Tag: Florida

SPAM FROM HOME?: Home Shopping Network (HSN) Hit With New TCPA Class Action Over DNC Text Messages

TCPA class actions against retailers arising out of SMS channel communications continue to roll in, despite Facebook severely limiting the availability of TCPA ATDS claims.

The issue, of course, is the DNC rules that prevent SMS messages to residential phones for marketing purposes absent prior express invitation or permission or an established business relationship.

For instance a consumer in Florida filed a TCPA class action lawsuit against HSN (home shopping network) yesterday in federal court claiming the company sent him promotional text messages without his consent and despite the fact he was on the national DNC list.

Complaint here: HSN COmplaint

The Complaint alleges HSN had a “practice” of sending text messages to consumers on the DNC list and seeks to represent a class of:

All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their
telephone number to HSN, Inc., (2) to whom HSN, Inc. delivered, or
caused to be delivered, more than one call or text message within a 12-
month period, promoting HSN, Inc. goods or services, (3) where the
person’s residential or cellular telephone number had been registered
with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before
HSN, Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the calls
and/or text messages within the 12-month period, (4) within four years
preceding the date of this complaint and through the date of class
certification.

As these cases continue to roll in it is critical that retailers and brands keep the DNC rules in mind. Most companies only seek to contact consumers that sign up for their messages but numerous challenges to compliance exist:

  1. Third-party lead suppliers often provide false information;
  2. Consumers enter the wrong phone numbers on POS systems and online; and
  3. Phone numbers change hands regularly.

While tools exist to help limit exposure on these challenges it is critical to maintain a strong DNC policy and attendant training to provide a defense. And don’t forget about the new revocation rules!

© 2024 Troutman Amin, LLP
For more on the TCPA, visit the NLR Communications Media Internet section

Artificial Intelligence and the Rise of Product Liability Tort Litigation: Novel Action Alleges AI Chatbot Caused Minor’s Suicide

As we predicted a year ago, the Plaintiffs’ Bar continues to test new legal theories attacking the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in courtrooms across the country. Many of the complaints filed to date have included the proverbial kitchen sink: copyright infringement; privacy law violations; unfair competition; deceptive and acts and practices; negligence; right of publicity, invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion; unjust enrichment; larceny; receipt of stolen property; and failure to warn (typically, a strict liability tort).

A case recently filed in Florida federal court, Garcia v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 6:24-CV-01903 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 22, 2024) (Character Tech) is one to watch. Character Tech pulls from the product liability tort playbook in an effort to hold a business liable for its AI technology. While product liability is governed by statute, case law or both, the tort playbook generally involves a defective, unreasonably dangerous “product” that is sold and causes physical harm to a person or property. In Character Tech, the complaint alleges (among other claims discussed below) that the Character.AI software was designed in a way that was not reasonably safe for minors, parents were not warned of the foreseeable harms arising from their children’s use of the Character.AI software, and as a result a minor committed suicide. Whether and how Character Tech evolves past a motion to dismiss will offer valuable insights for developers AI technologies.

The Complaint

On October 22nd, 2024, Ms. Garcia, the mother of the deceased minor (Sewell), filed a complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Google LLC, Character Technologies Inc. and the creators of Character.AI—Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Frietas Adiwarsana. Shazeer and De Frietas formed Character Technologies Inc. after they left their prior jobs at Google LLC and subsequently developed and marketed Character.AI.

Character.AI allows users to communicate with existing Character.AI characters – such as Interviewer or Trip Planner – or to create new AI characters using Character.AI’s tools. A user can then engage with the Character.AI character – whether for human-like conversations, such as to answer questions, write a story, translate or write code – based on Character Tech’s large language model chatbot. According to the Complaint, Character.AI was rated as suitable for children until July 2024.

