Articles by Dan Forman
California Employers Should Build a Defensible Process for AI Before California’s January 1, 2027 Deadline
As businesses integrate artificial intelligence (“AI”) and automated decision systems (“ADS”) into business operations, they must be cognizant of California’s new AI employment laws targeting the implementation and use of automated decision systems in their operations, practices, and procedures. On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 947 dubbed “No Robo Bosses” bill, which becomes operative on July 1, 2027. (See Stats. 2026, ch. 859, adding Lab.
The EFAA is Coming of Age
Four years after the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) was enacted, caselaw is forming to help employers better understand how it impacts arbitration agreements. In August, CDF informed you of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc., 187 F.4th 1231 (9th Cir.
When Robots Replace Staff: California’s New AI Layoff Disclosures
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 951 updating California’s workforce disclosure laws with new Cal/WARN Act requirements. SB 951 mandates disclosures for mass layoffs supported by artificial intelligence or automated systems. Specifically, it requires employers to disclose automated workforce reductions and tasks by publishing public summaries. This mandate takes effect January 1, 2027. What Does SB 951 Do?
The EFAA Is Coming Of Age
By: and Dan M. Forman ---------- Four years after the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) was enacted, caselaw is forming to help employers better understand how it impacts arbitration agreements. In August, CDF informed you of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc., 187 F.4th 1231 (9th Cir.
When Robots Replace Staff: California’s New AI Layoff Disclosures
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 951 updating California’s workforce disclosure laws with new Cal/WARN Act requirements. SB 951 mandates disclosures for mass layoffs supported by artificial intelligence or automated systems. Specifically, it requires employers to disclose automated workforce reductions and tasks by publishing public summaries. This mandate takes effect January 1, 2027. What Does SB 951 Do?
What California Businesses Should Know About SB 690 and CIPA Website-Tracking Claims
California businesses received some welcome relief when Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 690 into law on September 30, 2026. As CDF previously blogged, the new law eliminates a private right of action under CIPA Section 638.51, which governs pen-register and trap-and-trace devices and has been the basis for one of the most heavily used theories behind recent website-tracking claims.
Trapped and Traced No More - SB 690 Will Stem Tidal Wave of California Invasion of Privacy Claims
The flood of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) lawsuits targeting cookies, pixels and other tracking tools under antiquated laws that did not contemplate the internet is on its way to an end. For years, plaintiffs’ lawyers and individuals have used CIPA to send demand letters, commence arbitrations and class action lawsuits against companies of every size alleging that website tracking was illegal eavesdropping.
Trapped and Traced No More - SB 690 Will Stem Tidal Wave of California Invasion of Privacy Claims
The flood of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) lawsuits targeting cookies, pixels and other tracking tools under antiquated laws that did not contemplate the internet is on its way to an end. For years, plaintiffs’ lawyers and individuals have used CIPA to send demand letters, commence arbitrations and class action lawsuits against companies of every size alleging that website tracking was illegal eavesdropping.
My Body, My Temple + Scripture Does Not Equate to Automatic Religious Accommodation | JD Supra
Any manager who reviewed accommodation requests claiming a need for a religious accommodation in light of a vaccine mandate has seen this genre of request. An employee objects to a workplace vaccine requirement with the words "faith", "holistic", "personal choice" and citations to scripture as a basis for a religious accommodation. Such requests have created a conundrum for managers and HR professionals between protecting the safety of others and determining what should be treated as religion.
Ding Rings Employer's Bell Defeating Arbitration With Later Filed Sex Harassment Claims | JD Supra
A divided 9 th Circuit Court of Appeal published an important decision that opens the door to employees in arbitration getting their claims into Court under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"). This case also illustrates the importance of compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure 1281.98 ("1281.98") and paying arbitration fees timely.
Ding Rings Employer’s Bell Defeating Arbitration With Later Filed Sex Harassment Claims
A divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeal published an important decision that opens the door to employees in arbitration getting their claims into Court under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”). This case also illustrates the importance of compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure 1281.98 (“1281.98”) and paying arbitration fees timely.
My Body, My Temple + Scripture Does Not Equate To Automatic Religious Accommodation
Any manager who reviewed accommodation requests claiming a need for a religious accommodation in light of a vaccine mandate has seen this genre of request. An employee objects to a workplace vaccine requirement with the words “faith”, “holistic”, “personal choice” and citations to scripture as a basis for a religious accommodation. Such requests have created a conundrum for managers and HR professionals between protecting the safety of others and determining what should be treated as religion.
