The National Law Forum

SCOTUS Takes a Pass on “Gap Time” Dispute

It’s two months into argument season at the Supreme Court, and we’re always keeping our fingers crossed that the justices will take up a wage and hour issue and clear up some ambiguities in the law or a circuit split.

Top billing this SCOTUS term goes to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, in which the Court will address whether a supervisor who earned more than $200,000 a year but was paid on a daily basis is exempt from the overtime laws as a “highly compensated employee” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601, notwithstanding the salary basis rules in 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 and 29 C.F.R. § 541.604. The Court held arguments on October 12, and you can read the transcript here. We’ll report on that decision as soon as it’s published.

This week’s news is a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Cleveland County, North Carolina v. Conner, a case about gap time. The plaintiff in the case—an EMT worker—was paid under a fairly complex set of ordinance-based and contractual terms, but the gist of her claim was that the county shorted her on straight-time pay she was owed under her contract, and by doing do violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court dismissed the claim, on the ground that the FLSA governs minimum wage and overtime pay, but not straight-time pay (assuming no minimum wage violation). On appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit noted that “there are situations … that fall between [the minimum wage and overtime] provisions of the FLSA. It explained:

In addition to seeking unpaid overtime compensation, employees may seek to recover wages for uncompensated hours worked that fall between the minimum wage and the overtime provisions of the FLSA, otherwise known as gap time …. Gap time refers to time that is not directly covered by the FLSA’s overtime provisions because it does not exceed the overtime limit, and to time that is not covered by the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions because … the employees are still being paid a minimum wage when their salaries are averaged across their actual time worked. (Internal citations and alterations omitted.)

The Court of Appeals differentiated between two types of gap time—“pure gap time” and “overtime gap time”—with the former referring to unpaid straight time in a week in which an employee works no overtime, and the latter referring to unpaid straight time in a week in which the employee works overtime. The court noted, correctly, that no provision of the FLSA addresses gap time of either type, and that there is no cause of action under the FLSA for “pure gap time” absent a minimum wage or overtime violation by the employer. Such claims would arise, if at all, under state law.

On the other hand, the circuit court noted that courts are divided on whether an employee can bring an “overtime gap time claim” under the FLSA. While the statute itself is silent on the issue, the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the FLSA—set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 778.315—states that:

[C]ompensation for … overtime work under the Act cannot be said to have been paid to an employee unless all the straight time compensation due him for the nonovertime hours under his contract (express or implied) or under any applicable statute has been paid.

In its simplest sense, the argument for recognizing “overtime gap time” claims under the FLSA is this: Say an employer promises an overtime-eligible employee base pay of $1,000 per week for up to 40 hours of work, and the employee works more than 40 hours in a given week. In that scenario, the employee’s hourly overtime rate would by $37.50 ($1000 ÷ 40 yields a regular rate of $25, and time-and-a-half on $25 is $37.50). But if the employer only pays the employee $800 in base pay for the week and not the promised $1,000, the regular rate becomes $20 ($1000 ÷ 40) and the hourly overtime rate becomes $30 (time-and-a-half on $20). So the employee is short-changed $7.50 on each overtime hour, which the Fourth Circuit found violates 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 and the spirit, if not the letter, of the FLSA.

“Pure gap time” is different, in this important sense: it only arises when the employee has not worked any overtime in the week. So there is no possibility of short-changing the employee on overtime pay, and—assuming the employee has, on average, received the minimum wage for all hours worked that week—no other provision of the FLSA that provides any relief. (The employee is ostensibly free to seek relief under an applicable state wage payment law or common law for failure to pay promised compensation.)

The Fourth Circuit concluded that 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 has the “power to persuade,” and therefore is entitled to “considerable deference” under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). As such, the court held that “overtime gap time claims” are indeed cognizable under the FLSA, and that “courts must ensure employees are paid all of their straight time wages first under the relevant employment agreement, before overtime is counted.” The court acknowledged a circuit split on the issue, with the Second Circuit declining to afford deference to 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 and rejecting “overtime gap time” claims as lacking a statutory basis (“So long as an employee is being paid the minimum wage or more, [the] FLSA does not provide recourse for unpaid hours below the 40–hour threshold, even if the employee also works overtime hours the same week.”).