The Complaint alleges that Character.AI’s chatbot led Sewell to commit suicide. The Plaintiff claims her son became instantly addicted to Character.AI, leading to drastic behavioral changes such as sleep deprivation, school-related issues and low self-esteem. Her son primarily engaged with Character.AI characters from the HBO series Game of Thrones. The conversations with Game of Thrones’ female characters (such as Rhaenyra Targaryen and Daenerys Targaryen) involved sexualized content. Sewell also expressed his own dark thoughts such as “[t]he world I’m in now is such a cruel one. One where I’m meaningless. But, I’ll keep living and trying to get back to you so we can be together again, my love.” According to the Complaint, after Ms. Garcia took her son’s phone away, Sewell would use extraordinary measures to engage with Character.AI characters.

In his last conversation with a Character.AI character, Sewell told the character that he wanted to “come home” and the character replied, “[please] come home to me as soon as possible, my love,” to which he responded, “[w]hat if I told you I could come home right now?” The character answered, “…please do, my sweet king.” Seconds later, Sewell took his own life.

The Claims

The Complaint asserts a host of claims centered around an alleged lack of safeguards for Character.AI and the exploitation of minors. The most significant claims are noted below:

  • The Product Liability Torts

The Plaintiff alleges both strict liability and negligence claims for a failure to warn and defective design. The first hurdle under these product liability claims is whether Character.AI is a product. She argues that Character.AI is a product because it has a definite appearance and location on a user’s phone, it is personal and movable, it is a “good” rather than an idea, copies of Character.AI are uniform and not customized, there are an unlimited number of copies that can be obtained and it can be accessed on the internet without an account. This first step may, however, prove difficult for the Plaintiff because Character.AI is not a traditional tangible good and courts have wrestled over whether similar technologies are services—existing outside the realm of product liability. See In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction, 702 F. Supp. 3d 809, 838 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (rejecting both parties’ simplistic approaches to the services or products inquiry because “cases exist on both sides of the questions posed by this litigation precisely because it is the functionalities of the alleged products that must be analyzed”).

The failure to warn claims allege that the Defendants had knowledge of the inherent dangers of the Character.AI chatbots, as shown by public statements of industry experts, regulatory bodies and the Defendants themselves. These alleged dangers include knowledge that the software utilizes data sets that are highly toxic and sexual to train itself, common industry knowledge that using tactics to convince users that it is human manipulates users’ emotions and vulnerability, and that minors are most susceptible to these negative effects. The Defendants allegedly had a duty to warn users of these risks and breached that duty by failing to warn users and intentionally allowing minors to use Character.AI.

The defective design claims argue the software is defectively designed based on a “Garbage In, Garbage Out” theory. Specifically, Character.AI was allegedly trained based on poor quality data sets “widely known for toxic conversations, sexually explicit material, copyrighted data, and even possible child sexual abuse material that produced flawed outputs.” Some of these alleged dangers include the unlicensed practice of psychotherapy, sexual exploitation and solicitation of minors, chatbots tricking users into thinking they are human, and in this instance, encouraging suicide. Further, the Complaint alleges that Character.AI is unreasonably and inherently dangerous for the general public—particularly minors—and numerous safer alternative designs are available.

  • Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices

The Plaintiff asserts a deceptive and unfair trade practices claim under Florida state law. The Complaint alleges the Defendants represented that Character.AI characters mimic human interaction, which contradicts Character Tech’s disclaimer that Character.AI characters are “not real.” These representations constitute dark patterns that manipulate consumers into using Character.AI, buying subscriptions and providing personal data.

The Plaintiff also alleges that certain characters claim to be licensed or trained mental health professionals and operate as such. The Defendants allegedly failed to conduct testing to determine whether the accuracy of these claims. The Plaintiff argues that by portraying certain chatbots to be therapists—yet not requiring them to adhere to any standards—the Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices. The Complaint compares this claim to the FTC’s recent action against DONOTPAY, Inc. for its AI-generated legal services that allegedly claimed to operate like a human lawyer without adequate testing.

The Defendants are also alleged to employ AI voice call features intended to mislead and confuse younger users into thinking the chatbots are human. For example, a Character.AI chatbot titled “Mental Health Helper” allegedly identified itself as a “real person” and “not a bot” in communications with a user. The Plaintiff asserts that these deceptive and unfair trade practices resulted in damages, including the Character.AI subscription costs, Sewell’s therapy sessions and hospitalization allegedly caused by his use of Character.AI.

