Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Amazon and its third-party sellers have been accused of violating a Californian law for price gouging as the cost of some essential items reportedly increased by at least 500%.
Lawyers at Hagens Berman filed a proposed class action stating that Amazon had violated the law that bars price increases of more than 10% during declared emergencies on essential goods. Such items would typically include food, cleaning materials, and medical supplies - all of which were bought by customers amidst a mass panic.
These increases as reported on Bloomberg “are flagrantly unlawful under California penal law, which makes presumptively illegal any price increase exceeding 10% during a state or local emergency,” Victoria Ballinger and Mary McQueen allege in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Despite the allegations, Amazon stated on their website, that "Amazon has zero tolerance for price gouging and longstanding policies and systems to prevent this harmful practice.
"Amazon has already removed well over half a million [of] offers from our stores due to coronavirus-based price gouging. We have suspended more than 3,900 selling accounts in our U.S. store alone for violating our fair pricing policies. We began taking these enforcement actions promptly upon discovering this kind of misconduct, and we’ve been partnering directly with law enforcement agencies to combat price gougers and hold them accountable."
The online retailer has seen sales increase, with some items being up more than 1,000%. With customers avoiding brick and mortar stores, they opted for Amazon, where some supplies such as face masks, jumped by more than 500% in price; masks went from less than $20, up to £120.
Medication for colds, according to the plaintiffs, hiked up from $4.65 to $35.99, an increase of 674% and black beans - a staple food item that was popular in demand amongst other tinned food - went from $3.17 to $24.50, an increase of 672%.
Despite these claims, Amazon, on the 23 March previously announced that they have "dynamic, automated systems in place that locate and remove unfairly priced items."
They claim to have deployed a dedicated team that’s "working continuously to identify and investigate unfairly priced products that are in high demand", such as protective masks and hand sanitizer.
"If we find a price that violates our policy, we remove the offer and take swift action against bad actors engaged in demonstrated misconduct, including suspending or terminating their selling accounts and referring them to law enforcement agencies for prosecution under relevant laws", the retail giant posted on their blog.
Nonetheless, the complainants are accusing Amazon of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, of negligence and negligence per se and unjust enrichment. They are thus seeking: damages, restitution, public injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
This is not the first time Amazon has been under scrutiny during the coronavirus crisis. In France, the company suspended its distribution activity after a court ruled it had to stop all non-essential deliveries.
The ruling followed after a complaint filed by a French labour union accused the online delivery giant of endangering the lives of workers. Amazon said it was "perplexed" by the court ruling which ordered the company to restrict its local delivery operations to essential goods only, or face a penalty of 1 million euros ($1.1 million) for each day it failed to comply.
Citing the high penalties imposed by the court and the "complexity inherent in our logistic activities," Amazon - which plans to appeal the ruling- said it would temporarily suspend activities in their distribution centres "despite the huge investment that we have made to ensure and strengthen [by] additional measures the safety of our employees who remained mobilized during this crisis."
The online retailer had stated they have implemented safety measures including "temperature checks, masks, and enforced social distancing which [have] received the approval of health and safety representatives at multiple sites." They were set to re-open in France on 22 April, after a two-day delay due to the pending appeal.
The company also faced similar criticism in the US, over the health and safety of its employees. Earlier this month, Amazon responded that they may begin firing employees that violate social distancing guidelines and policies that were put in place in response to the pandemic crisis; employees claim, however, that the demands of their job make it impossible for them to comply with the policy.
Image credits: jetcityimage
A Californian jury’s verdict last Friday means Uber could be facing a huge lawsuit fee on the back of claims Kevin Halpern, supposed inventor of the business idea behind Uber, has made against the firm.
Halpern accused Uber of stealing the ideas of his now-defunct company Celluride Wireless Inc., and misappropriating trade secrets. The San Francisco Superior Court jury has now found the claim to be valid, and timely (not beyond the time bounds to take legal action).
Halpern says he was developing Celluride as far back as 2002, implementing P2P services, rider to passenger, to be summoned via mobile devices on the spot; an idea that sounds a lot like Uber. He says he shared his business plans and ideas with Uber’s co-Founder Travis Kalanick in 2006, under the premise they would remain secret. Uber was then launched by Kalanick in 2010.
