A Brief Look: The EU's Tech Power, Big Tech Antitrust Investigations, an Alarm for Gig Companies
Welcome to our new weekly column where I will share with you what articles in-house leaders need to know from across our numerous law.com briefings.
March 01, 2020 at 11:28 PM
5 minute read
Welcome to our new weekly column where I will share with you what articles in-house leaders need to know from across our numerous law.com briefings. If you are not familiar with our briefings, I encourage you to check them out and sign up to receive them in your inbox each week. You can subscribe to any of the briefing newsletters by clicking on the links in this article, or by going to the law.com briefings page, or by going to your the newsletters section under "MyAccount," where you will see all the newsletter options.
|Global:
The EU's Tech Power. Law firms aren't the only legal entities in Europe that are busy these days. The EU has been developing a global strategy for tech regulation, filling a void left by the United States, which has so far failed to act. And the new plans have the leaders of Big Tech concerned, prompting Silicon Valley executives to visit Brussels. Last week, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg met with Margrethe Vestager, the executive vice president of the European Commission, at the EU headquarters. Before Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google's parent company, Alphabet, visited top officials in Brussels, as did Apple's senior vice president for artificial intelligence.
Why it matters:
What these tech executives recognize is that Europe, which in recent years has passed tough laws on digital policy and privacy and has fined Google and others millions of dollars for antitrust violations and anticompetitive behavior, is increasingly setting the global standard for tech policy around the world.
From our briefing The Global Lawyer, a curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors. Delivered weekly to your inbox.
|Compliance:
Big Tech Antitrust Investigations: 3 Things for General Counsel to Know. General counsel in other companies and other industries may think big tech's antitrust woes don't affect them, but they should reconsider, David Reichenberg, an antitrust litigator and member at Cozen O'Connor, told our colleague MP McQueen in a piece over at Law.com. "Investigation into big tech companies has ramifications for other companies in tech and non-tech," he said.
Why it matters:
While the investigations are ongoing in the tech space, they could have broader implications, said Jon Dubrow, antitrust partner at McDermott Will & Emery and co-head of its antitrust mergers focus group. Three things to think about: 1) General counsel should think carefully about antitrust risks, even in the absence of attention from a government enforcer, said David Reichenberg, an antitrust litigator and member at Cozen O'Connor; 2) Investigations could have spillover effects on companies that engage with or rely on those big tech platforms; 3) Antitrust investigations could have an impact on business negotiations between Big Tech and other companies.
From our briefing Compliance Hot Spots, where C. Ryan Barber breaks down the latest developments in compliance, enforcement and government affairs, reporting on what regulators are up to and arming in-house counsel and their outside partners with the insight to obtain better outcomes.
|In-House:
The Path to Consultant. In-house counsel who hope to become consultants one day have precedent to work on high-profile cases without being restrained from future work. In Travis County Court in Texas, Google wanted to limit which discovery documents could be seen by outside consultants hired by the states. One in particular, Eugene Burrus, Google wanted to stop from seeing documents because he would likely use his experience as a former in-house attorney at Microsoft to aid in the investigation.
Why it matters:
Although consultants will have to sign a document saying they will not disclose sensitive information in the documents, the career path remains alive for those in-house lawyers that see a future in the consulting space.
From our briefing Inside Track, were Dan Clark connects the in-house community with a weekly run-through of what and who you need to know to survive and thrive in the modern-day legal department.
|Labor & Employment:
Judge Sounds Alarm for Gig Companies. Instacart is vowing to appeal a ruling from a state judge in San Diego who found California law requires the same-day grocery delivery company to classify its "shoppers" as employees—and pay and provide them benefits accordingly, my colleague Ross Todd in California writes. San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor granted San Diego's request for a preliminary injunction. The judge said all three branches of California's government have weighed in on the state's "unapologetically pro-employee" policy.
San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott called the ruling "a warning" to other companies. "As the court said, 'The handwriting is on the wall,'" she said. "California has had two years since the Supreme Court's Dynamex decision to distinguish between a contractor and an employee. Everyone, not just Instacart, must live up to their legal responsibilities; they cannot ignore the significance of what occurred here."
Why it matters:
Fisher Phillips's Richard Meneghello told ALM: "The big-picture takeaway here is that I think many cities might view this action as a blueprint for how they might go after other companies." Meneghello said he hopes that the judge's move to stay enforcement might allow potential legislative changes to AB5 or a potential ballot initiative being pondered by gig companies to move forward before large-scale reclassification of gig workers. "I think most people involved in this recognize this is such a fluid issue right now and that many people feel like AB5 got ahead of itself."
From our briefing Labor of Law, where Michael Scarcella reports on the hot spots in employment law—emerging issues, novel cases and the policy, politics and personalities reshaping the workplace.
You can subscribe to any of the above newsletters from Law.com by clicking on the links in this article, by going to the law.com briefings page, or by going to your the newsletters section under "MyAccount," where you will see all the newsletter options. Thanks for reading!
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
A Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250