The key issue for most disputes relating to the protection of confidential information is (1) whether the information is truly confidential and (2) whether the company has taken appropriate steps to preserve its confidentiality. For the former, confidential information cannot simply be confidential, as the company asserts. It must be really private information. (1) If I determine that the number of X providers in Europe is confidential information, but that this information is easy to find on the internet, it is not really confidential. If I put confidential information on the internet myself or distribute it publicly, I cannot say later that it was confidential, because my own actions have reduced their confidentiality. In their confidentiality agreements, employers often include other restrictive competition agreements, such as. B non-competition clauses and provisions that restrict an individual`s right to recruit former employees or clients after they are terminated. When included in long-term agreements on confidential information, employers often neglect these provisions and fail to update them to comply with existing legislation. While California law continues to provide former employees with the greatest protection with respect to their competition law, other states that allow non-competitive and non-competitive agreements impose specific requirements and restrictions that require regular updating to accommodate the latest legal developments. 5. Make it clear that the employer has all the “confidential information.” Sales agents are known to believe that the clients they serve for the company are their “friends” or “customers” and that they somehow hold “confidential information” about those customers. Similarly, millennials, who have grown up around the notions of open source ownership, find it difficult to understand that they have no legal interest in their employer`s “confidential information.” Under California law, everything an employee acquires because of his or her job, except for his or her earnings, belongs to the employer.
The inclusion of a term in this sense can help avoid costly litigation with misguided former employees who have a misunderstanding of what they possess. The applicant Doe asserts that Google`s confidentiality agreement and its confidential information policies violate several provisions of the California Labor Code, and asserts that the requirement of the California Private Attorneys General Act will be again sought. Given the number of large and small businesses that use agreements and have privacy policies similar to those in the Google case, this case could be the first among others to come. That is why confidentiality agreements may be worthy of further consideration. A provision in a transaction agreement preventing the disclosure of factual information relating to the debt contracted on or after January 1, 2019 is null and void in law and against public policy. As a result, employers must ensure that their transaction agreements signed after January 1, 2019 comply with these new restrictions.