A second jury will now be tasked with determining whether Uber truly misappropriated Halpern’s trade secrets and whether the firm owes Halpern damages.
"We are very pleased that the jury saw through Uber’s misleading tactics and that Kevin Halpern will now be able to prove once and for all that Travis Kalanick and the other defendants started Uber with his trade secrets," said Alan A. Greenberg of Greenberg Gross LLP, speaking with Law360.
On the back of last week’s verdict, an Uber spokesperson had this to say: "Today’s decision did not address the merits, and we look forward to defending ourselves to the fullest during the next phase of the case."
AB 218 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019 and will take effect on January 1, 2020.
Below Natalie Weatherford and Sonya Ostovar of Taylor & Ring, explain how this new bill will impact victims of childhood sexual abuse and it will spearhead change moving forward.
For years, medical professionals, sexual abuse survivors and their families have advocated for an extended statute of limitations in civil childhood sexual abuse cases due to the long delays in disclosure of abuse by survivors. Delayed disclosure is very common and relates to the shame, fear and self-blame that childhood sexual abuse survivors experience following their abuse. Many survivors of childhood abuse do not disclose the abuse to anyone for years and some repress the abuse memories altogether.
Prior to the enactment of AB 218, victims who did not disclose their abuse right away were precluding from pursuing civil lawsuits against their abuser, and the institutions or persons that had a duty to protect them from their abuser. Beginning on January 1, 2020, these victims will have a second chance to bring their claims.
AB 218 provides several, complex changes to the existing requirements for pursuing civil childhood sexual abuse claims, a brief summary of the new law’s most impactful changes is below.
The definition of childhood sexual abuse will be expanded to include “childhood sexual assault” which is inclusive of crimes not previously recognized as sexual abuse.
The statute of limitation for adult survivors of childhood sexual assault will be lengthened to 22 years after the age of majority, up until the survivor reaches the age of 40, or 5 years after the survivor discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) the psychological injury caused from the childhood sexual assault, whichever date is later.
The requirements for filing a childhood sexual assault claim pursuant to CCP 340.1 will be broadened by AB 218. A plaintiff over the age of 40 can pursue a civil lawsuit if: “(a) the person or entity knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any misconduct that creates a risk of childhood sexual assault by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, or (b) the person or entity failed to take reasonable steps or to implement safeguards to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault.”
Childhood sexual assault survivors will be exempted from the Government Tort Claims presentation requirements for sexual assault claims against public entities made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1
Claims for childhood sexual assault will be revived for a period of 3 years after January 1, 2020, where the claim has not been litigated to finality, and would have otherwise been barred as of January 1, 2020 because the applicable statute of limitations, government claims presentation requirement, or any other timeline expired.
And finally, AB 218 allows for recovery of treble damages against defendants who are found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor.
The accountability created by AB 218 is a meaningful step towards allowing justice to survivors who had been previously barred from confronting their abusers in civil court. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.
Before your time expires, learn more about the timeline and what it means for your case.
Few legal questions have simple answers. The amount of time you have to file a civil lawsuit depends on your situation. In California, there is a statute of limitations on personal injury cases. But the rules vary depending on your situation. Your best chance at learning your timeline is to speak with a personal injury lawyer.
For most personal injury claims, the deadline is two years. The time begins on the day of the accident or the date on which you discover the injury. However, claims for property damage have a longer statute of limitations. If your claim is only for recovering damaged property, you have three years to file.
You can file a personal injury claim against the government. However, this has a different statute of limitations than a regular claim. Typically, you only have six months to start the claims process. Then, the government has a 45-day period to decide how they will handle your claim.
If the government denies your claim, you have six months to file a lawsuit. But if they don’t respond, you automatically get two years to initiate the lawsuit. Claims against the government can be extremely difficult and comply with a unique set of rules. Therefore, you should only work with an attorney who has experience handling claims involving the government.