  • Wrongful Death

Ms. Garcia asserts a wrongful death claim arguing the Defendants’ wrongful acts and neglect proximately caused the death of her son. She supports this claim by showing her son’s immediate mental health decline after he began using Character.AI, his therapist’s evaluation that he was addicted to Character.AI characters and his disturbing sexualized conversations with those characters.

  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Ms. Garcia also asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendants allegedly engaged in intentional and reckless conduct by introducing AI technology to the public and (at least initially) targeting it to minors without appropriate safety features. Further, the conduct was allegedly outrageous because it took advantage of minor users’ vulnerabilities and collected their data to continuously train the AI technology. Lastly, the Defendants’ conduct caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, i.e., the loss of her son.

  • Other Claims

The Plaintiff also asserts claims of negligence per se, unjust enrichment, survivor action and loss of consortium and society.

Lawsuits like Character Tech will surely continue to sprout up as AI technology becomes increasingly popular and intertwined with media consumption – at least until the U.S. AI legal framework catches up with the technology. Currently, the Colorado AI Act (covered here) will become the broadest AI law in the U.S. when it enters into force in 2026.

The Colorado AI Act regulates a “High-Risk Artificial Intelligence System” and is focused on preventing “algorithmic discrimination, for Colorado residents”, i.e., “an unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived age, color, disability, ethnicity, genetic information, limited proficiency in the English language, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health, sex, veteran status, or other classification protected under the laws of [Colorado] or federal law.” (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1701(1).) Whether the Character.AI technology would constitute a High-Risk Artificial Intelligence System is still unclear but may be clarified by the anticipated regulations from the Colorado Attorney General. Other U.S. AI laws also are focused on detecting and preventing bias, discrimination and civil rights in hiring and employment, as well as transparency about sources and ownership of training data for generative AI systems. The California legislature passed a law focused on large AI systems that prohibited a developer from making an AI system available if it presented an “unreasonable risk” of causing or materially enabling “a critical harm.” This law was subsequently vetoed by California Governor Newsome as “well-intentioned” but nonetheless flawed.

While the U.S. AI legal framework – whether in the states or under the new administration – an organization using AI technology must consider how novel issues like the ones raised in Character Tech present new risks.

Daniel Stephen, Naija Perry, and Aden Hochrun contributed to this article

© Copyright 2024 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more on AI, visit the NLR Communications Media Internet section

Down to the Wire for Employers and FTC Noncompete Ban

Compliance Deadline Approaches

Employers are running out of time to comply with the FTC’s purported regulatory ban on non-competition agreements. The ban – announced on April 23, 2024 – is scheduled to take effect on September 4. 2024.

By that date, the regulation requires that employers notify all employees subject to noncompetes that the agreements will no longer be enforced. The only exceptions are existing agreements with “senior executives” who made at least $151,164 in the preceding year; these agreements are grandfathered. See our earlier alerts from April 23, May 14, and July 8 for further discussion on developments relating to the ban.

So Far, No Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Ban

As previously reported, a federal court in Dallas issued a preliminary injunction against the regulation on July 3, 2024. The injunction, however, only affects the parties to the lawsuit and the district in which the lawsuit was brought. When she issued that preliminary injunction, Judge Ada Brown committed to rendering a final decision on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction by August 30,2024.

However, she specifically declined to give her preliminary injunction nationwide effect. In its motion in support of a permanent injunction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other parties are arguing that the court is required to vacate the rule, with nationwide effect, because it was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. We cannot predict whether she will do so.

Meanwhile, since the July ruling in Texas, two other federal courts have issued rulings on requests to enjoin the ban, one in Philadelphia in favor of the FTC by denying an injunction, and the other in central Florida in favor of the employer by granting one. As with the Texas case, the Florida injunction is not nationwide. Moreover, that judge has not yet issued an opinion, so we do not yet know his rationale for the injunction.

Now What?

