Just hours after the Eagles clinched their upset Super Bowl win over the Patriots, a different battle royale began in a San Francisco courtroom between an established juggernaut and its upstart rival. For techies and trade secret geeks, the Waymo v. Uber trial was shaping up to be the Super Bowl of trade secret litigation. The lead-up to the trial had more surprises than a Justin Timberlake halftime show (though fewer wardrobe malfunctions).
Waking up to news of another major data breach seems to have become a daily routine. On the front pages and cable news, we hear about hackers, rogue governments, and shadowy figures involved with these data breaches. But too often we overlook the fact that most data breaches are not the stuff of Tom Clancy novels. Instead, businesses in the gig economy regularly confront serious but smaller-scale “inside jobs” – data theft by employees seeking to use information like customer lists or financial data for personal gain, often by bringing that information to a new job with a competitor.
As the U.S. unemployment continues to drop to pre-recession levels, the supply of motivated and qualified workers is tightening. Gig economy businesses competing for a shrinking supply of labor may want to consider turning to refugees and asylum seekers to fill their ranks. It turns out that giving gig platforms to resettled refugees and asylum seekers can boost profits and help companies adapt to a globalizing economy.
As we have discussed previously, Uber has been caught up in a number of public legal disputes. At the forefront of Uber’s legal issues are ongoing disputes over whether Uber drivers will be considered employees or independent contractors under federal and state wage and hour laws. But another issue is primed to take the spotlight: Does Uber’s pricing model violate antitrust law?