Claims against public entities could have even shorter deadlines. For instance, you could have a claim against the city for an injury you experienced on a city bus. In this case, the city may only give you three months to start the claims process.
There are some claims that could qualify you for an exception to the statute of limitations. However, this is rare.
One exception could occur if a minor was injured in the accident. In this case, a parent could file a claim for the child. Or, the child has until two years after they turn 18 to file the claim. The statute of limitations does not start until the child turn 18. Therefore, a child who is 10 at the time of the accident has 10 years to file.
Another exception could be in the case of medical malpractice. At times, the victims don’t realize the harm they experienced until months or years after the incident. Depending on the specifics of your situation, you may be able to file two years after you learn of the injury. Once again, you should speak to a legal professional.
It’s important to realize that insurance claims differ greatly from personal injury claims. If you’re in a car accident, you should file an insurance claim as soon as possible. Typically, insurance companies only allow claimants to file several days or weeks after the accident.
If you have questions about how to handle your claim, you should speak with a personal injury lawyer. They can tell you more about your timeline for filing. Additionally, they can handle your case and work towards getting you the compensation you want and need.
Last week, Assembly Bill 5 has been passed in California, with the aim to ensure holiday and sick pay for gig economy workers. Under state law, workers are to be considered employees if they are integral to a company’s business, or if that company demands that they follow instructions.
The Bill ensures that workers’ basic rights are raised to those of full-time employees because, in practice, the expectations of them in the workplace, are equal to that of employees – it’s only the hours that differ.
The EU passed a similar law in April 2019, aiming to provide an end to “abusive practices” around casual contracts amongst setting other minimum rights. It gave member states three years to enforce the new rules. The UK government has since suggested improvements for freelance workers’ conditions but, today, the more pressing matter for many of the UK’s freelance workers is largely the method of pay, rather than the introduction of new laws.
[ymal]
Nick Woodward, CEO of ETZ Payments, commented: "It is important to remember that the gig economy represents more than delivery riders and taxi drivers. Almost half of freelance workers are highly skilled, meaning that their priorities often centre around the reliability of payment, rather than requirements for laws implementing rights. There are multiple ways to improve working conditions for freelance workers, including reliable payments that allow flexible workers to plan their finances in the same way permanent employees can.
“The gig economy is growing exponentially and is only likely to continue with more and more highly skilled workers opting to work in a freelance capacity to earn more money and achieve a better work/life balance. California's step forward paves the way for a better understanding about the treatment and recruitment of freelance workers. In the UK, it will be interesting to see how Brexit affects the EU ruling, but companies and recruiters would do well to recognise steps that they can take to improve the conditions of flexible workers including same-day payments. ETZ Payments offer a 60-second solution that transforms workers' timesheets into physical payment, in a timeframe that suits the employee - whether that is the same day, weekly, or monthly."
Expenses for medications, housekeeping and childcare can be high, and you may miss important life events. If you were injured due to the negligence of another person, you are entitled to recover medical expenses and money for damages. There are a few facts you should know about insurance in The Golden State.
When it comes to personal injury, there are two kinds of insurance; fault and no-fault. In a no-fault state, a person’s own insurance company pays for their medical bills and damages. In a fault state the person or persons responsible for the accident are also responsible for paying the bills related to the accident. California is a comparative fault state. This means that a person is responsible for the percentage of the accident they caused. If you are responsible for 20 percent of an accident, you can recover 80 percent of your auto damage and medical expenses from the other driver’s insurance company.
When you are injured in an accident, you should call the at fault driver’s insurance company and file a claim right away. They have 15 days to acknowledge the claim. An actuary will call you and ask you questions about the claim. They will ask to record your answers, but you are under no obligation to let them. They then will have 40 days to accept or deny your claim. If they accept the claim, they will make you a settlement offer; chances are, they will try to underpay you. You should never accept a settlement offer without speaking to an attorney first.
Your attorney will negotiate with the insurance company to get a better deal. If you come to an acceptable agreement, the insurance company will have 30 days to pay you. If you are unable to reach an agreement, you may proceed with a lawsuit.
In the state of California, you have three years to file a lawsuit for damages to your property and two years to file a lawsuit for medical expenses. The clock starts ticking the second you have the accident.