Where does this leave employers? In the absence of a ruling invalidating the FTC ban nationwide, there is nothing to prevent the FTC from enforcing its ban beginning September 4 anywhere outside of Dallas and mid-Florida. As far as we know, only the Northern District of Texas is able to order such a ban when it issues its final decision on or before August 30.

Even though, based on her initial ruling, it is quite likely Judge Brown will enjoin the regulation permanently, it is unclear whether she will take the additional step of giving her injunction nationwide effect.

To comply with the regulation, employers should prepare to act by September 4. We recommend creating a list of all current and former “workers” (defined as any service providers regardless of classification) subject to noncompete agreements and a written communication that meets the regulation’s notice requirements.

Unless a new order appears enjoining enforcement of the ban nationwide before September 4, employers will need to send out that communication in order to be in compliance. The requirements for sending the notice include identifying the “person who entered into the noncompete clause with the worker by name” (we don’t know if this means the individual or the entity) and hand delivering or mailing the notice to the worker’s last known mailing address, or to the last known email address or mobile phone number (by text). The full text of the rule, including a model communication from the FTC, can be found at pages 3850-06 of the May 7, 2024, Federal Register.

©2024 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on the Noncompete Ban, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section.

Whistleblower Tax Fraud Lawsuit Against Bitcoin Billionaire Settles for $40 Million

MicroStrategy’s founder is alleged to have falsified tax documents for ten years. The settlement resolves the first whistleblower lawsuit filed under 2021 amendments to the DC False Claims Act.

Key Takeaways
On June 3, the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General announced the $40 million settlement with Michael Saylor
It is the largest income tax recovery in D.C. history
The settlement, which resolves a qui tam lawsuit filed under the DC False Claims Act, underscores the power of whistleblowers in combatting tax fraud
On June 3, the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General (OAG) made a landmark announcement. The billionaire founder of MicroStrategy Incorporated, Michael Saylor, settled a tax fraud lawsuit for a staggering $40 million. This case, stemming from a qui tam whistleblower suit filed under the District’s False Claims Act, marks a significant milestone in the fight against tax fraud. The OAG declared this as the largest income tax recovery in D.C. history, underscoring the importance of this case.

The DC False Claims Act
This settlement is not just a victory for the District but also a testament to the power of whistleblowers. Under the 2021 extension of the D.C. False Claims Act, individuals have the power to file qui tam suits against large companies and suspected tax evaders. The 2021 amendments even offer monetary awards to those who report tax cheats. This settlement, the first settlement under these amendments, serves to put would-be tax cheats on notice.

As the District of Columbia expands its arsenal against tax fraud, other states should take note. The DC False Claims Act, now covering tax fraud, has become a powerful tool in the fight against financial misconduct. With the District joining the ranks of Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New York, and Rhode Island as states where false claims suits may be brought based on tax fraud claims, the fight against tax cheats looks promising.

The Case Against Saylor
In 2021, unnamed whistleblowers filed a lawsuit against Saylor, alleging that he had defrauded the District and failed to pay income taxes from 2014 to 2020. The OAG independently investigated these claims and filed a separate complaint against Saylor. The District’s lawsuit alleged that Saylor claimed to be a resident of Florida and Virginia to avoid paying over $25 million in income taxes. Another suit was filed against MicroStrategy, claiming it falsified records and statements that facilitated Saylor’s tax avoidance scheme.

The District’s allegations against Saylor paint a picture of a lavish lifestyle. Saylor is accused of unlawfully withholding tens of millions in tax revenue by claiming to live in a lower tax jurisdiction to avoid paying D.C. income taxes. The OAG’s investigation revealed that Saylor owned a 7,000-square-foot luxury penthouse overlooking the Potomac Waterfront and docked multiple yachts in the Washington Harbor. He purchased three luxury condominium units at 3030 K Street NW to combine into his current residence and a penthouse unit at the Eden Condominiums, 2360 Champlain St. NW. The Attorney General compiled several posts from Saylor’s Facebook, in which he boasted about the view from his D.C. residence.

