Social media is now a routine part of daily life, but it presents challenges for employers trying to balance business interests with employee rights. While companies have legitimate reasons to regulate certain online conduct, overly broad or inconsistent policies can create legal exposure rather than prevent it.

Businesses operating in California often ask when exposure to a chemical trigger a warning obligation under Proposition 65. The answer is that a “clear and reasonable” warning is required when a business “knowingly and intentionally” exposes individuals to a listed chemical above regulatory thresholds. These thresholds are commonly referred to as “safe harbor levels.” Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide a warning if exposures exceed certain levels and evaluate exposure based on foreseeable use of a product.

Employers gain decisive benefits by structuring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA provides a uniform, pro-enforcement framework that minimizes forum shopping, curtails litigation costs, and speeds dispute resolution with predictable, nationwide standards. FAA-governed agreements can reduce exposure to runaway jury awards, streamline discovery, and promote confidentiality—advantages that translate into material savings and operational certainty. When disputes arise across multiple states, FAA preemption helps neutralize inconsistent state-law obstacles and preserves the parties’ bargained-for efficiencies.

The Risk of Inaccurate or Inflated Evaluations Performance reviews are an important management tool, but when handled poorly they can create significant legal risk for employers. Inconsistent or overly positive evaluations that contradict later disciplinary actions are frequently used by employees to challenge termination decisions or allege discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. For this reason, employers should treat performance reviews not only as a management tool, but also as an opportunity to reduce legal risk.

Business owners seeking brand protection ask whether forming a limited liability company (“LLC”) or a corporation is a prerequisite to securing a federal trademark. The answer is “no,” a legal entity such as an LLC or a corporation is not required to file a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). At the federal level, the USPTO simply requires an “applicant,” and that applicant can be an individual, an LLC, a corporation, or another business entity.