There are only a few circumstances under which you may get an extension. If the at-fault driver left the state and was unable to be served with a summons, if you were under 18 when the accident happened or if your injuries were not initially apparent, your attorney may be able to convince the court to give you an extension.
Insurance companies are staffed with teams of lawyers whose entire job it is to make sure that you do not get the money you are owed. You probably do not know enough about insurance law, to combat such a team. You need a professional lawyer, like the ones at Grossman Law in Fresno.
A law firm staffed with hard-working researchers and attorneys who are well versed in personal injury law can help you recover your money and get on with your life.
Sources: https://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2289&context=facpubs
Since the California Supreme Court’s April 30, 2018 decision in (Dynamex), which set a new standard for determination of employee/independent contractor worker classification in the context of California Wage Orders, there has been a good deal of speculation and prediction about the potentially negative impact of the decision on the Gig economy and the freelancing preferences of younger workers. However, there are at least three reasons why the impact of the decision will be more limited than its proponents hope and detractors fear.
First, the new standard set forth in Dynamex does not apply to all circumstances implicating categorization of workers as employees/independent contractors. Rather, as the decision itself repeatedly states, it is limited to worker classifications under California’s Wage Orders. As such, the new classification standard adopted in Dynamex does not apply to other provisions of the California labor code, state unemployment insurance rules, worker compensation, or state tax system, which continue to apply the three-decade old Borelo test.
Second, regarding the potential impact of Dynamex on the Gig economy, the “B” factor in Dynamex’s new ABC test, seems to preclude freelancers from qualifying as independent contractors, thus going against the tide and trend of young workers preference for freelancing over traditional employment. In the new digital age, many workers, especially younger ones, prefer the mobility and flexibility afforded by independent contractor positions. In fact, some studies suggest that by 2020 over 40% of the work force will be freelancing. A post Dynamex decision by a California federal court suggests that the Gig economy may be able to avoid the reach of Dynamex by articulating a clearly distinguishable definition for their business type.
The California Supreme Court pointed to the federal wage and hour laws known as "the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)” for having its own standard for resolving the employee or independent contractor issue.
Finally, certain areas of the economy, such as transportation of goods, are pre-empted by federal law, which precludes application of Dynamex to workers in these industries.
California Wage Orders set forth certain standards and requirements that apply to specific industries dealing with various work-related issues involving certain wage, hour and working conditions and requirements. Regulated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), there are currently 17 Wage Orders that apply to different industries such as the manufacturing industry (Wage Order 1), Personal Services Industry (Wage Order 2), etc. Each Wage Order deals with issues such as minimum wage, overtime pay, retaining of records and meal and rest periods. Whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor under a Work Order is crucial to businesses, especially those industries whose success is built around the “independent contractor” worker model.
Prior to Dynamex, courts applied the 11 factor Borelo standard to determination of worker status under Wage Orders. The Borelo standard is primarily focused on the business’s “right to control” the worker, along with certain “secondary” factors, including location where the services are performed, provision of tools by the hiring business, among others. Dynamex replaced the Borelo test with a simpler, three factor “ABC test”. Under the ABC test, there is a presumption in favor of classifying workers as employees, which the hiring entity can overcome by showing: “(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.”
The B prong of the ABC test enquires into whether the work performed by the worker is in “the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” This test is likely to engender the most controversy and dispute, as it aims at the heart of the freelancing model, on which many successful businesses in the Gig economy are built and which many millennials prefer. However, a recent post Dynamex decision points to a way out for the freelance based businesses. In Curry, a post Dynamex decision, the issue was whether an employee of a company that leased gas services stations from Shell Oil Products (Shell) was also an employee of Shell under a joint employment theory. Applying Dynamex’s ABC standard, the Curry court concluded that the worker at issue was not in Shell’s “usual course of business” because the worker, as the manager of a gas station leased from Shell, was engaged in the occupation of a station manager, while “Shell was not in the business of operating fueling stations—it was in the business of owning real estate and fuel.” Curry will likely hearten independent contractor-based businesses such as employment placement agencies and other freelance based entities.
