LAW & POLICY NOTE (September 2025) [updated]
In this Note, Professor Catherine Fisk explains the significance of Assembly Bill (AB) 288, which the California Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed on September 30, and why the federal National Labor Relations Act does not preempt state labor laws like AB 288 that seek to provide a mechanism to enforce federal labor rights by employees covered by the NLRA. AB 288 provides a mechanism for prompt and effective resolution of disputes over unionization. Under the bill, when the National Labor Relations Board fails to act on an unfair labor practice case for six months or is defunct, workers or businesses can ask the California Public Employee Relations Board to enforce their rights under federal or state labor law. Thus, it enables California to step up to enforce the rights to unionize and to resolve labor disputes when the federal government no longer can or will.
Michael Murray from the University of Kentucky, J. David Rosenberg College of Law, explores how contemporary generative artificial intelligence tools have revolutionized the creation of images, videos, and audio. In turn, this allows users to “fake” the appearance, voice, performances, and actions of real people with unprecedented speed and ease, leading to state and federal legislative actions.
This month, we cover critical developments in art, law, and technology: deepfake legislation, virtual repatriation challenges, Anthropic’s $1.5 billion copyright settlement, the shutdown of Christie’s digital art department, and the $136 million Sotheby’s Karpidas sale.
REPORT (July 2025)
Under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), businesses that employ workers lacking work authorization (“unauthorized” employees) or fail to comply with the related form “I-9” requirements for employees are subject to potentially substantial civil penalties. No federal court to date has analyzed the precise question under IRCA of what legal standard applies to determine whether an individual who works for a business that the individual also owns and controls—a “worker-owner” as we term it—is an “employee” of the business for whom IRCA’s I-9 requirements are triggered. The answer to this question can be particularly consequential for low-wage workers who have invested what little resources they have into building high-road businesses such as worker cooperatives as a compelling alternative to traditional employment. In this publication, we explain that the answer to this question is decided by the common law and that its application, even while it has resulted in the denial by courts of antidiscrimination protections for workers, can actually help to protect worker-owners and their businesses when it comes to federal immigration law.
Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, 09/18/2025
Join Partners Amy Parigi and Ryan Bricker from Verso Law for a discussion on the boundaries between trademark protection and artistic freedom. Moderated by Professor Sonia Katyal, this conversation will […]