The county filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, presenting not only the question of whether the FLSA permits “overtime gap time” but also seeking clarification on how federal courts should apply the Skidmore doctrine to agency interpretations such as 29 C.F.R. § 778.315. The Supreme Court denied the petition on December 12, leaving both questions for another day.

For more Employment Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Tom Brady, Larry David, and Others Named Defendants in Class Action Suit Filed Against FTX

Four days after FTX, once the world’s third-largest crypto exchange, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy, former FTX investors filed a class action against 11 athletes and celebrities who promoted FTX in advertisements and on social media, including NFL quarterback Tom Brady and comedian Larry David.

The lawsuit, which also names FTX’s co-founder and former chief executive Sam Bankman-Fried as a defendant, seeks $11 billion in damage.

Background

The FTX bankruptcy filing covers about 130 FTX Group companies, including FTX.com, FTX’s US operations, and Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency trading firm, Alameda Research. According to published reports, Bankman-Fried had covertly used funds from FTX customers to make risky bets for Alameda Research – a hedge fund he also ran – and had commingled funds between the two entities.

Allegations Against FTX Celebrity Endorsers

The class action was brought on behalf of US investors who hold FTX yield-bearing accounts funded with crypto assets. The plaintiff and class-action members alleged that FTX lured them to its yield-bearing accounts and transferred investor funds to related entities to maintain the appearance of liquidity.

While an investor class action following bankruptcy is not necessarily surprising, the fact that the complaint named various celebrity endorsers and spokespeople as defendants is fairly unusual. Among them, Larry David starred in an advertisement for FTX that aired during the 2022 Super Bowl. The ad featured David being a skeptic on inventions such as the wheel, the fork, the toilet, democracy, the light bulb, the dishwasher, the Sony Walkman, and, finally, FTX, and cautioned viewers, “Don’t be like Larry.” Other conduct cited by the complaint includes:

Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen: according to the complaint, Brady and Bundchen served as brand ambassadors for FTX, took equity stakes in FTX Trading Ltd., and appeared in an advertisement showing them telling acquaintances to join the FTX platform.
Kevin O’Leary: served as brand ambassador and FTX shareholder and made several public statements, including on Twitter, “designed to induce consumers to invest in” FTX’s yield-bearing accounts.
Naomi Osaka: the tennis star served as a brand ambassador for FTX in exchange for an equity stake and payments in an unspecified amount of cryptocurrency, appeared in advertisements, and promoted FTX to her Twitter followers.

The plaintiff and class members claimed that those FTX promoters engaged in a conspiracy to defraud investors and violated Florida state laws prohibiting unfair business practices. Specifically, in their civil conspiracy claim, the plaintiff and class members alleged that “the FTX Entities and Defendants made numerous misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiff and Class Members about the Deceptive FTX Platform in order to induce confidence and to drive consumers to invest in what was ultimately a Ponzi scheme, misleading customers and prospective customers with the false impression that any cryptocurrency assets held on the deceptive FTX Platform were safe and were not being invested in unregistered securities.” ^[1]

Celebrities Under Scrutiny in Crypto Industry

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has gone after celebrities for deceptively touting cryptocurrencies since 2017. In November 2017, SEC Chair Gary Gensler warned celebrities that federal securities laws require people who tout a certain stock or crypto security to disclose the amount, the source, and the nature of those payments they received.^[2]

In October 2022, the SEC found that Kim Kardashian violated the anti-touting provision of the federal securities laws by plugging on social media a crypto asset security offered and sold by EthereumMax (EMAX) without disclosing the payment she received for the promotion.^[3]Kardashian later settled with the SEC, paid $1.26 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest, and cooperated with the Commission’s ongoing investigation.^[4]“Ms. Kardashian’s case also serves as a reminder to celebrities and others that the law requires them to disclose to the public when and how much they are paid to promote investing in securities,” Gensler added.^[5]

Investors have also gone after celebrities for deceptively touting cryptocurrencies. In January 2022, a group of investors filed a lawsuit against Kim Kardashian, along with boxer Mayweather and former basketball star Paul Pierce, for losses they suffered after the celebrities promoted EMAX.