The scope and reach of Dynamex are limited to Wage Orders
In enunciating the new ABC standard, the Dynamex court acknowledged existence of different standards for different statutes implicating employee/independent contractor classification, but attributed any such apparent inconsistency to the purpose of the underling statute. The California Supreme Court pointed to the federal wage and hour laws known as "the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)” for having its own standard for resolving the employee or independent contractor issue. The Dynamex court stated that like California, the federal labor codes don’t apply a uniform standard to all federal labor laws implicating worker status. The California Supreme Court also noted that, like “California wage orders, the FLSA contains a broader standard of employment than that generally applicable in other, non-wage-and-hour federal contexts.” This statement signals the California Supreme Court is content with the application of the narrower Borelo standard to non-Wage Order classifications. Post Dynamex cases have similarly noted the limitation of the ruling. For e.g., in Salgado a California Court of Appeal stated that except for claims under a Wage Order, “the common law definition of employee controlled all the other claims, including a claim for reimbursement of business expenses under Labor Code…”
Although billed as a “game changer”, the Dynamex decision will not have the reach or potency that its detractors feared.
Impact of Federal Preemption
Federal preemption laws temper the application of the Dynamex decision to certain industries. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts any state law “relating to a price, route, or service” of a motor carrier. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in the context of applying Massachusetts’ ABC test, has found preemption of the “B” factor of the ABC test as conflicting with FAAAA. In Coakley the First Circuit Court of Appeal held that the FAAAA preempts the “B” prong of Massachusetts ABC test. Moreover, in Dilts the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recognized that even “broad laws applying to hundreds of different industries,” could be preempted by federal statutes if they have a “forbidden connection with prices, routes, and services.” In light of this recognition, California courts and agencies may find that many industries are outside the reach of Dynamex’s new standard.
Although billed as a “game changer”, the Dynamex decision will not have the reach or potency that its detractors feared. First, by its own language and emphasis, the decision is limited to Wage Orders. Additionally, many participants in the Gig economy will be able to avoid the dreaded B prong of the ABC test but clarifying the definition of their businesses. Finally, federal preemptions laws temper application of the ruling to many industries.
Dr. Dariush Adli, Ph.D., Esq. is the founder and president of ADLI Law Group. His practice is primarily focused on business and intellectual property litigation, media and entertainment law, real estate, products liability, family law, labor and employment and transportation law. He can be reached at adli@adlilaw.com.
The California Supreme Court limits de minimis off-the-clock work, expanding California employers’ duty to record time worked. Below, Kate Visosky and Christina Nordsten share what this means for employers in the respective state.
In July, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., holding that the federal wage laws that excuse companies from paying workers for de minimis work, i.e. small amounts of time that are difficult to record, do not apply under the California wage and hour standards.
The de minimis rule has been applied by the federal courts for more than 70 years. The doctrine excuses the payment of wages for small amounts of otherwise compensable time upon a showing that the time is administratively difficult to record. For example, courts have held that time spent by employees booting up their computers and shutting down and clocking out are de minimis and not compensable. See e.g. Chambers v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 428 Fed. Appx. 400 (5th Cir. 2011).
In Troester, the California Supreme Court stepped away from the de minimis approach holding that an “employer that requires its employees to work minutes off the clock on a regular basis or as a regular feature of the job may not evade the obligation to compensate the employee for that time by invoking the de minimis doctrine.” Troester, (2018) 5 Cal. 5th 829, 847. The plaintiff in Troester “had various duties related to closing the store after he clocked out” and that “on a daily basis, these closing tasks generally took [plaintiff] about 4-10 minutes.” Id. at *21. The Court said this time must be compensated.
Notably, while the Court declined to apply the de minimis standard under the facts of the case, it did not reject the doctrine completely. Indeed, it noted there could be instances involving tasks “so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require employers to compensate employees for the time spent on them.” Troester, 5 Cal. 5th at 848. Thus, the key notion to take away from this case is that off-the-clock work considered significant and regular must be compensated, while insignificant and irregular time could still be considered de minimis. As to the application of the rule, Justice Leondra Kruger wrote a separate concurring opinion offering some concrete examples for when the de minimis rule could apply:
Justice Kruger noted that requiring an employer to accurately record this type of time would be impractical and unreasonable.
