New California Law Allows Minors to Remove Regrettable Digital Content
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.24.13
On September 23, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill adding provisions to the State's Business and Professions Code that requires website operators to allow children to delete their digital postings. Proponents of the bill contend that this new "online eraser law" gives individuals under the age of 18 a second chance to remove posted information they may later regret, and before it is seen by college administrators or potential employers.
The law requires all websites, online services and mobile apps to permit minors to remove, or request removal of, content posted by the minor user. Even websites hosted outside the state of California must comply with the new law if the user in question is a minor residing in California. The law does not require removal of content posted by third-parties, even if such content was initially published by the minor user.
The law also prohibits websites directed to minors, or websites that know they have users who are minors, from advertising products that are dangerous or illegal for children to buy or use. Examples of such harmful products include firearms, alcohol, tobacco, tattoos, as well as products banned from minors under state law such as ultraviolet tanning, lottery tickets, spray paint, and certain dietary supplement products.
The California state assembly passed the law 62-12, and the state senate unanimously approved the measure, which takes effect January 1, 2015. The full text of the law can be found here.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