“You've Got Mail” Does Not Create Binding Arbitration Agreement
On August 5, 2026, the Ninth Circuit provided very concise guidance to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements between employers and employees in Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. In sum, arbitration agreements conditioned on continuing employment that are sent to employees will not be enforced unless an employer provides evidence of assent.
NOLA Detox Highlights Trauma-Informed Addiction Care for PTSD Awareness Day
For PTSD Awareness Day on June 27, the New Orleans center highlights integrated care for trauma and co-occurring substance use.
SCOTUS Provides Half-Baked Good News for California Employers Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements
For the fourth time in seven years, SCOTUS issued a narrow but unanimous opinion reiterating that the transportation worker’s exemption to compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) reaches employees who transport goods, even without leaving the state. Section 1 of the FAA states that disputes involving “contracts of employment” of any class of worker “engaged in . . . interstate commerce” are exempt from being compelled to arbitration.
AI in the Workplace: Managing Bias, Privacy and Legal Risk
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being adopted at a rapid pace across industries – and for good reasons. AI-driven tools increase efficiency, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance data-driven decision-making. In the employment context, businesses commonly use AI for applicant screening, hiring and promotion decisions, productivity monitoring, and other personnel actions. AI integration has significantly increased during the hiring process.
California Attorney General Secures the Highest CCPA Settlement to Date | JD Supra
California’s Privacy Police continue the campaign to promote compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and seek remedies from businesses that they conclude have not complied. The Attorney General’s office announced a settlement for $2.75 million dollars—the largest CCPA settlement that California ever secured—against the Walt Disney Company (Disney). The settlement arose from an investigation into various streaming services’ compliance with the CCPA that commenced in 2024.
Blog Update: $623,738 Sanctions Ordered in Golikov v. Walmart Inc. | JD Supra
In November, this Blog reported on the Court’s award of sanctions against a plaintiff’s lawyers for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings under 28 USC § 1927 because they alleged that the plaintiff made a purchase from a store instead of the defendant’s website which required binding arbitration agreement and a waiver of the right to pursue a class action. In December, Judge Klausner ordered the two lawyers to pay $623,738.70 as sanctions.
New Case to Test Whether California Charter Schools Are Subject to PERB or NLRB Jurisdiction? | JD Supra
An interesting labor law jurisdictional issue is brewing here in Sacramento. On January 10, teachers and other employees at the St. HOPE Public Charter Schools submitted an RD Petition with Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to decertify and to no longer be represented by the Sacramento City Teachers Association (SCTA) union, an affiliate of the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the National Education Association (NEA).
Court Provides New Road to Early Victory Defeating CIPA Complaint | JD Supra
A Los Angeles County trial court granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings disposing of a CIPA (California Invasion of Privacy Act) complaint against a website operator before formal discovery or other expensive litigation occurred. Rodriguez v. Ink America International, LASC 25STCV153 (Dec. 10, 2025).
Ninth Circuit Holds DTSA Does Not Apply CUTSA’s “Reasonable Particularity” Standard to Trade Secret Claims | JD Supra
In a significant ruling, QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES, INC. V. RUIFENG BIZTECH, INC., No. 23-16093 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit distinguished the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) from California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). Defendants in trade secret cases frequently invoke CUTSA, CCP Section 2019.210, to stymy discovery until the plaintiff describes the misappropriated trade secrets with “reasonable particularity”.
UPDATE: Judge Sanctions Class Action Plaintiff’s Counsel for Frivolously Failing to Disclose Arbitration Agreement | JD Supra
This post is an update to our November 11, 2025 blog, in which we first reported on the court’s decision sanctioning Plaintiff’s counsel for failing to disclose the existence of an arbitration agreement. In this update, we provide new details from Defense Counsel’s Supplemental Brief in Golikov v. Walmart Inc. —including the total fees sought, the categories of work performed, and the billing rates submitted to the court.
Sling TV Settles Privacy Police’s CCPA Claims of Inadequate Opt Out and Protecting the Privacy of Minors for $530,000 | JD Supra
An update on the most recent settlement with the Privacy Police. On October 30, 2025, streaming service Sling TV settled a California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) case for $530,000. The State claimed that the company failed to provide a simple method for consumers to opt out of the sale of personal information as required by the CCPA and by failing to provide sufficient privacy protections for children.