What does this ruling mean for California employers?
Although the Troester decision limits the de minimis standard in California, it does not fully reject it. Realistically there will be situations where some work will be impossible to record. The Court made note of this. Therefore, while entities doing business in California can be confident that highly unusual and irregular time spent off-the-clock may not be found compensable, the Troester decision may still have an impact on their business. This is especially true for companies in the service industry such as retailers and restaurants who employ a large number of the hourly workers in our state. These companies may want to conduct a review of their policies, practices, and procedures that impact their employees’ timekeeping. Below are a few examples of what employers in California can do in light of Troester.
Although the Troester decision has limited the application of the de minimis doctrine in California, it remains to be seen how it will be applied to other cases moving forward. In the meantime, employers can limit their exposure by proactively reviewing and revising their policies and procedures in light of the decision.
Partner Kate Visosky and Associate Christina Nordsten are with Kelley Drye & Warren and specialize in defending companies in complex labor & employment litigation and class actions, high-stake disputes, discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims and agency charges. Visosky can be reached at kvisosky@kelleydrye.com, or 310-712-6199. Nordsten can be reached at cnordsten@kelleydrye.com or 310-712-6199.
At the end of June 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act was passed unanimously, potentially sparking a revolution in data protection across the US. Following in the footsteps of the EU’s new GDPR laws, the privacy act will mean radical changes to how companies can gather and monetise their customers’ data in California. Below Lawyer Monthly explores with Nina Conseil, Senior Director, Product and Marketing at Affinion, the potential for GDPR like data protection law to go global.
It is not surprising that the tide is turning – for as long as we can remember Silicon Valley has had the upper hand and free rein to do whatever it pleases. But all that has changed since the furore surrounding Cambridge Analytica’s use or rather misuse of Facebook data hit the headlines. Mark Zuckerberg has been hauled in front of the US Congress to answer questions from the Senate commerce and judiciary committees on privacy, data mining, regulations. He has also been grilled by the European parliament and faces a lawsuit for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people. While many have criticised the effectiveness of these hearings, users remain furious and US legislators are responding with the law.
Not just Facebook
The Facebook data scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately sensitive personal information often falls into the wrong hands - Norton’s latest global research shows that 978 million people were victims of cybercrime last year, losing an estimated $178 billion to hackers. Similarly, a hacker dubbed ‘Courvoisier’ stole 78 million usernames and passwords to sell on the dark web, infiltrating the likes of Uber, Argos and Asda. Only last month, Adidas suffered a security breach which endangered sensitive data of millions of its customers.
Data privacy is a serious issue for both businesses and their customers and regulation like GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act are helping to address it. But what else needs to change to ensure sensitive data remains private and consumers protect themselves?
Putting education first
Norton research shows 10% of the world’s population experience cybercrime every year – be it ID theft, financial fraud or a misuse of their data. This means that before long almost everyone will either be a victim or know someone directly impacted by cybercrime. Regardless of how it happens and who’s at fault, one mistake can have a huge impact – either personally, financially, or both.
Interestingly, Sophos research shows people are currently more worried about cybercrime than physical crime, yet a third of them admit ignoring data breach emails. Clearly businesses need to educate consumers on how to act if they fear they’ve been hacked - Symantec Internet Security Threat Report found that despite a 13% increase in data vulnerabilities, people don’t know who to turn to for help, while 41% can’t identify a phishing email and guess at its legitimacy.
Equipping customers with innovative tools
Financial institutions need to innovate and arm their customers with the tools they need to protect themselves such as technology which actively scans for potential data privacy risks. The provision of products and services that raise awareness and help improve data privacy and cyber security could become a key differentiator in driving loyalty. This way of thinking is starting the hit the mainstream and we’ve already started working with financial institutions across the world to offer cyber and ID protection to their customers.
