Compliance Stuff

  As the privacy litigation landscape continues to take shape, search bars have quietly become a Trojan horse in online data collection, carrying new legal theories into the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) arena. The legal interpretation of what constitutes “contents” of a communication is evolving under CIPA, and this issue has taken on a greater significance for website owners and operators. So, if your business operates a website with a search bar, you should consider reassessing your website data collection and disclosure practices and implementing compliance measures. Otherwise, you may risk exposure to costly litigation. Here's what you need to know about recent developments in this area. How Did We Get Here? In  Heerde v. Learfield Communications ,   the court held that search terms entered into a search bar constitute “contents of a communication” for the purposes of a CIPA claim , and a third party’s interception of those search terms (through website...

On March 21, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB 3180 into law prohibiting retaliation under the Act. The amendment adds a provision barring employers and their agents from taking adverse action against employees for (1) exercising their rights under the Act, (2) making a complaint to the employer or the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL), or (3) initiating an investigation or proceeding, or testifying at an investigation or proceeding, related to the Act. There is no private right of action for violations of the Act. Instead, employees can file a complaint with the IDOL for violations and the IDOL can pursue an action. Violation of the anti-retaliation provision can result in recovery to the employee of “all legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate,” plus penalties and fees provided to the Child Labor and Day and Temporary Labor Services Enforcement Fund. The amount of penalties and fees for violation of the anti-retaliation provision is unstated. For employers with 25 or more emp...

On January 14, 2025, just six days before the transition from the Biden Administration to the second Trump Administration, OSHA closed the books on collecting public comments about the agency’s  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) for a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings standard , taking the proposed rule one step (perhaps a very long step now) away from issuing a final Heat Standard. On behalf of the Employers Heat Illness Prevention Coalition, we submitted a robust set of  written comments  detailing our concerns about some of the more onerous and rigid aspects of the proposed rule. Although OSHA has now moved the Heat Rulemaking so close to the finish line, it is likely that the finish line will be pushed back, potentially for at least four years.  We do not expect Trump’s OSHA to engage in much, if any, rulemaking activity, other than de-regulatory actions. From a process standpoint though, the next time there is a Democra...

On April 4, 2025, the final day of Georgia’s legislative session, Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a “religious liberty” bill that will strengthen protections for the free exercise of religion by prohibiting state and local government actions that substantially burden religious practices or activities. However, Georgia lawmakers left on the table a bill that would have prohibited state schools, colleges, and universities from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) despite advancing the legislation in the final days of the legislative session. Quick Hits Senate Bill 36, known as the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, aims to protect the free exercise of religion by imposing a “compelling interest” test for government actions that may burden religious practices. The bill has significant implications for Georgia schools, including state higher education institutions, as Georgia lawmakers seek to align the state with broader federal policies pushed by the Trump admini...

At a Glance Kansas has amended its Restraint of Trade Act to impose mandatory judicial reformation of overbroad protective covenants. The amendments also create conclusive presumptions of enforceability for certain employee and customer non-solicitation provisions. On April 9, 2025, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed into law  Senate Bill No. 241 , which amends Section 50-163 of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (the “Act”) 1  to clarify what types of business contracts, agreements and arrangements are not intended to unreasonably restrain trade or commerce and do not contravene public welfare under the Act. The Act already said that it “shall not be construed to apply to: … any franchise agreements or  covenants not to compete .” 2  However, whether the Act covered non-solicitation provisions had not been clear. Now it is—the amendments to the Act create  conclusive presumptions  of enforceability for employee and customer non-solicitation covenants where ...