Whistleblower Tax Fraud Lawsuit Against Bitcoin Billionaire Settles For $40 Million

Furthermore, the OAG found evidence that Saylor purchased a house in Miami Beach, obtained a Florida driver’s license, registered to vote in Florida, and falsely listed his residence on MicroStrategy W-2 forms. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb stated, “Saylor openly bragged about his tax-evasion scheme, encouraging his friends to follow his example and contending that anyone who paid taxes to the District was stupid.”

The lawsuits allege that records from Saylor’s security detail provide Saylor’s physical location and travel from 2015 to 2020 and show that across six years, Saylor spent 449 days in Florida and 1,397 days in the District. Saylor allegedly directed MicroStrategy employees to aid his scheme to avoid paying District income taxes. The District claims that for the last ten years, MicroStrategy has falsely reported its income tax exemption on Saylor’s wages, claiming he was tax-exempt due to his residential status.

Saylor agreed to pay the District $40 million to resolve the allegations against him and MicroStrategy.

A copy of the settlement can be found here.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.

by: Whistleblower Law at Kohn Kohn Colapinto of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Is The End Of FINRA Drawing Nigh?

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, aka FINRA, is a non-profit Delaware corporation.  It was formed in 2007 by the combination of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.  FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that primarily regulates securities broker-dealers.

Professor Benjamin P. Edwards recently reported that a complaint has been filed in Florida challenging the constitutionality of FINRA.  The lawsuit filed by two broker-dealers alleges:

However, FINRA’s current structure and operations, particularly in light of the transformation of the organization over the course of the last two decades, contravene the separation of powers, violate the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”) and constitute an impermissible delegation of powers. Because it purports to be a private entity, FINRA is unaccountable to the President of the United States (the “President,” or “POTUS”), lacks transparency, and operates in contravention of the authority under which it was formed.  It utilizes its  own in-house tribunals in a manner contrary to Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and deprives entities and individuals of property
without due process of law.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief.

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

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

District Court Rules Most Plaintiffs in Case Do Not Have Standing to Block Florida Stop W.O.K.E. Act

There are two key cases pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on Florida’s “Stop W.O.K.E. Act”: the Falls, et al. v. DeSantis, et al., matter (No. 4:22-cv-00166) and the Honeyfund.com, et al. v. DeSantis, et al., matter (No. 4:22-cv-00227). The Northern District of Florida has issued its first order on the Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2022.

In an Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, in Part, in the Falls matter, the court concluded that the K-12 teachers, the soon-to-be kindergartner, and the diversity and inclusion consultant who sued Governor Ron DeSantis and other officials to block the Stop W.O.K.E. Act did not have standing to pursue preliminary injunctive relief. The court reserved ruling pending additional briefing on the question of whether the college professor, who also sued, has standing.

Stop W.O.K.E. Act

The Stop W.O.K.E. Act expands an employer’s civil liability for discriminatory employment practices under the Florida Civil Rights Act if the employer endorses certain concepts in a “nonobjective manner” during training or other required activity that is a condition of employment.

Court Order

In the Falls case, a diverse group of plaintiffs claiming they were regulated by the Stop W.O.K.E. Act filed a lawsuit challenging the Act on the grounds that it violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to free expression, academic freedom, and to access information.

The court, however, did not reach the question of constitutionality. It also did not determine whether the case can move forward, an issue that will be decided when the court rules on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.

Instead, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on the threshold question of standing. It found the plaintiffs (other than the college professor) did not show they have suffered an injury-in-fact that is traceable to DeSantis or another defendant that can likely be redressed by a favorable ruling.

The court found the consultant is not an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act. Therefore, she could not assert standing on that basis. Instead, she argued she has third-party standing to assert the rights of the employers who would otherwise hire her, and she is harmed by the Act because employers will no longer hire her. The court rejected both theories, finding the consultant-employer relationship is not sufficiently “close” to create standing; employers are not hindered in raising their First Amendment rights on their own; and, based on the evidence presented, the court could not reasonably infer that the consultant has lost or will lose business because of the Act.

Importantly, the court specifically held that it was not ruling on the legality of the Act, whether it was moral, or whether it constituted good policy.

