abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Эта страница недоступна на Русский и отображается на English

Статья

18 Апр 2017

Автор:
Sean Selleck & Sunil Rao, Baker & McKenzie (UK)

Commentary: California Transparency in Supply Chains Act no longer defence against consumer protection claims against companies

California was the first jurisdiction to introduce transparency compliance requirements to global supply chains.  Businesses have sought and succeeded in using their compliance with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010 to defeat claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law, on the basis of the safe harbour doctrine.  However, the utilisation of the safe harbour doctrine in this manner, appears to be changing.  This article explores key case law from 2015-2016, detailing the changing approach by the California judiciary...