Implications

This case offers a stark warning to celebrities and non-crypto companies that might be considering serving as brand ambassadors or paid influencers for crypto companies, or engaging in sponsorships. Any individual or organization considering entering into a co-promotion or sponsorship agreement with a company in the crypto industry should ensure adequate due diligence has been conducted on the potential partner and carefully scrutinize crypto and NFT offerings for potential liability or exposure under US securities laws. Notably, the US Federal Trade Commission is also carefully scrutinizing the use of influencers and endorsements in commercial marketing and imposes its own disclosure obligations.

For more Finance Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FOOTNOTES

^[1] See Complaint, Count Three.

^[2]See SEC Statement Urging Caution Around Celebrity Backed ICOs, available at SEC.gov | SEC Statement Urging Caution Around Celebrity Backed ICOs.

^[3] See SEC Charges Kim Kardashian for Unlawfully Touting Crypto Security, available at SEC.gov | SEC Charges Kim Kardashian for Unlawfully Touting Crypto Security.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id.

FTC Starts Long-Awaited Green Guides Review

On December 14, 2022, at an open meeting of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), FTC commissioners voted unanimously to publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing a Request for Public Comments on potential amendments to the Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”).
The FTC solicits comments on the ongoing need for the Guides and on specific claims addressed in the Guides, including “recyclable,” “recycled content,” “degradable,” “compostable,” and more. It also asks if it should initiate a rulemaking process and address claims it declined to consider during the last review, such as “organic” and “sustainable.”
Importantly, given the growth in some state laws that purport to restrict claims, the FTC asks for input on whether the Guides conflict with federal or state laws. This proceeding is expected to garner significant input.
Once the Notice is published in the Federal Register (which the FTC anticipates will be in mid-January 2023), interested stakeholders will have 60 days from the date of the Notice to submit comments to the FTC, unless an extension is granted.
For more information about the FTC Notice, please read our report here.

For more Energy and Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB”) issued a decision that that could have profound effect on employers in all industries, regardless if they have a union. In Thrryv, Inc., the NLRB ruled in a 3 to 2 decision that employers who have been found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) can be assessed “consequential damages.” in addition to the more traditional remedies of back pay and reinstatement. If this case is upheld following a likely appeal, it will rock the employer community in the automotive industry and elsewhere.

The case arises from a unionized marketing company that decided to have a layoff. In the course of negotiating with the company over the layoff, the union representing the employees made various requests for information from the company. The company never provided the requested data. The NLRB determined the company violated the NLRA by refusing to respond to the union’s request for information. The NLRB further found the company violated the act by implementing the layoff without engaging in collective bargaining with the union.

Normally, the NLRB would remedy a violation of this nature by ordering the company to engage in “make whole relief” for the affected workers. Typically, that would involve reinstatement and back pay for the period of time they were wrongfully laid-off. However, in this case, the NLRB boldly went where it has never gone before and ordered the company to compensate the employees for “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the unfair labor practice.” The NLRB went on to say this would be the new normal to remedy employer violations of the NLRA. Determining the full extent of direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms will invariably require additional hearings in which the parties present evidence. Under this new standard, the type of damages potentially available to affected workers could include such things as out-of-pocket, medical expenses, credit card debt, and any other cause the light off employees incurred while trying to make ends meet.

The two Republican members of the NLRB, Marvin Kaplan, and John Ring filed a dissenting opinion. The dissent believes that the new remedy laid-out in the majority decision is too broad. They contend this new standard could subject employers to almost limitless, speculative damages. The dissenting opinion also notes that this new form of damages goes further than those available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They question how the NLRB could award such damages without specific statutory authority from Congress.

This case will almost certainly be appealed and it behooves all the employer community to closely follow its track and if the NLRB uses other cases to continue to try to implement these new form of damages.

Article By Mark J. Neuberger of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Ankura CTIX FLASH Update – December 13, 2022

Malware Activity

Uber Discloses New Data Breach Related to Third-Party Vendor

Uber has disclosed a new data breach that is related to the security breach of Teqtivity, a third-party vendor that Uber uses for asset management and tracking services. A threat actor named “UberLeaks” began leaking allegedly stolen data from Uber and Uber Eats on December 10, 2022, on a hacking forum. The exposed data includes Windows domain login names and email addresses, corporate reports, IT asset management information, data destruction reports, multiple archives of apparent source code associated with mobile device management (MDM) platforms, and more. One document in particular contained over 77,000 Uber employee email addresses and Windows Active Directory information. UberLeaks posted the alleged stolen information in four (4) separate postings regarding Uber MDM, Uber Eats MDM, Teqtivity MDM, and TripActions MDM platforms. The actor included one (1) member of the Lapsus$ threat group in each post, but Uber confirmed that Lapsus$ is not related to this December breach despite being previously linked to the company’s cyberattack in September 2022. Uber confirmed that this breach is not related to the security incident that took place in September and that the code identified is not owned by Uber. Teqtivity published a data breach notification on December 12, 2022, that stated the company is aware of “customer data that was compromised due to unauthorized access to our systems by a malicious third party” and that the third-party obtained access to its AWS backup server that housed company code and data files. Teqtivity also noted that its ongoing investigation identified the following exposed information: first name, last name, work email address, work location details, device serial number, device make, device model, and technical specs. The company confirmed that home address, banking information, and government identification numbers are not collected or retained. Uber and Teqtivity are both in the midst of ongoing investigations into this data breach. CTIX analysts will provide updates on the matter once available.

Threat Actor Activity

PLAY Ransomware Claims Responsibility for Antwerp Cyberattack

After last week’s ransomware attack on the city of Antwerp, a threat organization has claimed responsibility and has begun making demands. The threat group, tracked as PLAY ransomware, is an up-and-coming ransomware operation that has been posting leaked information since November 2022, according to an available posting on their leak site. Samples of the threat group’s ransomware variants have shown activity dating back to June 2022, which is around the time PLAY ransomware targeted the Argentina Court of Cordoba (August). While PLAY’s ransomware attack crippled several sectors of Antwerp, it appears to have had a significant impact on residential facilities throughout the city, as stated by officials. According to PLAY NEWS, PLAY’s ransomware leak site, the publication date for the exfiltrated data is Monday, December 19, 2022, if the undisclosed ransom is not paid. PLAY threat actors claim to have 557 gigabytes (GB) worth of Antwerp-related data including but not limited to personal identifiable information, passports, identification cards, and financial documents. CTIX continues to monitor the developing situation and will provide additional updates as more information is released.

The Record: PLAY Ransomware Article

Vulnerabilities

Fortinet Patches Critical RCE Vulnerability in FortiOS SSL-VPN Products

After observing active exploitation attempts in-the-wild, the network security solutions manufacturer Fortinet has patched a critical vulnerability affecting their FortiOS SSL-VPN products. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2022-42475, was given a CVSS score of 9.3/10 and is a heap-based buffer overflow, which could allow unauthenticated attackers to perform arbitrary remote code execution (RCE) if successfully exploited. Specifically, the vulnerability exists within the FortiOS sslvpnd product, which enables individual users to safely access an organization’s network, client-server applications, and internal network utilities and directories without the need for specialized software. The vulnerability was first discovered by researchers from the French cybersecurity firm Olympe Cyberdefense who warned users to monitor their logs for suspicious activity until a patch was released. Although very few technical details about the exploitation have been divulged, Fortinet did share lists of suspicious artifacts and IPs. Based on research by Ankura CTIX analysts, the IPs released by Fortinet are located around the globe and are not associated with known threat actors at this time. To prevent exploitation, all Fortinet administrators leveraging FortiOS sslvpnd should ensure that they download and install the latest patch. If organizations cannot immediately patch their systems due to the business interruption it would cause, Olympe Cyberdefense suggests “customers monitor logs, disable the VPN-SSL functionality, and create access rules to limit connections from specific IP addresses.” A list of the affected products and their solutions, as well as the indicators of compromise can be found in the Fortinet advisory linked below.

The semi-weekly Ankura Cyber Threat Investigations and Expert Services (CTIX) FLASH Update is designed to provide timely and relevant cyber intelligence pertaining to current or emerging cyber events. The preceding is a collection of cyber threat intelligence leads assembled over the past few days and typically includes high level intelligence pertaining to recent threat group/actor activity and newly identified vulnerabilities impacting a wide range of industries and victims.

Article By Ankura Cyber Threat Investigations and Expert Services

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

IRS Announces 2023 Increases to Estate and Gift Tax Exclusions

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced the 2023 cost of living adjustments for the estate and gift tax exclusion amounts.

Gift Tax Exclusion Amount:

The annual gift tax exclusion is the amount (“Gift Tax Exclusion Amount”) an individual may gift to any number of persons without incurring a gift tax or reporting obligation. The Gift Tax Exclusion Amount will increase from $16,000 to $17,000 in 2023 (a combined $34,000 for married couples). The Gift Tax Exclusion Amount renews annually, so an individual who gifted $16,000 to someone in 2022 may gift $17,000 to that same person in 2023, without any reporting obligation. However, for any gift above the $17,000 in 2023, the individual making the gift must report it to the IRS.

Example A: A single person gives her two children $17,000 each in 2023. Each gift falls within the Gift Tax Exclusion Amount so the gifting individual will not have to pay any gift tax or notify the IRS. A married couple could give $34,000 to each child, with the same effect.

Example B: Compare a single person who wants to give her only child $20,000 in 2023. The person who gave the gift must notify the IRS of the $3,000 gift because it exceeds the $17,000 Gift Tax Exclusion Amount.

Estate Tax Exclusion Amount:

The estate tax exclusion is the amount (“Estate Tax Exclusion Amount”) an individual can transfer estate tax-free upon his or her death. The Estate Tax Exclusion Amount will increase from $12,060,000 to $12,920,000 in 2023 (a combined $25,840,000 for married couples).

Example A: A single person with two children passes away in 2023 owning $12,920,000 in assets. The deceased person’s two children will inherit the full $12,920,000 as no estate tax is owed.

Example B: A single person with two children passes away in 2023 owning $20,000,000 in assets. The decedent’s estate will owe tax on the assets owned that exceeded the $12,920,000 Estate Tax Exclusion Amount ($20,000,000 – $12,920,000 = $7,080,000). The current estate tax rate is approximately 40% which means the decedent’s estate will owe estate taxes in the amount of $2,832,000 ($7,080,000 x 40%).

For more Tax Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA Infractions Process

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has adopted key changes to the way in which NCAA infractions matters will be investigated and processed in the future. The changes, which take effect on January 1, 2023, are intended to modernize and enhance the process, while focusing resources on the most serious violations. Another objective is to reduce the time needed to process and resolve violation proceedings.

President of the University of Georgia and Chair of the Division I Board of Directors Jere Morehead said in August that NCAA members are “committed to resolving cases fairly and in a timely fashion, thus holding those responsible for violations accountable and avoiding penalizing those who were not involved in rule-breaking.”

Among the key changes are the following:

Enhanced duty to cooperate: Institutions, staff, and student-athletes, upon learning of potential violations, will be required to preserve information, to provide immediate access to all electronic devices, and to encourage family members, spouses, boosters, and others to cooperate in the investigation. The number of aggravating and mitigating factors in the Bylaws has been expanded to reward prompt and full cooperation and deter efforts to hinder or impede investigations.

New head coach responsibility standard: Head coaches will be held responsible for serious violations committed by those who report to them directly or indirectly. Only in determining the appropriate penalty will the Committee on Infractions (COI) consider whether the head coach promoted compliance and monitored the program. The previous infractions approach, which included a rebuttable presumption of responsibility on the part of a head coach, has been abandoned.

Additional method for resolution: A new alternative for resolving infractions cases has been added, with the aim of providing the COI greater flexibility and reserving full hearings for only the most serious cases. The new method, known as a “Written Record Hearing,” will be employed in cases in which the facts are largely undisputed and the alleged violations not numerous or significant.

