Starting on March 25, 2025, a new law (A00028) requires restaurants that provide food deliveries through a website or mobile application to post a hyperlink to the restaurant’s sanitary inspection grades.

The law applies to "internet-based food delivery service providers," including not only restaurants offering deliveries online, but also third-party mobile applications/websites that coordinate food deliveries to customers of restaurants.

This law includes a civil monetary penalty for violations. 

New York has passed a new law, Bill S2271, that simplifies the recognition of out-of-state notarizations, making it easier for businesses and individuals to transact business across state lines.

Previously, New York required a "certificate of conformity" to verify that out-of-state notarizations complied with the laws of the other state. This extra step created delays and added costs for transactions. Under the new law, the signatures and titles of authorized out-of-state notaries now serve as conclusive proof of their authority. 

In simple terms, if a document is notarized according to the laws of another state, it will be treated as valid in New York without additional verification.

By eliminating these unnecessary hurdles, the law streamlines cross-state transactions, saving time and money. Businesses can now operate more efficiently across state lines, while individuals benefit from smoother processes when buying property, signing contracts, or managing other legal matters.

The law is effective immediately, offering instant relief to those dealing with cross-state paperwork. Whether you’re a business professional or a consumer, this change makes interstate transactions easier, less expensive, and more efficient. 

On November 20, 2024, the Honorable Angel Kelley of the United States District Court of Massachusetts issued a Final Approval Order for a $2.275 million settlement involving SafeRent Solutions, LLC ("SafeRent"). In the lawsuit, it was alleged that SafeRent's tenant-screening algorithm was used to evaluate rental applicants where it disproportionately disadvantaged housing voucher recipients, particularly Black and Hispanic applicants. 

Under the settlement, SafeRent committed to:

• No longer use unvalidated scoring models for applicants with housing vouchers unless validated by organizations like the National Fair Housing Alliance.
• Educate landlords on the differences between its scoring models and the implications for housing voucher applicants.

In addition, SafeRent will pay $1.175 million into a settlement fund for affected applicants and $1.1 million for attorneys’ fees. Moreover, landlords using SafeRent’s screening products must certify whether applicants are housing voucher recipients. If certification isn’t provided, tenant-screening scores will be excluded.

For those using tenant-screening services, this case highlights the risks of relying on AI-driven tools without thoroughly understanding or auditing the impact of these tools. Algorithms that inadvertently reinforce biases, whether based on income, race, or other protected characteristics, could lead to significant legal and financial liabilities under the Fair Housing Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

Landlords and PropTech should conduct regular audits by trusted third-party validators to avoid discrimination as technology rapidly emerges in this field.

Landlords and PropTech should take this case as motivation to review your screening process, including:

• Do your tools account for biases in their data or design?
• Are they validated for compliance with anti-discrimination laws?
• Are you confident they don’t inadvertently exclude protected groups?

As SafeRent’s case demonstrates, the stakes are high. It’s not just about avoiding lawsuits, it’s about ensuring equitable access to housing and fostering trust in the rental process. Invest in a third-party audit of the AI tools you use, update your policies, and ensure your practices align with Federal, State, and Local fair housing laws. 

Amazon recently updated its Reasonable Accommodation Policy as to employees seeking disability accommodations to work from home.  

Here is an explanation of their updated policy based on Bloomberg Reports. 

In a nutshell, the policy includes a more rigorous vetting process, multilevel leader review, and month-long return to the office trials. 

As a result, Amazon may wind-up defending more failure-to-accommodate claims while enacting this policy update. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The ADA mandates that employers engage in an interactive process, assessing requests individually in a timely manner. By implementing a more complex approval system, Amazon may be making it harder for employees with disabilities to receive the accommodations that they need, potentially violating the ADA. 

First, the new process requires a complex "multilevel leader review," which could lead to significant delays before employees' requests are approved. This extended waiting period could violate the ADA's requirement to address requests for accommodations in a timely manner, which is seen as a constructive denial of the requested accommodation that makes a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit ripe for adjudication. 

Additionally, the policy is problematic because it applies to both new requests and extensions of existing accommodations. Employees who have already been granted accommodations may now be required to return to the office for month-long trials to assess whether their needs are being met. This one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all disabilities, and pushing employees back to the office without considering their specific needs could be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.

If employees are unable to obtain the accommodations they require and are forced to work in ways that don’t suit their disabilities, they may feel forced to leave the company. In such cases, this could be considered constructive discharge, where the work environment becomes so intolerable that employees feel they have no choice but to quit.

If Amazon's new policy fails to comply with the ADA or similar state and local laws, it could face serious legal consequences. Affected employees should file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a condition precedent to bringing an ADA claim. Remember, dependent on location, such a charge must be filed with EEOC in as early as 180 days (some states extend this to 300 days, but federal sector employees only have 45 days to contact an EEO Counselor to get the ball rolling). 

Amazon's actions highlight the need for employers to carefully balance workplace goals with their legal obligations to uphold disability rights under federal, state, and local laws.

The New York City Council has approved the FARE Act (Int 0360-2024), a new bill that eliminates upfront broker fees for most renters. 

Currently, New York is one of the only places in the country where tenants are required to pay these fees, often around 15% of the yearly rent, even when they’ve never met the broker. This has meant an average upfront cost of $13,000 for renters, which includes broker fees, security deposits, and first month’s rent. Under the FARE Act, the responsibility for paying the broker fee will shift to the party that hires the broker—usually the landlord or building manager—unless the tenant specifically hires the broker. 

The bill passed with solid support, at 42 votes to 8. Proponents argue it’s common sense that the party hiring the broker should pay for their services, adding that the FARE Act will help make housing more accessible for working- and middle-income renters. However, critics, including the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), have raised concerns that the law could lead to higher rents, make it more difficult to find housing, and harm brokers.

On April 14, 2025 there will be no more of the never ending loop of frustration in trying to cancel your recurring subscriptions and memberships. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has issued its finalized "Click to Cancel" rule, making it simpler for consumers to cancel recurring subscriptions. 

This rule targets those frustrating hurdles that consumers face to unsubscribe from services like streaming platforms and subscription boxes. In the past companies often required phone calls, long forms, or multiple steps for cancellations, even though signing up was easy with just a few clicks. This new rule ensures that if a business offers an online option to subscribe, they must also offer an easy online option to cancel in a similar manner. 

Businesses must now provide a clear, direct path for cancellation and requires companies to offer annual reminders of subscription renewals and to communicate any changes clearly to consumers. If a company proposes additional offers, alternatives, or incentives for consumers who are considering cancellation, the consumer must be able to decline those offers and proceed to cancel without additional hurdles. Check out the FTC's fact sheet here, which summarizes this new rule. 

This rule is the result of the thousands of complaints the FTC has received about recurring subscription practices each year. This rule will now provide a consistent legal framework by prohibiting companies from:

1. Misrepresenting any material fact made while marketing goods or services with a recurring subscription feature;
2. Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a recurring subscription feature;
3. Failing to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the recurring subscription feature before charging the consumer; and
4. Failing to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the recurring subscription feature and immediately halt charges.

Violating the FTC’s new rule comes with a $51,744 civil penalty, injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts that violate the Click-to-Cancel Rule, refund of money or return of property, the payment of damages, and public notification of the violation. Plus, there is additional exposure for state specific unfair or deceptive act or practice laws, such as NY General Business Law 349 for attorneys' fees and statutory penalties of $1,000 per violation. 

For more details, you can view the FTC's official release here. 

On September 30, 2024, President Biden officially proclaimed October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month while promoting inclusive workplaces. 

This year's focus is advancing access and inclusion which aligns with the core principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA eliminated the barriers individuals with disabilities faces, including employment. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations and ensure that job opportunities are accessible to those with disabilities. This allows the over 61 million Americans living with a disability the opportunity to be included, participate, and be respected in the workforce.  

Remember, employers don't have a choice; if an accommodation is wrongfully denied, the employee can sue for back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. 

If you'd like to read President Biden's proclamation, click here.