Private Employer

The court highlighted that the sister case pending in the Northern District of Florida (Honeyfund.com) involves a private employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act. In that case, the plaintiffs allege the Stop W.O.K.E. Act violates their right to free speech by restricting training topics and their due process rights by being unconstitutionally vague. Honeyfund.com, Inc. and its co-plaintiffs request that the court enjoin enforcement of the law. The case has been transferred to District Court Judge Mark Walker. The Honeyfund.com case will likely have the largest effect on Florida employers and questions surrounding the enforceability of the Act as to diversity and inclusion training.

***

Since the Stop W.O.K.E. Act took effect, employers are understandably unclear how to proceed with training. Employers should continue to train their employees, but review their training programs on diversity, inclusion, bias, equal employment opportunity, and harassment prevention through the lens of the new law. Employers should also ensure they train the trainers who are conducting these important programs. Finally, employers should understand potential risks associated with disciplining or discharging employees who refuse to participate in mandatory training programs, even if employers do not consider the programs to violate the new law.

Article By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Samia M. Kirmani, Amanda Simpson, and Lindsay Dennis Swiger of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Why ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bills are Antithetical to an Equitable and Inclusive Education

According to a 2019 GLSEN national survey of LGBTQ+ students, nearly 60% of surveyed students reported they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 43% because of their gender expression. Within the same survey, nearly all (98.8%) LGBTQ+ students reported hearing “gay” used in a negative way at school, 95% heard other homophobic remarks, and 87% heard transphobic remarks.

When I was an educator, it was essential to my practice that all my students felt safe. If I were to hear any negative remarks about a student or become aware one of my students felt unsafe due to their identity, it would be my ethical, and moral, obligation to do something to create a safer and more inclusive learning environment; a core part of my role as an educator was to teach empathy and compassion in my students. This could be as simple as having a classroom discussion about the choices of language and how using words such as “gay” with a negative connotation can be hurtful to their classmates. This could also mean sharing my own identity as a queer man so my LGBTQ+ students knew they had someone they could turn to for support, and to normalize queer identities for all my students and their families. Either of these actions would require I discuss the importance of accepting all sexual orientations and gender identities.

In other words, I would have to say “gay.” But in six states — as of now — I would not have been able to do this.

The state of Florida attracted national attention earlier this year with the adoption of H.B. 1557, the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, more commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The bill, which has since been signed into law, dictates classroom instruction by “school staff” on “sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Five other states, according to the Movement Advancement Project, have similar laws enacted and several more have bills pending in their state legislatures. Some proponents of these bills argue the legislation is necessary to ensure parents have greater say when, if, and how LGBTQ+ issues are discussed with their children.

Yet these laws are designed to ensure only some parents have greater say, as the parents of LGBTQ+ children are certainly not reflected in these efforts.

At a time when youth mental health is reaching a crisis, state legislatures are advancing bills that would perpetuate, and arguably exacerbate, harmful school-based experiences for LGBTQ+ youth and worsen their well-being. A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project found 45% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered suicide. The 2019 GLSEN survey also found LGBTQ+ students who experienced forms of victimization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., being bullied, hearing homophobic or transphobic remarks, etc.) had lower levels of self-esteem, higher levels of depression, and were less likely to say they belonged in school.

Some may argue “Don’t Say Gay” bills would not preclude educators from addressing instances of homophobia or transphobia in their classrooms and try to suggest that prohibitions on such actions are not the intent of the bills. However, regardless of intent, these bills often have the insidious impact to “chill” educators’ actions out of fear they may run afoul of the law and open themselves to reprimands, including being terminated.

All students deserve to have a safe, supportive, and affirming learning environment. All educators should be empowered to protect their students, and not feel afraid to step in when they notice a student being bullied because of their identity. And every parent should have the resources to be a partner in their child’s education. Unfortunately, state laws such as the “Don’t Say Gay” bills will only stand in way of these notions from becoming realities.

It is impossible to support all students when LGBTQ+ children continue to be targeted merely because of their identities.

