Erin West

🚨 Important Update: California Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL) 🚨 The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has issued an Invitation for Comments on proposed rulemaking under the Money Transmitter Law and the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL). As of July 1, 2026, anyone engaging in or promoting digital financial asset business activities with California residents must be licensed with the DFPI, have a submitted application under review, or qualify for an exemption. The DFPI is seeking public feedback on proposed rules related to license applications, application fees, stablecoin approval, and more. Comments are due by November 18, 2024. This is a critical moment to help shape the regulatory framework for digital assets in California. Don’t miss the opportunity to contribute! 🔗 https://lnkd.in/g5E9g_Eq #DFAL #DFPI #MoneyTransmitter #Blockchain #Cryptocurrency #Fintech

5

I have been pondering the topic of how much death and destruction is required to win wars in our current era, which is the topic explored by Bret Stephens in the attached Op-Ed. I fear that the advent of "smart weapons" as lead to the assumption that wars can be won without significant unintentional collateral damage or intentional infliction of massive hardship on the enemy's civilian population? I think it is highly unlikely that a war can be truly won without breaking the enemy's will through the infliction of massive violence that will ultimately result in both. If so, than America will have to decide if its next war will be fought to truly win it or just to reach a palatable stalemate. My ruminations on this issue will continue. I don't know the answer. (This is the conundrum Israel's leaders are now facing. So far they are erring on the side of massive violence, which is isolating them further and further from world support.) https://lnkd.in/gSxcdz-m

4

1 Comment

Los Angeles County Courts have launched a new dashboard tracking the court reporter crisis, and the numbers are so stark that one judge is calling the shortage a “constitutional crisis.” Judge Samantha P. Jessner called for an “urgent solution” to a catastrophe that she partially attributed to a ban on the use of electronic recordings in some cases. The shortage remains despite courts across the state spending millions on recruitment and retention efforts. We’ll be tracking this shortage, and you can too at https://lnkd.in/gkZB27iq. #avsolutions #legaltech #courttech #justicesystem

6

USA: Interesting judgement from the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court which has been reviewing the injuntion given by a district court to prevent the California Age Appropriate Design Code (#CAAADC) Act from coming into force. In NetChoice vs Bonta, the appeals court upheld ONLY the lower court's view that requiring all digital services to conduct a 'Data Protection Impact Assessment' would be generally unconstitutional, as "compelled speech". But notably, the panel of appellate judges do not repeat the misplaced criticism of Judge Beth Labson Freeman of age estimation, which she wrongly concluded "is in practice quite similar to age verification, and... generally requires either documentary evidence of age or automated estimation based on facial recognition." Age estimation tech is NOT the same as recognition (indeed you cannot uniquely identify any individual using the data required for estimation), and there is no need for users to share their ID with a third party to prove their age now document checks can be performed on a user's own device. But the district court's misunderstanding led it to believe wrongly that "Such measures would appear to counter the State’s interest in increasing privacy protections for children" because (“[A] statute cannot meaningfully advance the government’s stated interests if it contains exceptions that ‘undermine and counteract’ those goals.”). Instead the Federal appeals court sent the case back to the district to reconsider if the rest of the Bill - including age assurance - works after the DPIA is struck out (a question of "severability"). So the 9th Circuit joins with the 5th Circuit in NOT finding that checking a user's age online is inherently unconstitutional. “We’re pleased that the Ninth Circuit reversed the majority of the district court’s injunction, which blocked California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act from going into effect,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The California Department of Justice remains committed to protecting our kids’ privacy and safety from companies that seek to exploit their online experiences for profit.”  "California enacted this nation-leading law to shield kids from predatory practices. Instead of adopting these commonsense protections, NetChoice chose to sue — yet today, the Court largely sided with us," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "It's time for NetChoice to drop this reckless lawsuit and support safeguards that protect our kids’ safety and privacy." 5Rights Family Policy Alliance California Family Council Exodus Cry Jay Webber National Center on Sexual Exploitation Jennifer Adler John Carr gail dines Ethics and Public Policy Center The Institute for Family Studies Future of Privacy Forum Shoshana Weissmann Family Online Safety Institute Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-kahan David Monroy https://lnkd.in/eRadGSRY

