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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