Article By Sean A. Worley of Nelson Mullins

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

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Gin Manufacturer Bacardi Avoids Lawsuit for Its Use of “Grains of Paradise”

A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed an action alleging that Bacardi’s use of a botanical called “grains of paradise” in its gin was “harmful and illegal,” holding that the statute on which the lawsuit was based was preempted by federal law. Marrach v. Bacardi U.S.A, 19-cv-23856 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2020).

The complaint alleged a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. While Plaintiff himself suffered no harm from the drink, he cited a nineteenth-century provision forbidding the adulteration of alcoholic beverages with “grains of paradise” to support his claim that Bacardi’s use of the botanical was illegal. However, Bacardi argued in its motion to dismiss that the complaint was preempted because the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) permits the use of “grains of paradise.”

In an opinion that did not mince words, Judge Robert N. Scola granted the motion to dismiss, opening with the observation: “Numerous class actions have greatly benefited society such as Brown v. Board of Education, In re Exxon Valdez, and In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation. This is not one of those class actions.” He noted that the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 granted the FDA broad authority to monitor and control the introduction of food additives, signaling Congress’s intent to prevent rules unnecessarily prohibiting access to safe food additives. Judge Scola held that the Florida statute, which criminalizes adulterating liquor with grains of paradise, frustrated this purpose and was therefore preempted because it was in conflict with federal law.

Plaintiff attempted to counter this reasoning by arguing that the 21st Amendment gave states the right to regulate liquor, thereby overriding any argument that federal law governed in this matter. Judge Scola disagreed. As an initial matter, “the 21st Amendment does not in any way diminish the reach of the Supremacy Clause,” and therefore has neither the intent nor effect of undermining federal preemption of inconsistent state law. Moreover, Judge Scola noted that other courts have found similar state law prohibitions on food additives to be preempted by the FDCA.

Like previous cases we have covered on this blog, the decision underscores the FDA’s broad regulatory authority over food and beverage products which cannot be circumvented by plaintiffs simply by bringing claims under state law. In doing so, it provides important assurance to manufacturers of such products that their reliance on federal law will not be undercut by arcane state provisions.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on food & beverage authority, see the National Law Review Biotech Food & Drug section.

Florida’s Legislature to Consider Consumer Data Privacy Bill Akin to California’s CCPA

Florida lawmakers have proposed data privacy legislation that, if adopted, would impose significant new obligations on companies offering a website or online service to Florida residents, including allowing consumers to “opt out” of the sale of their personal information. While the bill (SB 1670 and HB 963) does not go as far as did the recent California Consumer Privacy Act, its adoption would mark a significant increase in Florida residents’ privacy rights. Companies that have an online presence in Florida should study the proposed legislation carefully. Our initial take on the proposed legislation appears below.

The proposed legislation requires an “operator” of a website or online service to provide consumers with (i) a “notice” regarding the personal information collected from consumers on the operator’s website or through the service and (ii) an opportunity to “opt out” of the sale of certain of a consumer’s personal information, known as “covered information” in the draft statute.

The “notice” would need to include several items. Most importantly, the operator would have to disclose “the categories of covered information that the operator collects through its website or online service about consumers who use [them] … and the categories of third parties with whom the operator may share such covered information.” The notice would also have to disclose “a description of the process, if applicable, for a consumer who uses or visits the website or online service to review and request changes to any of his or her covered information. . . .” The bill does not otherwise list when this “process” would be “applicable,” and it nowhere else appears to create for consumers any right to review and request changes.

While the draft legislation obligates operators to stop selling data of a consumer who submits a verified request to do so, it does not appear to require a description of those rights in the “notice.” That may just be an oversight in drafting. In any event, the bill is notable as it would be the first Florida law to require an online privacy notice. Further, a “sale” is defined as an exchange of covered information “for monetary consideration,” which is narrower than its CCPA counterpart, and contains exceptions for disclosures to an entity that merely processes information for the operator.