Judge Sanctions Class Action Plaintiff’s Counsel For Frivolously Failing to Disclose Arbitration Agreement | JD Supra
A single error in the date and manner in which a plaintiff purchased avocado oil led to extreme sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in a consumer class action case. Last week, the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Golikov v. Walmart Inc. found that Class counsel acted in subjective bad faith by recklessly raising a frivolous argument and unreasonably multiplying proceedings after failing to correct a single erroneous allegation.
Deadline for Compliance - Civil Rights Department AI Regulations are Six Weeks Away! | JD Supra
On October 1, 2025, the CRD’s new regulations aimed at protecting employees and applicants from potentially discriminatory employment decisions made using automated decision systems (ADS) will take effect. These new regulations expand coverage for unlawful discrimination in the workplace and have important records requirements. Employers have only six weeks to evaluate the regulations, connect with counsel, and implement appropriate changes.
[Webinar] AI, Algorithms & Employer Protection — What You Need to Know - August 20th, 10:00 am - 11:00 am PT | JD Supra
Join CDF's Privacy and AI Practice Group Partners, Dan Forman, Dalia Khatib and Linda Wang, on August 20, 2025 at 10:00 AM (Pacific) for a timely discussion on how emerging AI regulations and privacy laws are reshaping workplace compliance and litigation risk. This complimentary webinar will explore the intersection of automated decision-making, data privacy, and employment law—including a look at Mobley v.
Federal Court Grants Preliminary Certification in Landmark AI Hiring Bias Case | JD Supra
As businesses integrate AI tools into operations, a spike in related litigation is no surprise, especially due to the lack of formal legal precedent. Last month, a federal court in the Northern District of California provided some much-needed guidance when it granted a motion to preliminarily certify a collective in a lawsuit alleging that an AI-based applicant screening system discriminated against individuals aged 40 and older. In Mobley v.
Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief | JD Supra
Last month, the Enforcement Division of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“the Privacy Police”) and Todd Snyder, Inc. (“Snyder”) resolved the investigation into Snyder’s website’s opt-out methods from November 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024 that allegedly violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). Snyder, a New York based men’s clothing retailer, operated retail stores and a website.
Navigating CIPA: Recent Court Decisions and Potential Legislative Reform | JD Supra
Companies doing business in California continue to face a surge in privacy-related complaints and lawsuits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a 1960s-era law designed to prevent unlawful telephone wiretapping. Plaintiffs are increasingly applying CIPA to attack modern web tracking practices, including the use of cookies, pixels, and session replay tools that monitor user activity on websites.
A No-Go for Employees’ Anti-Trust Claims Based on High-End No-Hire Agreements | JD Supra
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a class action against defendants Saks Inc., Gucci, Prada, Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli and other luxury good manufacturers. The Plaintiffs claimed the luxury good manufacturer defendants violated Federal Anti-Trust laws by entering into no-hire agreements with Saks. In 2023, we noted that the State of California came to the defense of the employees joining an amicus curiae brief.
How a Smart Watch May Lead to Unintended Concerns for Employers | JD Supra
New technologies continue to transform the workplace and raise additional legal considerations for employers. Wearable technologies such as smart glasses, watches, and exoskeleton suits are valuable tools that help workers increase productivity. However, these technologies may also collect and track personal information, including location data, brain activity, and other medical information.
Essential Resources for Employers Navigating Southern California Wildfires | JD Supra
At this critical time, CDF wants California employers to know that we are here to support you. To assist, we have put together a list of resources from state, federal, and other key sources to help employers navigate these difficulties and for the well-being of their workforce. State Resources 1. California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Website: Cal OES Wildfire Resources Cal OES provides real-time updates on wildfire incidents, evacuation orders, and disaster recovery resources.
FTC Appeals Injunction Against Final Rule Banning Non-Compete Employment Agreements | JD Supra
Last Friday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) gave notice to appeal Judge Brown’s nationwide bar on the FTC’s final rule creating a Non-Compete Ban or enforcement of the rule in the case of Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. This appeal followed another appeal by the FTC of an adverse ruling from Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission.
Former Draftkings’ Employee Loses Bet On California’s No Non-Compete Law | JD Supra
In what might be the first published case discussing California’s newest anti-non-compete laws, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 16600.5(a) & (b), DraftKings successfully obtained a preliminary injunction and defeated the appeal of that order against its former employee to bar him from competing.
Trolls Ramp Up Character Assassination Attempts and Hijack LinkedIn Pages - Employers and Employees Equally at Risk
- Employers Encouraged to Pause When an Employee is Victimized - IRON COUNTY, Utah, Sept.