Clarification of appeal standard and limitation of appeals: Findings and penalties by the COI will be affirmed by the Infractions Appeals Committee (IAC) if there is information in the record that supports the decision. Findings and penalties will not be set aside unless no reasonable person could have made the ruling given the factual record. Appeals to the IAC as to the penalties imposed will be limited to those sanctions that fall outside legislated penalty guidelines, or “core penalties.” The majority of appeals will be decided based on the written record without the need for oral argument. Finally, and as is also the case with the revised COI process, extensions of time will be granted only in extreme and clearly defined circumstances.

Aggravating and mitigating factors: The new guidelines clarify which factors apply to institutions and which apply to involved individuals. Previously, this was unclear and often debated. New aggravating factors have been added, including hindering an investigation or inhibiting the COI’s processing of a case. New mitigating factors also have been added, including a demonstration of exemplary cooperation by, for example, securing meaningful cooperation from an outside party.

Name, image and likeness (NIL): In this rapidly evolving area, the bylaws provide that if available information indicates that behaviors surrounding an NIL offer or agreement is contrary to NCAA legislation, it shall be presumed that a violation occurred. The charged institution or involved individual will then be required to rebut this presumption with credible and sufficient information that a violation did not occur.

In addition to the above changes, the new infractions construct eliminates the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), which had been created at the recommendation of the Commission on College Basketball chaired by Condoleezza Rice. While acknowledging the panel’s thoroughness in deciding the several cases referred to the IARP, it was concluded that this new process prolonged case timelines and required substantial additional resources to bring cases to resolution.

Finally, the Board of Directors announced that it will consider additional future changes that may help to deliver timely and fair outcomes in infractions matters. Among the subjects under further consideration are (i) requiring increased documentation of recruiting efforts, (ii) adjusting the size and composition of the COI, (iii) modification of penalty ranges (including alternatives to post-season bans), and (iv) enhancing confidentiality rules for involved parties during investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff.

For more Public Services Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

More Places, Less Spaces: California is Driving Down Development Costs

In an effort to decrease the skyrocketing development costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) aims to eliminate a key obstacle for new developments: parking. More specifically, starting on January 1, 2023, this law prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for residential, commercial and other development projects if the project is located within a 1/2-mile of a “High-Quality Transit Corridor”[1] or a “Major Transit Stop.”[2]

Prior to the enactment of AB 2097, cities and counties retained the authority to impose a minimum number of parking spaces required for new developments. This condition is typically the result of a calculation found in the city or county’s zoning code, and is usually determined based on the use or type of project being developed, regardless of project specifics. Oftentimes, the use of a universal calculation results in excess parking. For example, a new restaurant may be required to provide 4 parking spaces for every 100 square feet of use even if the restaurant concept does not necessitate a large number of parking spaces or if the restaurant is in a pedestrian- or transit-friendly location. While California remains in the throes of a housing crisis, some areas within the state boast an oversupply of parking spaces. For example, Los Angeles County has 18.6 million parking spaces, which equates to almost 2 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[3] This statistic is similar in the Bay Area where there are 1.9 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[4]

Moreover, not only can a static calculation result in unnecessary parking (and blacktop), it can add untenable costs to new developments. For example, new residential developments are typically required to provide 1 to 2 parking spaces per unit. The requirement results in an additional cost of approximately $36,000 per unit.[5] As the cost to develop residential projects is at an all-time high,[6] builders are welcoming all efforts to reduce the cost and eliminate unnecessary development “standards.”

To avoid a complete free-for-all, under AB 2097, public agencies will still retain the ability to impose a minimum parking requirement, if, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, the public agency makes a written finding that not imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement would have a substantial negative impact. However, there are a number of exceptions to this caveat that wholly restrict public agencies from imposing a minimum parking condition. These exceptions include certain affordable housing projects or small residential housing projects.

For parking spaces that are voluntarily included in proposed project designs, public agencies may still require: (i) spaces for car share vehicles; (ii) parking spaces to be shared with the public; or (iii) for the project to charge for parking. Nothing in AB 2097 shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that new developments provide for the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (i.e., EV-charging stations) or to provide parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities.