One growing field is dark web scanning – most consumers won’t have seen or know much about the dark web, let alone considered whether their personal data has been published there. By offering dark web scanning, customers are given additional peace of mind and the option to take action before they suffer a loss or damages. In taking this approach, businesses are going the extra mile to show they truly care about the security of their customers’ cyber security and data.
Thanks to the Facebook scandal, data protection is the theme tune for 2018 and businesses across the world must keep up. Financial services businesses and customers alike should embrace the challenge to build an ecosystem in which data is as secure as possible. To make this possible, it’s vital that banks and financial institutions do all they can to educate and empower their customers to protect themselves while providing peace of mind. Failure to do so will not only result in data losses, but also trust and inevitably, profit.
People are often unaware to how complex family law can be in California.
“My concern is that people may not be properly represented, because lawyers think 'family law is simple' but it is not, particularly for us specialists. We know the minefields and where the conflicts will be, and we come up with creative solutions that will work and be sustainable, if and when we do go to court”, speaks specialist Stephen Ruben.
Stephen speaks more on common misconceptions people have about family law.
Touching on your 30 years’ experience; how have you seen family law change and how has it changed for the better?
Family law has changed a lot over the past ten years, because almost 70% of people in California are now self-represented. So, the cases that we are engaged in tend to be much more complex and do require the skills and expertise of a specialist.
What would you say is quite a complex family law case? What has been your most complex case to date?
The cases become very complex when there are agreements or marriages between states. For example, clients that now reside in California but have a prenuptial agreement signed in another state, can present certain complexities in their case. It is a question of which law will apply: will it be the law of the state in which the parties executed the agreement, and where the agreement says, or will California override certain provisions related to the prenuptial as it could cause violation of public policy.
Do you think any changes need to be made in regard to non-marital partnerships and what are common issues do you see arise in this area?
Some states have very limited support provisions, but some are revisiting that issue. For example, in the state of Illinois where I previously practiced as a public prosecutor, there was a very limited period of time in which spouse support was awarded. However, Illinois reversed its decision a couple of years ago and recognised that long term support is a very important aspect, particularly if there is a huge disparity of wage and earnings. I do think that long term support is really an important aspect of divorce, because it equalises the playing field and puts both parties in a balanced economic status, but it also gives a chance for the receiving spouse to have an opportunity to go back into the workplace, to pursue their career, in order to be self-supporting, which is a law I think all states should address.
Do you think there are any complexities in family law which you are hoping to address in the future?
Yes - I am an expert in The Hague convention, which deals with abducted children which are brought into the US - either through kidnapping or wrongful detention-, and I have just recently concluded a very successful case where my client’s child was returned back to Denmark. I am hoping to address more cases like this as they are highly rewarding; the reunification of a child back to his or her parent is gratifying, as wrongful abduction is a high level of child abuse.
As a featured radio guest on "Your Legal Rights" in San Francisco, can you share with us some common ‘rights’ that your clients often are unaware about in family law?
I think some clients are glued to the notion that gender has an impact on custody and that they are entitled to 50%. California was the first state in the nation to adopt a neutral assessment where sex and gender does not matter. Instead, it is based on who is the active parent, the one providing the child with daily supervision control, taking the child to piano rehearsals and doctor appointments; some parents are not as active as they work more hours, yet they have this notion that this will give them the entitlement to joint custody, which is not true. We have a non-sexual discrimination statute which has a provision stating that both parents are entitled to frequent and continuous contact, but that does not mean ‘equal’. This is one of the areas we must careful explain to clients; the comprehensive custody plan takes into account everybody's work schedule and who is providing the day to day care.
Stephen B. Ruben
Certified Specialist, Family Law
Ruben Law Firm
625 Market Street, Penthouse
San Francisco, CA 94105
sruben@rubenlawfirm.com
Stephen B. Ruben is the Managing Director of The Ruben Law Firm, P.C. He provides family law representation, mediation, and private judging in San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin Counties. Steve’s practice is devoted to complex family law litigation including high net worth divorce cases, financial issues, spousal and child support, high conflict custody disputes, and dissolution, including non-marital and domestic partnerships, adoptions, child abandonment and paternity and will and trust administration.