International Business Times
News Source: Rockwood Communications Counsel Inc. Employers Encouraged to Pause When an Employee is Victimized IRON COUNTY, Utah, Sept.
Trolls Ramp Up Character Assassination Attempts and Hijack LinkedIn Pages
News Source: Rockwood Communications Counsel Inc.Employers Encouraged to Pause When an Employee is Victimized IRON COUNTY, Utah, Sept.
FTC’s Non-Compete Rule Struck Down: Nationwide Implications
Judge Ada Brown nullified the FTC’s non-compete rule, citing statutory overreach and flawed evidence. With the federal rule blocked, the focus shifts back to state laws governing non-compete agreements. Despite the ruling, the FTC is likely to appeal, setting the stage for further legal challenges in higher courts.
Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against FTC’s Noncompete Ban | JD Supra
As of yesterday afternoon, employers across the country that utilize noncompete agreements may breathe a sigh of relief, as Judge Ada Brown beat her self-imposed deadline of August 30, 2024 and ordered an end to any enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Noncompete Rule. Judge Brown, of the Northern District of Texas, evaluated competing motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff, the related parties, and the FTC.
Employers Score Another Win Against FTC, But Noncompete Ban Looms | JD Supra
In July, this blog alerted you to the outcome of the preliminary injunction rulings in Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission and ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, which resulted in a 1-1 tie between employers and the FTC. On August 14, 2024, employers won another limited injunction prohibiting the FTC from enforcing the ban against the plaintiff, Properties of the Villages, Inc. Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission.
Court Orders Limited Injunction Against FTC Enforcement of Non-Compete Regulations | JD Supra
Judge Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a much anticipated Preliminary Injunction to stay the September 4, 2024 effective date of the FTC’s announced ban on non-compete agreements in the employment sector and to enjoin enforcement against the Plaintiffs that filed the case.
First Test of FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Will Be Without Oral Argument | JD Supra
The Federal Trade Commission promulgated regulations that stand to ban non-compete agreements in employment relationships nationwide. These regulations are scheduled to become effective on September 4, 2024. Ryan LLC filed the first lawsuit seeking to enjoin the FTC’s regulations in the federal court for the Northern District of Texas.
[Webinar] The Californication of Non-Compete Laws – Recent Changes That Impact All Employers Across The United States - June 26th, 10:00 am - 11:00 am PT | JD Supra
Join us for an informative webinar on the latest developments in the non-compete agreement arena with two members of CDF’s Unfair Competition & Trade Secret Practice Group: Dan M. Forman, Chair, and Ashley A. Halberda who also serves as Co-Managing Partner of CDF’s Orange County Office. This webinar is crucial for employers seeking to remain informed about the most recent updates on the enforceability of non-compete agreements in California and across the United States.
Importance of FAA in California Employment Arbitration Agreements Underscored | JD Supra
Employers may be able to breathe a sigh of relief as a California Court of Appeal concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts state law that allowed employees to wriggle out of arbitration and win thousands of dollars of attorneys’ fees if the employer did not promptly pay the ADR provider. In 2020, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 set strict penalties for untimely payment of arbitration fees in employment and consumer arbitration.
California to Increase Regulation of AI Tools In The Workplace: New Legal Liability | JD Supra
The explosion of AI and the fast pace at which employers are implementing AI into the workplace prompted California regulators to propose new rules that will govern the use of AI tools in employment decisions such as recruitment, application screening, hiring, and promotions. Many California employers began adopting AI tools in some form and the scale is expected to increase in the near future.
[Webinar] California Arbitration Agreements: Clarity Amid Complexity - May 23rd, 10:00 am - 11:00 am PT | JD Supra
May 10, 2024 May 23rd, 10:00 am - 11:00 am PT To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: May 23rd, 2024 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM PT Arbitration agreements are useful tools for California employers, but they are replete with potential dangers.
FTC Imposes Sweeping Ban on Non-Compete Agreements In Employment | JD Supra
The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Commissioners’ voted 3-2 to approve rules first announced in January 2023 to, essentially, ban the use of non-compete agreements in most employment relationships in the United States (“Rule”). The new Rule precludes enforcement of non-competes against almost all employees.
How Will FTC’s Ban On Non-Compete Agreements In Employment Impact Employers
Highlights: FTC's new rules bar non-compete agreements for most employees, mandating notice of non-enforcement by employers. The Chamber of Commerce legally contests the rule's enforcement, alleging arbitrariness and legality issues. Employers must furnish notice by the rule's effective date, exempting senior executives earning above $151,164 annually.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Dan
Contact Dan, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack