Cross-posted from the Carpe Datum Law blog. 

In our May blog post, we took issue with the broadcast statement that ‘consumer privacy law was sweeping the country and that other states were jumping on the California Consumer Privacy Law (CCPA) bandwagon to enact their own state law.’ The problem as we saw it, was that the truth behind these sensationalistic statements was a bit more nuanced than people were led to believe. Most states, we found, that introduced consumer privacy legislation simply did not follow through, either by outright killing the legislation (MS) or by taking a step back with a wait and see approach (see TX). Nevada, by contrast, did neither. Instead, its legislature enacted its own consumer privacy solution, through SB 220, or as we call it, ‘the limited privacy amendment.’ We’ve opted to discuss Nevada’s approach here primarily because of its more restrictive application online and because its October 1, 2019, operational date is a full three months before the CCPA becomes operational.

First, the limited privacy amendment is not the CCPA. Let’s make that perfectly clear. True, it was modeled on the opt-out section of the CCPA, but it isn’t a mirror copy as it amends existing law. There are three primary areas operators conducting business over the Internet need to be aware of, when evaluating compliance measures:  
Continue Reading

On June 3, 2017, Governor Sandoval signed Assembly Bill 276 into law, amending Nevada Revised Statute 613, which governs non-competition agreements. Notably, the law adds requirements to the enforceability and validity of non-competition agreements, and importantly, now allows courts to “blue-pencil” non-competition agreements, overturning Nevada Supreme Court’s recent decision in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam.

First, the new law establishes that a non-competition agreement is void and unenforceable unless the agreement satisfies four requirements. The agreement must: (1) be supported by valuable consideration; (2) not impose a restraint greater than what is required to protect the employer; (3) not impose an undue hardship on the employee; and (4) impose restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the agreement.
Continue Reading

shutterstock_303993722In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Nevada refused to adopt the “blue pencil” doctrine when it ruled that an unreasonable provision in a non-compete agreement rendered the entire agreement unenforceable. “Blue penciling” refers to a court’s willingness to strike unreasonable clauses from a non-compete agreement, leaving the rest of the agreement to be

In dismissing a claim for violation of Fourth Amendment rights, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Rosario v. Clark County School District, No. 2:13-CV-362, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93963 (Nev. Jul. 3, 2013) recently became the latest court to hold there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in Twitter

Can Oregon employers bring conversion claims against employees who misappropriate confidential information without having their claims preempted by the state’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act? According to a recent Oregon federal district court opinion, the answer is “yes”; however, in several other states, the answer is “no”.

This result highlights the continued divergence

Nevada and Colorado recently passed employee social networking privacy laws. Both laws prohibit employers from requiring disclosure of employees’ or applicants’ personal social-networking account login information, and from retaliating against them for refusing to provide that information.  But one or both of these statutes are somewhat different from other states’ social networking laws in that:

By Joshua Salinas and Jessica Mendelson

A federal district court for the Northern District of California recently held in a “competitor click fraud” case that a mere assertion of a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim without sufficient factual details regarding any inside or outside “hacking” is insufficient to establish subject matter

On August 6, the Nevada Attorney General announced the filing of a lawsuit and settlement against Renown Health (“Renown”), a Reno, Nevada based company, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust law.

At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint, also alleging anti-competitive behavior.

Renown had recently acquired two of largest cardiology

A Nevada federal court recently held that a plaintiff must identify trade secrets with specificity prior to seeking discovery from the defendant regarding that claim, adding Nevada to the growing number of jurisdictions with that requirement.

In this case, Switch Communications Group v. Ballard, case no. 2:11-cv-00285-KJD-GWF, the plaintiff owned and operated computer

 By Robert Milligan and summer associate Andrew Larratt-Smith

In a decision that encourages cost efficient corporate mergers in Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court in HD Supply Facilities Maintenance v. Bymoan, 2009 WL 1635924 (June 11, 2009) recently ruled in an en banc decision that restrictive employment agreements acquired through corporate mergers do not require