AB 2097 is intended to give developers more flexibility and lower the costs associated with development, which will – hopefully – result in an influx of housing and the redevelopment of vacant buildings where it may not have been previously feasible to provide parking in a quantity necessary to meet a jurisdiction’s minimum requirements. By reducing the oversupply of parking, there is the expectation that the use of mass transit will increase, thereby reducing traffic, greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Critics of AB 2097 are concerned that the elimination of parking requirements could actually weaken local efforts to provide more affordable housing as many public agencies offer reductions in parking requirements to incentivize developers to add on-site affordable housing units to the project.[7] There is also concern that, despite the decrease in availability, many residents will continue to own vehicles, which – ironically – will lead to increase parking demand and congestion.

Although there is a lot of speculation of AB 2097, many are hopeful that it is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing California’s housing crisis. As Governor Gavin Newsom stated when he signed the bill: “Reducing housing costs for everyday Californians and eliminating emissions from cars: That’s what we call a win-win.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] “High-Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with a fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.

[2] “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by bus or rail, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of fifteen minutes or less during peak commute periods.

[3] Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia. Assembly Committee on Local Government – AB 2097 (Friedman) – As Introduced February 14, 2022. (April 20, 2022. )

[4] Inventorying San Francisco Bay Area Parking Spaces: Technical Report Describing Objectives, Methods, and Results. Mineta Transportation Institute – San Jose State University. (February 2022.)

[5] Some estimates place the aveage cost of one residential unit at $1,000,000 in development costs. (The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkley. A Terner Center Report [March 2020].)

[6] Dillon, Liam and Posten, Ben. Affordable Housing in California Now Routinely Tops $1 Million per Apartment to Build. Los Angeles Times. (June 2, 2022.)

[7] California Daily News.

Article By Amanda S. Lee of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more real estate legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Warning Sign? A New Round of FDA Warning Letters Over CBD Consumer Confusion May Signal a Shift in Government Enforcement

FDA warning letters are nothing new in the cannabis industry. In fact, we here at Budding Trends have covered this topic a number of times (here, here, and here). Not resigned to playing the hits, however, the FDA issued a new set of warning letters on November 21 that may signal a shift in enforcement posture away from solely targeting companies that market CBD as a potential medical treatment and towards including companies that market their products in ways that could cause consumer confusion. This is a “Warning Sign” that might cause the cannabis industry “A Rush of Blood to the Head,” much like Coldplay’s multi-platinum album that recently celebrated its 20-year anniversary. So, turn back the “Clocks,” book your flight to “Amsterdam,” and indulge us if you will — just not too much.

Congress legalized the production of hemp and hemp-derived products under the 2018 Farm Bill. But federal legalization did not exempt the hemp industry from federal regulation. Indeed, the FDA and FTC retain overlapping enforcement authority over CBD marketing, with the FDA having primary authority over labeling. Far more than “A Whisper,” the FDA and FTC have not been shy about issuing warning letters to hemp companies that fail to follow the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance.

Since its first set of warning letters to CBD companies in April 2019, the FDA has focused its enforcement activity on companies that market their CBD products as treatment and cures for a variety of diseases and illnesses. But the FDA’s most recent warning letters took a different tack, focusing on potential health risks from long-term CBD use, consumer confusion leading to unintentional or overconsumption of CBD, and CBD products that could be seen as marketed to children.

The basis of the FDA’s five new warning letters was that CBD is neither an authorized food additive nor generally recognized as safe. The FDA noted it had “not found adequate information showing how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” and claimed that “scientific studies show” potential harm to the “male reproductive system” and “liver” from long-term CBD use. In the FDA’s words, “[p]eople should be aware of the potential risks associated with the use of CBD products.”

The products highlighted in the warning letters included gummies, fruit snacks, lollipops, cookies, teas, and other beverages. The FDA said these products were targeted because consumers may confuse them for traditional foods or beverages, “which may result in unintentional consumption of overconsumption of CBD.” Further, the FDA noted that gummies, candies, and cookies are especially concerning because they may appeal to children. Likewise, the FDA cited tea, coffee, sparkling water, beverage “shots,” and honey as products similar to traditional food that may confuse consumers into over-consuming CBD.

