• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

California To Require Website Disclosure Regarding Efforts To Eradicate Slavery And Human Trafficking

By Keith Paul Bishop on February 7, 2011 in California Sui Generis, Legislation

In this post, Broc Romanek declares the new federal conflict minerals disclosure requirement to be the “Dodd-Frank sleeper”.  Here in California, I think the “sleeper” of its 2009-2010 legislative session is the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010.  This legislation, SB 657, was sponsored by the Alliance to Stop Slavery and End Trafficking and introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg.  You can watch former Governor Schwarzenegger sign the bill at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in these videos (Part 1 and Part 2).

This new law will require retail sellers and manufactures doing business in this state to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains for tangible goods offered for sale.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43(a).  To be subject to this new requirement, a retail seller or manufacturer must have annual worldwide ”gross receipts” that exceed $100,000,000.  The Act includes definitions of ”doing business in this state”, “gross receipts”, “manufacturer” and “retail seller”. 

The Act requires a retail seller or manufacturer to post the required disclosure on its website.  If the company doesn’t maintain a website, then it must provide consumers with a written disclosure within 30 days of receipt of a written request.

The required disclosures must, at a minimum, set forth the extent to which, if any, a retail seller or manufacturer does each of the following:

  • Engages in verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery.  The disclosure must specify if the verification was not conducted by a third party.
  • Conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains.  The disclosure must specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit.
  • Requires direct suppliers to certify that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business.
  •  Maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding slavery and trafficking.
  • Provides company employees and management, who have direct responsibility for supply chain management, training on human trafficking and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products.

Note that the Act’s disclosure requirement does not take effect until January 1, 2012. 

The Act provides that the exclusive remedy for a violation is a suit for injunctive relief brought by the California Attorney General.   In order to provide the Attorney General with the information needed to enforce the Act, the Franchise Tax Board is required to provide a list of retail sellers and manufacturers subject to the Act.  The list is to be based on tax returns for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010Darrell SteinbergDodd-Frank ActSB 657
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

February 2011
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me