1

On June 7, 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted changes to the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) that govern appeals before the Nevada Supreme Court and the Nevada Court of Appeals. NRAP 1(a). The changes become effective prospectively on Aug. 15, 2024, to all pending cases and cases initiated after that date. In appeals before these courts, appellate attorneys should consider carefully reviewing these requirements. Likewise, trial attorneys should familiarize themselves with these rules, too, because the amended rules and unpreserved issues at the trial court level can make or break an appeal. For this reason, it is important to understand appellate practice and focus on these issues throughout the case. In major cases, attorneys should consider having an appellate lawyer on the trial team to help ensure preservation of issues. Read more in the #GTAlert authored by Elliot Anderson:

8

It is often said that "The worst voice you can hear in court is your own." The evidentiary rules in California permit admissions of a party to the lawsuit if offered into evidence by the opposing party. That means that a prosecutor can use just about any statement a defendant makes at trial, assuming it is relevant to the issues of the case. Even if the defendant is not being interrogated by law enforcement at the time the statement is made, the prosecutor can use their statements as evidence of guilt. That means that any off-color remark can and will be used against the defendant at trial. A defendant's statements can also be utilized by a prosecutor when they are made to an informant, such as is done in a Perkins operation. A Perkins operation is executed when law enforcement places an informant into custody with the defendant with the intent of eliciting incriminating statements that will later be used at trial. Anything the defendant says to the Perkins informant is fair game. As one can imagine, those statements are not typically helpful for the defense. If you have concerns about things you have said for your criminal case, contact our office to get you the protection you need.

2

***CIPA Pen-Trap Update*** Interesting day yesterday in the Pen-Trap world. There were two hearings scheduled--both Pen-Trap cases, both motions to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction, both in Los Angeles Superior Court. One motion was granted. One motion was denied. Based on the opinions, it appears that the different rulings resulted from the different evidence offered by the defendants. For the motion that was granted, the Defendant offered admissible evidence that (1) it was not incorporated or headquartered in California and (2) it had no physical presence in California. For the motion that was denied, the defendant appeared to rely exclusively on its lack of California incorporation/headquarters, resulting in the court stating that "Defendant provides no information regarding Defendant’s operations in California" and, as a result, finding that "Defendant fails to show it lacks sufficient minimum contacts with California for California to exercise general jurisdiction over Defendant." Admittedly, I think the decision is wrong. A finding that the court has general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant requires a finding that the defendant is basically "at home" in California, which is an incredibly high bar (and a decision that shouldn't be made based on lack of evidence). Moreover, the decision references in support of its finding (1) that the defendant's "privacy policy...specifically addresses the privacy rights of Californians who visit its website, as well as information on Defendant’s efforts to comply with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010" and (2) that the defendant "operates retail stores in California and enables users to locate nearby retail stores in California through its website," indicating that defendant "expected Californians to access and interact with its website." In my opinion, neither supports a finding of specific jurisdiction in a Pen-Trap case. Complying with a state law's notice requirements, like the CCPA, does not, in and of itself, subject a company to personal jurisdiction in that state. And "expecting Californians to access and interact with its website" does not mean that the defendant purposefully directed its activity two California. Nevertheless, the takeaways here are: (1) Do not assume that because you were sued in California, you can be sued in California; (2) Challenge personal jurisdiction (if you can) and provide a fulsome record, including your operations in California (if you have them) (3) Focus on two things: for personal jurisdiction to exist, (a) you must have aimed your activities toward California and (b) the plaintiff's claims must arise (or at least relate) to those activities. Contact me if you have any questions.

15