The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws, based on Amazon policies toward third-party sellers that offer their products on other online platforms for lower prices.
The California attorney general and various district attorneys in the state allege that the retailer violated state environmental protection and consumer protection laws by improperly disposing of hazardous and confidential materials in landfills.
On Monday, December 20, 2021, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, in an attempt to disrupt a phishing scam taking place on its platforms. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants created over 39,000 websites to deceive users and collect login information.
Two California plaintiffs allege that the restaurant chain produces sandwiches, salads, and wraps that contain animal proteins other than tuna, deceiving customers about the contents of these products.
On Thursday, August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of California issued a ruling in People v. McDaniel, establishing precedent that jury unanimity and reasonable doubt do not apply to the sentencing phase in California criminal law cases where the death penalty is warranted.
On Friday, July 16, 2021, DoorDash and Grubhub filed a complaint against the City and County of San Francisco in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, claiming that the recently introduced permanent cap on additional fees for app-based delivery orders is unconstitutional.
Rideshare drivers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, so they are not entitled to health care coverage through Uber except in California, as provided by a distinctive state law.
On Friday, April 9, 2021, the United States Supreme Court voted 5-4 to grant an application for injunctive relief in Ritesh Tandon, et al v. Gavin Newson, Governor of California, et al. The lawsuit concerns California's restrictions on at-home religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously denied the request for an injunction. This marks the fifth time that the Supreme Court has rejected the Ninth Circuit's analysis of California's COVID-19 restrictions on religious exercise.
The court determined that the law prohibiting secret recordings of phone calls covers parties to a call as well as third parties who are eavesdropping on it.
On Wednesday, October 7, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal in California ruled that California law prevents anyone from recording either side of a phone conversation without both parties' consent. San Francisco attorney Eric Gruber previously filed suit against Yelp, Inc., alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") (Pen. Code, § 630 et seq.) for recording conversations between himself and Yelp sales representatives without his notice or consent. The trial court ruled in Yelp's favor on a motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues as to whether Yelp violated CIPA. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's decision.