Keeping its focus on unintended consumption or unintended overconsumption, the FDA also chastised one company for failing to specifically list CBD as an ingredient on the label of its hemp-infused tea. This is particularly important to note for hemp companies, many of which have sought to avoid listing “CBD” on the product labels for full spectrum hemp extracts in an effort to avoid the FDA and FTC’s seemingly CBD-focused enforcement actions.

Given this new enforcement posture, CBD companies may consider avoiding marketing attempts that seek to link CBD products too closely with traditional foods and beverages. This may include limiting references to the similarity of CBD products to traditional ones. And CBD companies should continue to avoid product labels and marketing campaigns that would be enticing to children, especially for CBD products that are in a form children might be likely to consume (such as gummies and candies).

It remains to be seen where the FDA will draw the line between appropriate marketing and marketing that goes too far towards confusing consumers, but, aside from a falsetto Chris Martin, “nobody said it was easy.” Until then, watch this space and remember to follow the marketing dos and don’ts we provided in one of our previous blog posts.

Article By J. Hunter Robinson and Josh Kleppin of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Easy Ways to Build Your Professional Brand

Whether or not you realize it, you have a professional brand, and it’s up to you to maximize and leverage it.

Every day, people are searching for you online. They may go to your web bio, but more than likely, they’re probably going to LinkedIn as well to check you out.

LinkedIn paints a much more robust picture of you and your professional background than your web site bio because it enables you to showcase your entire professional history and body of work.

Think of LinkedIn as your own mini website and blog.

So LinkedIn is a huge part of managing your brand. It would be very wise to focus on building your presence on LinkedIn, and it is free.

Also, Googling yourself regularly and setting up Google alerts to make sure that you’re aware of what’s being said about you, and manage your online reputation.

Speaking engagements can be incredibly powerful to underscore your subject matter expertise and stay top of mind with those who need someone like you. If you feel uncomfortable doing them live, do webinars.

There is a ripple effect with speaking engagements, which is that you likely will get asked to do another speaking engagement when people see that you are on the speaking circuit and that you are good at it.

Not everyone is comfortable being on video like I am, but that’s also an option. A podcast is another great way to build your brand, make strong relationships and you don’t have to be on camera.

There’s a lot of other things you can do, such as writing articles, blog posts, client alerts, email blasts and email newsletters – these are all great ways to showcase your thought leadership expertise and stay top of mind with your clients, prospects and referral sources.

There’s also trade association memberships and committee involvement – they are an effective way to get to know people in your industry, as long as you’re going to commit to them, because the worst thing you can do is to not do a good job on these committees.

You don’t have to do all of these things, or several of them at once, and you should only do the ones that you like to do because you will be more successful at them.

A Word About Self Confidence

Don’t let anyone else dim your light, most of all you.

It’s time to build your confidence about posting on LinkedIn and showing up in other kinds of marketing. We each have value to provide to others and we need to believe that.

Every time I post I get nervous about how it will be received, especially posting videos.

But we all over estimate the extent to which others are thinking about us because guess what? They’re thinking about themselves way more. So stop worrying about what everyone else thinks!

You won’t be everyone’s cup of tea and that’s okay.

The right people will gravitate toward you and appreciate your posts even if they don’t tell you or actually post a like on your content.

I keep posting because I believe in my posts and I’m coming from a place of genuineness. Trying to help people is enough for me to keep showing up and posting.

So believe in yourself and silence the naysayers and that negative voice that you have about yourself. Each of us has an inner critic and if we’re not careful, we can start to believe what it has to say. Your success on LinkedIn and elsewhere depends on your ability to silence your inner critic.

Don’t let other people (or yourself) dim your light and be YOU. That’s your superpower.

How do you find the confidence to show up on LinkedIn and in other places?

Article By Stefanie M. Marrone of Stefanie Marrone Consulting

For more legal marketing news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The National Law Forum

SCOTUS Takes a Pass on “Gap Time” Dispute

Like this:

FTC Starts Long-Awaited Green Guides Review

Like this:

NLRB Unleashes New Damages Against Labor Law Violators

Like this: