comment on, whether to add deeming provisions which essentially designate certain arrangements as acceptable. Some in the industry appreciate the safety of knowing what is expressly considered acceptable and others find this approach more restrictive out of fears that the list comes to be considered exhaustive.

HHS is also considering adding a restriction regarding what types of entities are eligible for the donation. Previously for other rules, HHS has distinguished between entities with direct and primary patient care relationships, such as hospitals and physician practices, and suppliers of ancillary services, such as laboratories and device manufacturers.

Additionally, HHS is soliciting comment on whether to allow the donation of cybersecurity hardware to entities for which a risk assessment identifies a risk to the donor’s cybersecurity. Under this potential rule, the recipient must also have a risk assessment stating that the hardware would reasonably address a threat.

1 AKS Safe Harbor 42 CFR §1001.952(y); Stark Exception §411.357(bb)
2 AKS Safe Harbor 42 CFR §1001.952(jj); Stark Exception §411.357(w)(4)

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

More on cybersecurity software donation regulation on the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

My Business Is In Arizona, Why Do I Care About California Privacy Laws? How the CCPA Impacts Arizona Businesses

Arizona businesses are not typically concerned about complying with the newest California laws going into effect. However, one California law in particular—the CCPA or California Consumer Privacy Act—has a scope that extends far beyond California’s border with Arizona. Indeed, businesses all over the world that have customers or operations in California must now be mindful of whether the CCPA applies to them and, if so, whether they are in compliance.

What is the CCPA?

The CCPA is a comprehensive data privacy regulation enacted by the California Legislature that became effective on January 1, 2020. It was passed on September 13, 2018 and has undergone a series of substantive amendments over the past year and a few months.

Generally, the CCPA gives California consumers a series of rights with respect to how companies acquire, store, use, and sell their personal data. The CCPA’s combination of mandatory disclosures and notices, rights of access, rights of deletion, statutory fines, and threat of civil lawsuits is a significant move towards empowering consumers to control their personal data.

Many California businesses are scrambling to implement the necessary policies and procedures to comply with the CCPA in 2020. In fact, you may have begun to notice privacy notices on the primary landing page for national businesses. However, Arizona businesses cannot assume that the CCPA stops at the Arizona border.

Does the CCPA apply to my business in Arizona?

The CCPA has specific criteria for whether a company is considered a California business. The CCPA applies to for-profit businesses “doing business in the State of California” that also:

  • Have annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars; or
  • Handle data of more than 50,000 California consumers or devices per year; or
  • Have 50% or more of revenue generated by selling California consumers’ personal information

The CCPA does not include an express definition of what it means to be “doing business” in California. While it will take courts some time to interpret the scope of the CCPA, any business with significant sales, employees, property, or operations in California should consider whether the CCPA might apply to them.

How do I know if I am collecting a consumer’s personal information?

“Personal information” under the CCPA generally includes any information that “identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked” with a specific consumer. As the legalese of this definition implies, “personal information” includes a wide swath of data that your company may already be collecting about consumers.

There is no doubt that personal identifiers like name, address, email addresses, social security numbers, etc. are personal information. But information like biometric data, search and browsing activity, IP addresses, purchase history, and professional or employment-related information are all expressly included under the CCPA’s definition. Moreover, the broad nature of the CCPA means that other categories of data collected—although not expressly identified by the CCPA—may be deemed to be “personal information” in an enforcement action.

What can I do to comply with the CCPA?

If the CCPA might apply to your company, now is the time to take action. Compliance will necessarily be different for each business depending on the nature of its operation and the use(s) of personal information. However, there are some common steps that each company can take.

The first step towards compliance with the CCPA is understanding what data your company collects, how it is stored, whether it is transferred or sold, and whether any vendors or subsidiaries also have access to the data. Next, an organization should prepare a privacy notice that complies with the CCPA to post on its website and include in its app interface.

The most substantial step in complying with the CCPA is to develop and implement policies and procedures that help the company conform to the various provisions of the CCPA. The policies will need to provide up-front disclosures to consumers, allow consumers to opt-out, handle consumer requests to produce or delete personal information, and guard against any perceived discrimination against consumers that exercise rights under the CCPA.

The company will also need to review contracts with third-party service providers and vendors to ensure it can comply with the CCPA. For example, if a third-party cloud service will be storing personal information, the company will want to verify that its contract allows it to assemble and produce that information within statutory deadlines if requested by a consumer.

At least you have some time!

The good news is that the CCPA includes a grace period until July 1, 2020 before the California Attorney General can bring enforcement actions. Thus, Arizona businesses that may have ignored the quirky California privacy law to this point have a window to bring their operations into compliance. However, Arizona companies that may need to comply with the CCPA should consult with counsel as soon as possible to begin the process. The attorneys at Ryley Carlock & Applewhite are ready to help you analyze your risk and comply with the CCPA.

Copyright © 2020 Ryley Carlock & Applewhite. A Professional Association. All Rights Reserved.

Learn more about the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet Law page.

CNIPA Announces Registration of Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics Mascots and Logos

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced seven Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics symbols including mascots and names on January 15, 2020.  Per the Regulations on the Protection of the Olympic Symbols, the term of protection is 10 years subject to renewal terms of 10 years each.  Fines for unlicensed commercial of the symbols are up to 250,000 RMB (about $36,000 USD) or up to 5 times illegal revenue.

The 7 symbols are:

Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics Mascot

1. A000020 The Olympic Mascot

2. A000021 The Chinese characters 冰墩墩 (Bing dun dun; meaning approximately ice pier)

3. A000022 A Romanization of A000021: Bing Dwen Dwen.

Beijing 2022 Paralympic Mascot

4. A000023 The Paralympic Mascot

5. A000024 The Chinese characters 雪容融 (Xue Rongrong)

6. A000025 A Romanization of A000024: Shuey Rhon Rhon

Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics Volunteer logo

7. A000026 The 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Volunteer Logo

The 2022 Winter Olympics will take place from February 4 to February 20, 2022 in Beijing, China and Zhangjiakou, China. Beijing will be the first city to host both winter and summer Olympics.

© 2020 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on trademark registration, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property Law page.