California stores can't store your ZIP code

A ruling came down from the California Supreme Court that's eminently sensible: your ZIP code constitutes personally identifiable information that can be used in conjunction with your name to determine where you live and exactly who you are, and California merchants aren't allowed to keep it on file. To me this is eminently sensible.

Now, the reporting on CNN is a bit hysterical. The reporting says retailers can't ask for your ZIP code. The ruling, OTOH, says explicitly that retailers can ask for it and use it in conjunction with authorizing your credit card, and notes that this is what the law explicitly says and not their interpretation. It's the recording of the ZIP code for uses other than authorizing a credit-card transaction that the law and this ruling prohibit. This ruling doesn't do a thing to compromise transaction security or identify verification. All it does is remind retailers (and the lower courts) that yes the law really does prohibit a retailer from building a database of consumers and their buying habits without the explicit consent of the consumer. I know retailers don't like that, but them's the breaks. Consumers don't like retailers doing it, and there's no particular reason businesses should always get their way regardless of how their customers feel. Businesses always say that if consumers don't like practices they always have the option of not patronizing those businesses. Well, if businesses don't like California's practices they always have the option of not doing business in California, no? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

California IP and non-compete law

As a follow-up to the last post about non-competes, I thought I'd repost links to the relevant California codes on intellectual-property and non-compete agreements:

• California Labor Code 2870-2872 on intellectual-property agreements
• California Business and Professions Code 16600-16607 on non-compete agreements

Anyone in the tech field in California should be familiar with these, because tech companies routinely put terms in their employment agreements that exceed what these laws allow. I made sure, when I signed my intellectual-property agreement, to add a notation referencing the limitations in 2870-2872 and making my acceptance limited to only what was allowed by those sections of the law.

Non-compete agreement? Not in California.

The California Supreme Court has ruled non-compete agreements illegal except in a very few circumstances. The law allows for them explicitly in cases involving the break-up of a corporation or partnership, but beyond those exceptions written into the law the Court ruled that the law simply prohibits an employer from restricting a former employee's right to engage in their profession. The full ruling is here. Given that it's the California Supreme Court ruling on this, Federal courts are likely to follow this ruling when interpreting California employment law. So if you work in California and your company had you sign a non-compete clause, it's out the window now.

Note that this doesn't mean you can do anything you want. If you got training at the company's expense, for instance, the clause that says you must either stay a certain length of time or re-pay the cost of the training (probably pro-rated) is still enforceable. If you do something like take company confidential information (eg. software source code, customer lists, etc.) and give it to your new employer, your former employer has grounds other than non-compete they can sue you on. And if you're a salesman and openly solicit your former company's customers to follow you to your new one, your former company again can sue you for that.