There are also significant questions about which entities would be subject to the proposed law. An “operator” is defined as a person who owns or operates a website or online service for commercial purposes, collects and maintains covered information from Florida residents, and purposefully directs activities toward the state. That “and” is assumed, as the proposed bill does not state whether those three requirements are conjunctive or disjunctive.

Excluded from the definition of “operator” is a financial institution (such as a bank or insurance company) already subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and an entity subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Outside of the definition of “operator,” the proposed legislation appears to further restrict the companies to which it would apply, to eliminate its application to smaller companies based in Florida, described as entities “located in this state,” whose “revenue is derived primarily from a source other than the sale or lease of goods, services, or credit on websites or online services,” and “whose website or online service has fewer than 20,000 unique visitors per year.” Again, that “and” is assumed as the bill does not specify “and” or “or.”

Lastly, the Department of Legal Affairs appears to be vested with authority to enforce the law. The proposed legislation states explicitly that it does not create a private right of action, although it also says that it is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.

The proposed legislation is part of an anticipated wave of privacy legislation under consideration across the country. California’s CCPA took effect in January and imposes significant obligations on covered businesses. Last year, Nevada passed privacy legislation that bears a striking resemblance to the proposed Florida legislation. Other privacy legislation has been proposed in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions.

©2011-2020 Carlton Fields, P.A.

For more on new and developing legislation in Florida and elsewhere, see the National Law Review Election Law & Legislative News section.

Steering Wheels Become Increasingly Optional

Florida is the latest state to allow vehicles to operate on the road without a steering wheel.  In doing so, Florida became the third state after Michigan and Texas to allow vehicles on its roads without a human even having the ability to drive them.  The legislation signed into law includes:

The bill authorizes operation of a fully autonomous vehicle on Florida roads regardless of whether a human operator is physically present in the vehicle. Under the bill, a licensed human operator is not required to operate a fully autonomous vehicle. The bill authorizes an autonomous vehicle or a fully autonomous vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system to operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle when the teleoperation system is engaged. A remote human operator must be physically present in the United States and be licensed to operate a motor vehicle by a United States jurisdiction.

Florida is sure to become a hotbed of autonomous vehicle testing with this new law.  Starsky Robotics is one of the companies expected to take advantage by putting driverless vehicles on the road in 2020.  These would not be just any vehicles, but big rig trucks.  These trucks have already hit 55 mph, without a driver or crew.  Most predict that this is just the beginning with as many as eight million autonomous vehicles expected on the road by 2025 and 30 million by 2030. Of course, the devil is in some of the details. There are six levels of autonomous vehicles, with level 5, Full Automation, being the highest.

Not everyone agrees that this is all happening so quickly.  As the New York Times noted, “A growing consensus holds that driver-free transport will begin with a trickle, not a flood.” Of course, this makes sense.  Outside of people with a vested interest (we are looking at you Mr. Musk), few seem to truly believe that millions of level 5, completely driverless vehicles will be on the road.

But this does not mean that they will not make an impact. While vehicles may not be navigating complex systems in dense areas next year, they are likely to find plenty of uses.  Gated communities with known road structures and limited traffic might be a good location for the first generation of fully autonomous vehicles. And think of the myriad of shuttles at various locations that run the same route, over and over, day after day. That seems like a good use of a fully autonomous vehicle run by something other than gasoline. How about college campuses, with autonomous vehicles running all day and all night providing safe routes and passage for vulnerable students at all hours. Suffice to say, the day when people can wake up, get into a fully autonomous vehicle, and go to sleep while it takes them to work is perhaps not something the current work force will enjoy (except apparently for the occasional Tesla rider taped sleeping behind the wheel).

But whatever generation comes after Generation Z is unlikely to know a driving experience like what exists today, if there is any driving at all. Will they even drive at all, or will they fly in their autonomous flying cars? Project Vahana aims to offer just that. In their own words: “Project Vahana intends to open up urban airways by developing the first certified electric, self-piloted vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) passenger aircraft.” Getting to work will never be easier.  Unless of course, all this transportation runs into the fact that everyone works remotely.

 

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on Vehicle Legislation see the National Law Review page on Utilities & Transport.