California SB 1286: Rosenthal Act Now Covers Business Debt (2026)

 California SB 1286: Rosenthal Act Now Covers Business Debt (2026)

October 8, 2026 | Washington Law Firm 

For decades, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act protected consumers, meaning people who owed money for personal, family, or household purposes. Business debt was largely left out. That changed with Senate Bill 1286, signed in September 2024. In 2025, the Legislature narrowed the law with Assembly Bill 1521. If you are a Los Angeles–area business owner, a personal guarantor of a business loan, or a company that collects commercial accounts, both laws may affect you.

What SB 1286 Changed in California’s Rosenthal Act

SB 1286 (Chapter 522, Statutes of 2024) amended the Rosenthal Act (Civil Code section 1788 and following) to cover a new category called “covered commercial debt.” The main features are:

• Who is protected. Covered commercial debt is money owed by a natural person, not a corporation or LLC, on business-purpose transactions. Sole proprietors are covered, and so are individuals who personally guarantee a business’s obligations. For these debts, the law expressly treats a guarantor as a “debtor.”
• Which debts count. The debt must be owed to a lender, a commercial financing provider, or a debt buyer. The combined amount the person owes to that same creditor cannot exceed $500,000.
• When it applies. The protections apply to covered commercial debt entered into, renewed, sold, or assigned on or after July 1, 2025. A business debt that began before that date and has not been renewed, sold, or assigned since generally falls outside the new rules.
• What collectors cannot do. The Rosenthal Act’s existing prohibitions on harassing, deceptive, and unfair collection conduct now apply to covered commercial debt. Under California law, a “debt collector” can include an original lender collecting its own debt, not just third-party collection agencies.
• Where a guarantor can be sued. When a debt arises from a personal guaranty, the collector may sue in the county where the business is located. This is an exception to the usual rule tying venue to where the debtor resides or incurred the debt.
• No new licensing. The law states that it does not create any additional debt collector licensing requirement for commercial debt.

AB 1521 (2025): Trade Credit and Dealer Financing Exclusions

AB 1521, the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s 2025 omnibus bill (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2025), took effect January 1, 2026. It removed two categories from “covered commercial debt”:

1. Certain vehicle dealer financing. This covers commercial financing transactions of at least $50,000 where the recipient is a vehicle dealer or a dealer affiliate.
2. Trade credit. This is, generally, credit extended by a business that supplies goods, materials, equipment, or related services. The term has its own statutory definition, so the exact wording matters.

In practice, a supplier invoicing customers on net-30 terms is likely outside the Act. A lender, a commercial financing provider, or a debt buyer collecting on a loan or line of credit from a sole proprietor or guarantor may still be inside it.

Personal Guarantors and Small-Business Debt Collection in California

For small-business owners and guarantors: If a lender or debt buyer is pursuing you personally on a business debt of $500,000 or less, you may now have Rosenthal Act rights you did not have before. Abusive or deceptive collection conduct can support claims for damages and statutory penalties. A violation does not erase the underlying debt, but it can change your leverage in negotiation or litigation.

For people weighing bankruptcy or debt relief: Business owners under financial pressure often face aggressive collection on personal guaranties. Knowing whether the Rosenthal Act applies can shape strategy: whether to negotiate, defend a collection lawsuit, assert counterclaims, or seek bankruptcy protection.

For creditors and collectors: Commercial lenders, financing providers, and debt buyers should check whether accounts originated, renewed, sold, or assigned after July 1, 2025 fall within the $500,000 threshold. They should also check whether the trade credit or dealer financing exclusions apply. Collection letters, call scripts, and venue practices may need updating.

Checklist: Is Your Business Debt Covered?

• Is the person being pursued a natural person, such as a sole proprietor or personal guarantor?
• Is the creditor a lender, a commercial financing provider, or a debt buyer?
• Is the total owed to that creditor $500,000 or less?
• Was the debt entered into, renewed, sold, or assigned on or after July 1, 2025?
• Does the trade credit or vehicle dealer financing exclusion apply?

If the answers point toward coverage, the Rosenthal Act’s conduct rules likely govern the collection effort.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Rosenthal Act apply to business debt in California?
Yes, in some cases. Since July 1, 2025, it applies to certain business debts owed by individuals, including personal guarantors, when the total owed to one creditor is $500,000 or less.

Does SB 1286 apply to debts owed by a corporation or LLC?
Not to the company itself. Coverage requires a natural person who owes the debt, which includes an individual who personally guaranteed the company’s obligation.

Does SB 1286 apply to trade credit?
No. AB 1521 excluded qualifying trade credit beginning January 1, 2026.

Does a Rosenthal Act violation cancel the debt?
No. A violation can give the debtor claims against the collector, but it does not erase the underlying debt.

The Bottom Line

SB 1286 marked a significant shift by extending California’s debt collection protections beyond consumer debt to individuals who stand behind small-business obligations. AB 1521 has since narrowed that reach. Because the law is new and still being refined, the details of each transaction matter.

If you are facing collection on a business debt or personal guaranty in Los Angeles or elsewhere in Southern California, contact us or call 877-807-2008 to discuss your options.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and the application of any law depends on the specific facts. Please consult an attorney about your particular situation.

 

California Landlord-Tenant Law Changes in 2026: 7 Key Updates

Updated October 8, 2026 | Washington Law Firm

California's rental housing laws continue to evolve. Legislative changes that took effect in 2025 and 2026 have introduced new requirements involving rental appliances, security deposit refunds, internet subscriptions, tenant screening, rent payment reporting, and eviction procedures.

Understanding these changes is important for property owners, property managers, and tenants alike. Failure to comply with applicable requirements can result in disputes, financial liability, or challenges in court.

Below are seven important updates to California landlord-tenant law and their practical implications.

1. Landlords Must Provide Working Stoves and Refrigerators in Covered Rentals

Effective January 1, 2026 — Assembly Bill 628  

California Assembly Bill 628 amended the state's minimum habitability requirements.

Under California Civil Code Section 1941.1, covered residential rental units must now include a working stove capable of safely generating heat for cooking and a working refrigerator capable of safely storing food.

The new requirement applies to rental agreements entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2026.

The law also requires landlords to repair or replace covered appliances subject to manufacturer or government recalls within 30 days of receiving notice of the recall.

Are there exceptions?

Yes. Certain housing arrangements, including qualifying permanent supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, residential hotels, and facilities offering communal kitchens, are excluded from the new appliance requirements.

A tenant may also voluntarily agree to provide and maintain their own refrigerator if the statutory written-lease conditions are satisfied. A landlord cannot make a tenant's provision of a refrigerator a condition of obtaining the tenancy. The tenant must be permitted to request a landlord-provided refrigerator upon 30 days' written notice.

Legal analysis: Because these appliances are now part of the statutory habitability standards for covered rentals, landlords should treat appliance maintenance as a housing-compliance issue rather than merely an optional amenity. However, available remedies depend on the circumstances and applicable law.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1941.1; AB 628, Chapter 342, Statutes of 2025.

2. Electronic Security Deposit Refunds Are Now Required in Certain Cases

Effective January 1, 2026 — Assembly Bill 414

California has modernized its rules governing the return of residential security deposits.

Under amended Civil Code Section 1950.5, when a landlord receives rent or a security deposit electronically, the landlord generally must return the remaining security deposit electronically, unless the parties agree in writing to another method.

The law also requires applicable landlords to notify tenants of their right to receive the refund electronically within the statutory notification period when the tenancy is ending.

Separate rules address refunds involving multiple adult tenants, including written agreements concerning allocation and payment methods.

Importantly, the existing requirement to account for and return security deposits generally within 21 calendar days after a tenant vacates remains in effect.

Legal analysis: Landlords should update their move-out procedures to obtain required payment instructions and written agreements. Tenants should understand that electronic repayment does not eliminate a landlord's right to make lawful deductions for unpaid rent, qualifying damage, or other authorized charges.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1950.5(h); AB 414, Chapter 340, Statutes of 2025.

3. Tenants Have New Rights to Opt Out of Internet Subscription Charges

Effective January 1, 2026 — Assembly Bill 1414

Some California rental properties use bulk internet arrangements in which internet service is bundled into a tenant's housing charges.

Assembly Bill 1414 introduced new protections under Civil Code Section 1942.8.

For residential tenancies falling within the statute, including specified new, renewed, and continuing periodic tenancies on or after January 1, 2026, landlords must allow tenants to opt out of paying for third-party internet service subscriptions offered in connection with the tenancy.

The law does not prohibit landlords from offering bulk internet arrangements. Instead, it protects the tenant's choice whether to pay for the covered subscription.

It also prohibits retaliation for exercising the right to opt out.

Legal analysis: If a landlord violates the statutory opt-out requirement, a tenant may be entitled to deduct the covered subscription cost from rent. Because improper rent deductions can create legal risks, tenants should verify the law's applicability and document their requests before exercising this remedy.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1942.8; AB 1414, Chapter 506, Statutes of 2025.

4. Security Deposit Deductions Now Require More Photographic Documentation

Changes phased in during 2025 — Assembly Bill 2801

California strengthened its security deposit rules through AB 2801.

Under Civil Code Section 1950.5:

• Beginning April 1, 2025, landlords must photograph the rental unit within a reasonable time after the tenant returns possession, before performing repairs or cleaning for which a security deposit deduction will be made, and again after that work is completed.

• For tenancies beginning on or after July 1, 2025, landlords must photograph the unit immediately before or at the beginning of the tenancy.

• When deductions for qualifying repairs or cleaning are made, landlords generally must provide the required photographs and supporting cost documentation with the itemized security deposit statement, subject to statutory provisions.

The law also reinforces restrictions on charging tenants for ordinary wear and tear, preexisting damage, or cleaning that is not reasonably necessary to restore the premises to their initial condition.

Legal analysis: Photographs can help establish whether a deduction reflects tenant-caused damage rather than ordinary deterioration. Landlords should maintain organized, dated inspection records. Tenants should also preserve their own move-in and move-out photographs, inspection correspondence, and payment records.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1950.5(e), (g), and (h); AB 2801, Chapter 280, Statutes of 2024.

5. Many Landlords Must Offer Positive Rent Payment Reporting

Offers required beginning April 1, 2025 — Assembly Bill 2747

Assembly Bill 2747 established a process allowing eligible California tenants to have positive rental payment information reported to qualifying consumer reporting agencies.

Under Civil Code Section 1954.07, covered landlords must offer tenants the option to report qualifying on-time rent payments.

For leases entered into on or after April 1, 2025, the offer must be made when the lease is executed and at least annually thereafter. For leases already outstanding as of January 1, 2025, the initial offer was due by April 1, 2025.

Participation is voluntary for tenants.

A landlord may charge no more than the lesser of $10 per month or the landlord's actual cost of reporting. If the landlord incurs no cost, no fee may be charged.

The law includes exclusions, including many buildings containing 15 or fewer units and certain assisted housing developments. Specific ownership structures can affect whether the small-building exclusion applies.

Legal analysis: The legislation provides some tenants with an opportunity to build credit through documented timely rent payments. Landlords subject to the law should maintain compliant written election forms, track annual offers, and honor tenant opt-out requests. Failure to pay an optional reporting fee is not itself grounds for terminating the tenancy.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1954.07; AB 2747, Chapter 279, Statutes of 2024.

6. Rental Application Screening Fees Face Stricter Rules

Effective January 1, 2025 — Assembly Bill 2493

California Civil Code Section 1950.6 limits when landlords and property managers may charge application screening fees.

Under the revised framework, landlords charging such fees must use one of the legally permitted screening approaches.

One approach generally requires reviewing completed applications in order, providing written screening criteria, approving the first applicant who satisfies those criteria, and avoiding a screening charge unless the application is actually considered.

The alternative allows a qualifying process in which the entire screening fee is refunded to applicants not selected for tenancy, within the statutory timeframe.

A landlord also cannot charge an application screening fee when the landlord knows or should know that no rental unit is available or will become available within a reasonable period.

Legal analysis: The reform is designed to discourage unnecessary screening charges and improve transparency. Prospective tenants should retain copies of application materials and payment receipts. Housing providers should document screening procedures and refund decisions to demonstrate compliance.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1950.6; AB 2493, Chapter 966, Statutes of 2024.

7. Tenants Generally Have 10 Court Days to Respond to an Eviction Lawsuit

Effective January 1, 2025 — Assembly Bill 2347

California extended the standard deadline for responding to an unlawful detainer lawsuit from five court days to 10 court days.

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1167, a tenant personally served with an eviction summons and complaint generally has 10 court days to respond.

Court days exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays.

Different service methods can alter the calculation. For example, substituted service or court-authorized posting and mailing involve additional service-completion rules.

Legal analysis: The longer response period provides tenants additional time to seek counsel and prepare a defense, but an eviction lawsuit remains an expedited court proceeding. A tenant who misses the applicable deadline risks a default judgment. Landlords must also calculate response periods correctly before seeking default relief.

This change does not eliminate lawful grounds for eviction or prevent a landlord from pursuing possession through the required legal process.

Authority: California Code of Civil Procedure § 1167; AB 2347, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2024.

What About California Rent Increase Limits in 2026?

Although not a newly enacted 2026 rule, California's Tenant Protection Act remains a critical part of the legal framework.

For many covered properties, Civil Code Section 1947.12 limits annual rent increases to 5% plus the applicable change in the cost of living, or 10%, whichever is lower, over the relevant 12-month period.

These limits have statutory exceptions. Local rent stabilization ordinances may impose stricter requirements.

The applicable percentage also depends on the property's location and the effective date of a rent increase. Landlords and tenants should consult the California Attorney General's current rent-cap guidance rather than assume a single statewide percentage applies everywhere.

Authority: California Civil Code § 1947.12; California Attorney General's rent guidance.

Practical Steps for California Landlords and Tenants

For landlords: Review lease forms and renewal practices, check appliance requirements, update security deposit documentation and refund procedures, review internet subscription charges, and ensure that tenant screening and rent-reporting processes comply with applicable law.

For tenants: Review your lease carefully, keep written records and photographs, understand which protections apply to your property, request required disclosures or refunds where appropriate, and respond promptly to eviction-related court documents.

Both parties should also check applicable municipal ordinances because California state law does not eliminate additional local rental housing protections.

Conclusion

California's 2025 and 2026 landlord-tenant reforms reflect increased emphasis on habitability, transparency, consumer choice, and procedural fairness.

The new rules concerning appliances, security deposits, internet subscriptions, rent reporting, screening charges, and eviction response deadlines can materially affect how residential rental relationships are managed.

Understanding the statutory requirements before a disagreement arises can help landlords and tenants avoid preventable disputes.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general educational information and is not legal advice. It discusses California law, not Washington law. The application of any statute depends on the circumstances, applicable exemptions, local ordinances, and subsequent legal developments. Readers with California landlord-tenant legal questions should consult a California-licensed attorney. Publication by Washington Law Firm should not be understood as a representation that the firm is authorized to practice California law.

Elon Musk Joins Upcoming Trump Administration: What His Plans to Dismantle Social Security Could Mean for Retirees

 

In a shocking turn of events, Elon Musk has been appointed to a key role in the upcoming Trump administration, with reports indicating that he plans to spearhead efforts to dismantle Social Security. The announcement has sparked widespread concern among retirees, workers, and legal experts alike. Social Security, a cornerstone of the American social safety net since 1935, provides essential financial support to retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving family members of deceased workers. But could Musk truly succeed in dismantling it, and what protections exist for those who rely on it?

The Creation of Social Security

Social Security was established in 1935 during the Great Depression as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. At the time, poverty among elderly Americans was rampant, with no universal system in place to provide for aging workers who could no longer support themselves. The Social Security Act aimed to address this crisis by creating a federally funded, payroll-tax-based program to provide retirement benefits. The program faced intense debates during its inception, with critics labeling it as "socialist" and an overreach of federal power. Business groups and fiscal conservatives argued it would discourage individual responsibility and burden employers, while labor unions and progressives championed it as a necessary step toward economic security for all. Despite the opposition, the Act was signed into law, becoming a transformative piece of legislation that has since provided stability to millions of Americans.

Who Will Be Affected?

If Musk’s plan moves forward, the effects could be catastrophic for millions of Americans. Social Security currently serves as a primary source of income for nearly 70 million people, including retirees, individuals with disabilities, and low-income families. Without it, many retirees would face severe financial instability, particularly those who lack significant savings or pensions. Younger generations, who contribute to Social Security through payroll taxes with the expectation of future benefits, would also bear the brunt of these changes.

Who Benefits from Dismantling Social Security?

The dismantling of Social Security would disproportionately benefit certain groups, particularly wealthy individuals and corporations. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes, which are capped at a certain income level, meaning high earners only pay taxes on a portion of their income. Eliminating the program would relieve these individuals of their tax obligations, leading to significant financial savings for the wealthiest Americans. Similarly, corporations that match employee payroll contributions would no longer bear this cost, increasing their profit margins. Some conservative policymakers and think tanks argue that privatizing retirement savings would benefit the financial sector, as it could open up trillions of dollars in investment opportunities. However, these benefits for the wealthy and corporate interests come at the expense of the majority of Americans who rely on Social Security for basic financial security.

Can Social Security Be Dismantled Constitutionally?

The dismantling of Social Security would face significant constitutional and legal hurdles. Social Security is a federally established program funded through payroll taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Any changes to its structure would require Congressional approval, as the program's framework is codified in federal law. Additionally, Social Security is often referred to as an entitlement program, meaning that eligible individuals have a legal right to receive benefits. Courts have previously upheld the constitutionality of Social Security, reinforcing the federal government’s responsibility to administer the program.

Federal Protections Against Threats to Social Security

While Social Security can theoretically be restructured or repealed through legislative action, several federal protections make this difficult. The Social Security Trust Fund is insulated from general government revenue and is funded directly by payroll taxes. This funding mechanism ensures a degree of financial stability. Moreover, widespread public support for Social Security creates significant political resistance to drastic changes. Advocacy groups, unions, and AARP are likely to challenge any attempt to dismantle the program through lobbying, public campaigns, and litigation.

State-Level Protections in California

California, home to one of the largest retiree populations in the country, has state-level programs and protections designed to assist seniors. Programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and state-administered pensions provide additional financial support. California also enforces strong anti-discrimination laws that protect older workers and retirees, ensuring their access to essential benefits. While these programs can offer partial relief, they are not a substitute for the comprehensive coverage provided by Social Security.

Why a Litigation Attorney is Essential for Retirees

For retirees concerned about the security of their Social Security benefits, consulting with a litigation attorney is critical. Attorneys specializing in social welfare law can help retirees navigate complex legal systems, challenge unjust denials or reductions of benefits, and represent their interests in federal court if necessary. In California, where legal frameworks are often intricate, a skilled attorney can also help retirees access state-level resources and protections.

Elon Musk’s proposed plans to dismantle Social Security represent a significant threat to millions of Americans. While constitutional and legislative safeguards provide some reassurance, the potential consequences for retirees and other beneficiaries cannot be understated. Retirees must remain vigilant and prepared to seek legal recourse to protect their entitlements. A qualified litigation attorney can be a powerful ally in ensuring that the promise of Social Security endures for generations to come.

By: Desiree T. Washington, Esq. at Washington Law Firm

California Expands Debt Collection Protections to Commercial Debt with SB 1286

 California has long been a leader in consumer protection, and the passage of Senate Bill 1286 (Stats. 2024, ch. 522) continues that tradition. This new law, effective January 1, 2025, expands the coverage of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) to include certain types of commercial debt. Historically, the RFDCPA only applied to consumer debt, providing safeguards against abusive, unfair, or deceptive collection practices. SB 1286 marks a significant shift in California’s approach to debt collection by extending these protections to small business owners and entrepreneurs.

What Does SB 1286 Do?

The Rosenthal Act, codified in Civil Code §§ 1788–1788.33, governs debt collection practices and establishes penalties for violations. SB 1286 amends the act to cover "specified commercial debt," which includes obligations incurred by small businesses for goods, services, or credit primarily used for business purposes.

This change means that debt collectors must now adhere to the same stringent rules when pursuing commercial debt as they do for consumer debt. Prohibited practices include harassment, threats, misrepresentation of the debt, and attempts to collect debts that are not legally enforceable. Small business owners, particularly those struggling in a volatile economy, now have recourse against unscrupulous collectors.

Who Does the Law Apply To?

SB 1286 primarily benefits small business owners who may lack the resources to defend themselves against aggressive or predatory debt collection tactics. It applies to debt collectors, collection agencies, and even original creditors engaging in collection efforts for commercial debts falling under the expanded definition.

The bill does not extend to large businesses or commercial debt involving entities with significant financial resources. Instead, the focus remains on small enterprises—those that often find themselves most vulnerable to economic pressures and ineq
uitable collection practices.

Why Was SB 1286 Necessary?

Governor Gavin Newsom, in signing the bill, emphasized the importance of protecting small businesses, which are the backbone of California’s economy. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic uncertainties exposed many small businesses to financial hardships, leaving them at the mercy of aggressive debt collection practices. Advocates for SB 1286 argued that extending RFDCPA protections was a matter of economic equity, ensuring that small business owners receive the same rights as individual consumers.

The bill’s proponents also pointed out that abusive debt collection practices can lead to unnecessary bankruptcies, closures, and financial ruin for entrepreneurs. Providing a fair legal framework was deemed essential to fostering a business environment where small enterprises can thrive.

 

Opposition to SB 1286

Despite its passage, SB 1286 faced significant opposition from creditor groups and business associations. Critics argued that the expanded protections could increase the cost of credit for small businesses, as lenders might pass on the cost of compliance to borrowers. They also expressed concern that the bill could lead to frivolous lawsuits, further burdening an already overextended judicial system.

However, supporters of the bill countered that fair practices benefit both lenders and borrowers by promoting transparency and accountability in the marketplace. They contended that the economic impact on creditors would be minimal compared to the societal benefits of protecting vulnerable businesses.

While SB 1286 primarily focuses on extending protections to specified commercial debt, its roots in the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) mean that the law continues to apply robust safeguards to consumer debt as well. For consumers, the RFDCPA prohibits practices like harassment, false statements, and attempts to collect debts not legally owed, providing a critical layer of protection against abusive debt collection practices. By expanding the scope of the RFDCPA to include small business debt, SB 1286 underscores the broader principle that fairness and transparency should govern all debt collection efforts, whether they target individual consumers or small business owners. This alignment may also indirectly benefit consumers by establishing more consistent standards and practices within the debt collection industry as a whole.

SB 1286 underscores the necessity for businesses and consumers to retain an attorney experienced in debt collection, and it represents a landmark step in California’s ongoing efforts to ensure fair treatment in financial transactions. By expanding the RFDCPA’s protections to specified commercial debt, the state aims to level the playing field for small business owners while addressing systemic inequities in debt collection practices. While the law’s long-term impact remains to be seen, it underscores California’s commitment to balancing economic growth with consumer and small business protections.

 

By: Desiree T. Washington, Esq. at Washington Law Firm

 

AB 2216 Withdrawn. Landlord May Still Charge Pet Rent, Pet Deposits and Deny Tenancy to Pet Owners.

 

Good news for Landlords. Bad news for current and prospective tenants with pets. California Assembly Bill 2216 (AB 2216), titled "Tenancy: Common Household Pets," has been withdrawn and is no longer under consideration in the current legislative session. The bill, introduced by Assembly-member Matt Haney in February 2024, aimed to prevent landlords from denying tenancy to renters with common household pets and sought to prohibit the imposition of additional pet-related fees or rent. The bill was met with vigorous opposition by the landlord lobby.

Legislative Journey of AB 2216

AB 2216 was introduced with the intent to address the challenges faced by pet-owning renters in California. The proposed legislation sought to:

• Prohibit landlords from inquiring about a prospective tenant's pet ownership before accepting their application.
• Require tenants to inform landlords of pet ownership plans at least 72 hours before entering into a rental agreement.
• Prevent landlords from denying tenancy based on pet ownership without reasonable justification.
• Disallow the charging of additional rent or fees specifically for pet ownership.

The bill garnered support from animal rights organizations and aimed to increase the availability of pet-friendly rental housing. However, it faced significant opposition from property owners and real estate associations concerned about property damage and the autonomy of landlords to set terms for their properties.

Property owners argued that the decision to allow pets should remain at their discretion, enabling them to make choices based on the specific circumstances of their properties and renters.

Their primary concerns raised included:

• Property Damage: Pets can cause significant damage to rental units, leading to costly repairs that may not be fully covered by pet deposits.
• Allergies and Safety: The presence of pets could affect other renters, particularly those with allergies or fears of certain animals.
• Increased Liability: Rental owners would face increased liability risks, including potential bites or attacks from pets, which could result in legal and insurance complications.
  

Amendments and Opposition

In response to the opposition, several amendments were made to AB 2216 to address concerns:

• Exemptions for smaller properties were introduced, recognizing the unique challenges faced by owners of such units.
• Provisions allowing landlords to charge pet deposits and fees were included, aiming to mitigate potential property damage risks.

Despite these amendments, opposition remained strong. Organizations like the East Bay Rental Housing Association (EBRHA) and the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA) actively lobbied against the bill, arguing that it infringed upon landlords' rights and could lead to increased operational challenges. Their concerted efforts contributed to the decision to withdraw the bill from consideration.

Ebrha

Implications for Renters and Landlords

The withdrawal of AB 2216 means that the existing regulations regarding pet ownership in rental properties remain unchanged. Landlords retain the discretion to set pet policies, including the ability to:

• Prohibit pets entirely in their rental units.
• Charge additional pet rent or fees to cover potential damages or increased wear and tear.
• Establish specific conditions or restrictions related to pet ownership, such as size or breed limitations.

For renters, this outcome underscores the importance of:

• Reviewing lease agreements carefully to understand pet-related policies and any associated costs.
• Communicating openly with potential landlords about pet ownership to ensure compliance with property rules.
• Seeking pet-friendly housing options proactively, as landlords are not mandated to accommodate pets.

Future Considerations

The debate surrounding AB 2216 highlights the ongoing tension between increasing housing accessibility for pet owners and preserving landlords' rights to manage their properties. While this particular bill has been withdrawn, the issues it sought to address remain pertinent. Advocates for pet-friendly housing may continue to pursue legislative or policy changes in the future.

Both renters and landlords should stay informed about potential new proposals or local ordinances that could impact pet policies in rental housing. Engaging an experienced California landlord tenant attorney or California real estate attorney can help balance the needs and concerns of both parties in the rental market.

 By: Desiree T. Washington, Esq. at Washington Law Firm

Finding a Personal Injury Lawyer in California

Accidents and injuries are an unfortunate part of life, and when they happen due to someone else's negligence, it can be especially challenging to navigate the legal and healthcare systems to seek compensation and justice. Desiree T. Washington, Esq., explains how you can obtain legal help to initiate and resolve your personal injury claim. 

In Los Angeles County, one of the most populous and diverse counties in the United States, the personal injury process is complex but essential for those who have suffered harm to receive some measure of relief. With this article, Desiree aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the personal injury process in Los Angeles County, from the initial incident to the resolution of a personal injury claim, and how you can utilize Washington Law Firm to find just compensation for your injuries. 

1. Seek Medical Attention 

The first and most crucial step following a personal injury in Los Angeles County, as anywhere else, is to seek immediate medical attention. Your health should always be the top priority. Not only does prompt medical care ensure that you receive the necessary treatment, but it also creates a crucial medical record that can serve as evidence later in your personal injury claim. 

Hospitals may ask you for medical insurance. You should inform them that you were in an accident so that they may ensure all paperwork pertinent to your claim is filled out and that you receive the urgent medical care you need to prevent further harm. Do not worry if you do not have medical insurance. A hospital cannot legally turn you away for not having insurance. Simply inform them that you were in an accident and to forward your invoice to your attorney, Desiree T. Washington at Washington Law Firm. Make sure you receive copies of all documents you sign, and that the hospital gives you, and forward those documents to Washington Law Firm, including any detailed records of all medical bills, prescriptions, and treatment plans. 

2. Gather Evidence 

After seeking medical attention, it's essential to gather as much evidence as possible related to your injury and the incident that caused it. This may include:

a. Photographs: Take pictures of the accident scene, your injuries, and any property damage. These visual records can provide valuable proof later on. 

b. Witness Statements: If there were any witnesses to the accident, collect their contact information and statements. Witness testimonies can corroborate your version of events. 

c. Police Report: If the injury resulted from a car accident, slip and fall, or any other incident where law enforcement responded, obtain a copy of the police report. This report often contains valuable information about the accident's circumstances and the parties involved. 

d. Documentation: Keep records of all relevant documents, such as medical bills, receipts, and correspondence related to your injury. 

3. Consult an Attorney 

Hiring a personal injury attorney is critical to you obtaining the restitution you need to be made whole after your accident. Washington Law Firm will help you understand your rights, evaluate the strength of your case, and guide you through the complex legal process. Desiree T. Washington offers free initial consultations to assess your situation and provide initial guidance. 

Many Los Angeles County law firms now charge a contingency fee of upwards of 50% of your claim. DO NOT agree to those terms. They are exorbitant, unethical and will prevent you from being made whole by any injury award you may receive. Instead, demand the attorneys receive not more than 33% which should include all legal fees and costs. 33% has been the standard for contingency fees for over 100 years. At Washington Law Firm, Desiree will never charge more than 33% on contingency fee cases. 

4. Statute of Limitations 

It's essential to be aware of the statute of limitations for personal injury cases in California. In general, you have two years from the date of the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. If you miss this deadline, you may lose your right to pursue a claim. However, some exceptions and nuances may apply, so contact Washington Law Firm to understand how the statute of limitations applies to your specific case. 

5. Negotiation with the Insurance Company

In many personal injury cases, the injured party will need to negotiate with the insurance company of the at-fault party. It's essential to have your attorney handle these negotiations to ensure that you receive a fair settlement. Insurance companies absolutely will try to minimize payouts, so it is crucial that you contact Washington Law Firm to deal with your insurers. 

6. Filing a Lawsuit

If negotiations with the insurance company do not result in a fair settlement, Washington Law Firm recommends filing a lawsuit. This formal legal action initiates the litigation process. Desiree will prepare the necessary documents, including a complaint that outlines the details of your case, and file them with the appropriate court in Los Angeles County. 

7. Discovery Process

Once a lawsuit is filed, both parties engage in the discovery process. This involves gathering evidence, questioning witnesses, and exchanging information. Discovery can be a time-consuming and is a detailed process, often lasting over a year based on the nature and extent of your injuries. However, it is crucial for building a strong case. 

8. Mediation and Settlement Discussions 

Before proceeding to trial, many personal injury cases in Los Angeles County go through mediation or settlement discussions. These processes aim to resolve the case without the need for a court trial. A neutral mediator facilitates discussions between the parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Washington Law Firm will advocate for your interests during these negotiations. 

9. Trial

If mediation and settlement discussions do not lead to a satisfactory resolution, the case will proceed to trial. Washington Law Firm will present your evidence, question witnesses, and make and defend legal arguments before a judge and jury. The trial process can be lengthy, but Desiree and Washington Law Firm effectively represent your interests in court. 

10. Verdict and Compensation

After the trial, the judge or jury will render a verdict. If the verdict is in your favor, the at-fault party will be ordered to compensate you for your injuries and losses. The compensation can include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. 

Conclusion

While the personal injury process can be challenging, it's crucial to remember that it exists to protect your rights. With Washington Law Firm at your side, you will have the right legal representation and a thorough understanding of the process. You will be able to seek the compensation and justice you deserve in Los Angeles County. 

 

Legal Disclaimer and Attorney Advertising Notice

The information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website is intended as legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will be established with our firm or any of our attorneys unless by a written, fully executed engagement letter provided by our firm.

Internet users and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Understanding Los Angeles' Post-Covid-19 Lockdown Tenants Rights

Many Los Angeles tenants have been blindsided by the County's decision to lift Covid-19-related moratoriums on evictions and rent increases. 

Los Angeles renters have rights to notice before entry, termination, rent increase, and habitable housing. During the COVID-19 emergency, renters cannot be evicted for nonpayment of rent if they are affected by the pandemic, but they still owe the rent and have 12 months to repay it. Renters can also seek help from lawyers and Tenants' Rights organizations which specialize in protecting tenants from predatory landlords.

Here are some common landlord-tenant laws in Los Angeles that you might find helpful:

• Tenants have a right to clean, habitable homes. 
• Tenants have a right to privacy. Landlords must give tenants reasonable notice before entering their homes.
• Tenants have a right to be free from discrimination.
• Tenants have a right to a safe home free from harassment.
• Tenants have a right to not more than a 5-10% rent increase per annum, depending on the city or town in which the tenant resides.

If you're having an issue with your landlord, contact Desiree T. Washington, Los Angeles Real Estate Lawyer at Washington Law Firm for a free consultation. Located in Torrance, attorney Desiree T. Washington assists people with evictions, unlawful detainer and landlord tenant matters throughout California. Areas served include Marina Del Rey, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Lomita, Hawthorne, Gardena, Long Beach, San Pedro, Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes, Wilmington, and Los Angeles. 

Call today for a free consultation.

If you cannot afford an attorney, contact the following organization:

Public Counsel

Attorney Desiree T. Washington Announces Run for Los Angeles County Supervisor for the 4th District

Attorney Desiree T. Washington Announces Run for Los Angeles County Supervisor for the 4^th District

Los Angeles, CA, Release: January 9, 2020. For Immediate Release


Attorney Desiree T. Washington is pleased to announce her candidacy for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for the 4^th District.  This will be Desiree T. Washington’s first bid for public office. Primary Elections will be held March 3, 2020.

Desiree T. Washington is a licensed California attorney. She is a former prosecutor with the State Bar of California, and a former public relations intern for the City of Chicago under the late Mayor Harold Washington. She currently practices business law in the private sector, representing individuals in business and real estate transactions, and consulting with mid-to-large-sized businesses in meeting their large eDiscovery Project Management needs. She regularly manages teams of 30 or more workers to meet high-stakes litigation goals.


Desiree T. Washington obtained a Juris Doctorate from the University of Iowa, College of Law, where she specialized in jurisprudence and civil rights, and where she was appointed research assistant to Professor Kenneth Kress.

Desiree T. Washington received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Chicago, where she majored in Medieval and Early Modern History, with a minor in the ancient world. She also became an Andrew W. Mellon Undergraduate Fellow while studying at the University of Chicago.


Most recently, Desiree T. Washington has worked as a contract attorney for large law firms, providing substantive legal analysis, managing teams of 25-30+ attorneys in matters of productivity, workflow, quality control issues, and managing general human resources.


“I believe my professional experience makes me uniquely qualified to represent Los Angeles County residents because represents new leadership ready to meet the complex challenges Los Angeles County residents now face by harnessing technology, youthful vigor, creative force and moderate values,” Desiree T. Washington said.  


“Homelessness, Rideshare Safety and Wages, Traffic and Over-Crowding, Taxes, and Pollution Abatement are my immediate concerns,” Desiree T. Washington added. 


“I look forward to serving Los Angeles County,” she concluded.

The 4^th District consists of 458 square miles of land and is home to over 1.9 million residents in the following locales:

Artesia La Habra Heights Rancho Palos Verdes Avalon La Mirada Redondo Beach Bellflower Lakewood Rolling Hills Cerritos Lomita Rowland Heights Diamond Bar Long Beach San Pedro Downey Manhattan Beach Santa Fe Springs El Segundo Marina Del Rey Signal Hill East Whittier Norwalk South Whittier Hacienda Heights Palos Verdes Estates Torrance Harbor City Paramount Westchester Hawaiian Gardens Playa Del Rey West Whittier-Los Nietos Hermosa Beach Rancho Palos Verdes Whittier Redondo Beach Wilmington Rolling Hills

Learn more about Candidate Desiree T. Washington, volunteer, and donate to her campaign by visiting her official campaign website at: Washington for Supervisor 2020,  Twitter: @LASupervisor, Facebook: Desiree4LA, and Instagram: Desiree4LA.

Washington Law Firm is a Los Angeles-based law practice providing legal representation to a diversified client base that includes corporations, small local businesses, individuals, e-commerce brands, hospitals, charities and financial institutions.  Founded in 2001, Washington Law Firm is headquartered in Los Angeles, representing Californians throughout the Southland.


Contact info:
Name: Desiree T. Washington
Organization: Washington Law Firm c/o Washington for Supervisor 2020
Address: 8033 W Sunset Blvd., # 581, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Phone: +1-877-276-4835

Website: https://desireewashington.org

Email: info@desireewashington.com

JANICE DICKINSON REVIVES COSBY LAWSUIT

Janice Dickinson, the former 80s super model who has alleged she was sexually assault by Bill Cosby more than 40 years ago, has successfully argued before a California appeals court that she should be allowed to amend her complaints against both Cosby and his former attorney, Marty Singer on defamation grounds.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Dickinson made public her allegations of sexual assault, prompting media outlets worldwide to republish her allegations and to harang Cosby for a reaction.  Several additional alleged victims eventually came forward after Dickinson's interview, lawsuits were filed, and Cosby was blacklisted, losing lucrative licensing, publishing and distribution deals in the aftermath.

Attorney Marty Singer, acting as Cosby;s representative, sent cease and desist letters to the media, asserted that Dickinson's story was "fabricated and is an outrageous defamatory lie." Further, Singer threatened to sue Good Morning America if the ABC show proceeded with a planned segment with Dickinson. The following day, Singer issued a public statement again repeating that Dickinson's story of rape was a lie and different than what she had written in her own autobiography.  more

DONALD FAGEN SUES STEELY DAN BANDMATE'S ESTATE TO ENFORCE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO CONTROL BAND

Steely Dan lead singer Donald Fagen is suing the estate of bandmate Walter Becker in a move to assert an alleged right to exclusively exploit the band's brand.

At the center of Fagen's lawsuit is a 1972 buy-sell agreement signed by the original band-members when Steely Dan was incorporated. According to the complaint filed November 21, 2017 in L.A. County Superior Court, the contract provides that whenever a member of the group quits or dies, Steely Dan purchases all of that member's shares in the group. Fagen is also suing the group's business-management firm, Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein & Bolno, in an effort to obtain an accounting, claiming the firm has been withholding records. more

HOLLYWOOD EXEC SUES EMMYS OVER RED CARPET FALL

Nancy Lesser, executive vice president of media and talent at HBO, has taken legal action against the businesses behind the Emmy Awards for negligence in preparing and maintaining the famed red carpet upon which nominees, winners and guests walk during the awards show. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Lesser alleges she experienced a terrible fall last year when exiting the Microsoft Theater. Her injury, she adds, caused her to miss out on HBO's afterparty and take eight months to rehabilitate.

The complaint targets the Television Academy, Anshutz Entertainment and the City of Los Angeles. Each of the defendants, alleges Lesser, laid out, positioned and erected the red carpet that provided a straight line to and from the theater.

Lesser's suit alleges those responsible for the red carpet knew based on past and present experience with awards shows that "even celebrity attendees to the Emmy Awards could be expected to exit in a throng-like manner, which would create extreme congestion and severely diminish any forward visibility and certainly diminish and preclude visibility of conditions that may exist on the walkway itself."  more

JPMorgan sued over $3.6 billion in mortgage securities

The National Credit Union Administration sued JPMorgan Securities and Bear Stearns & Co on Monday over alleged misconduct in the sale of $3.6 billion in mortgage securities to credit unions that collapsed on losses from the securities. Bear Stearns made misrepresentations in connection with the underwriting and subsequent sale of mortgage-backed securities to U.S. Central, Western Corporate, Southwest Corporate and Members United Corporate federal credit unions, the lawsuit alleged.

New Home Sales hit 2-year High

NEW YORK  -- In another sign of a housing market recovery, new-home sales rose in September to the highest level in more than two years, according to a government report released Wednesday.

Sales sold at an annual rate of 389,000 homes in the month, according to the Census Bureau report, up 5.7% from the 368,000 sales pace in August. The last time sales were at this pace, in April 2010, they were being helped by a short-term home buyer's tax credit.

This time, the new home market has been showing steady signs of improvement. The pace of home building hit a four-year high in September, according to a separate government report. The year-over-year sales improvement in September reached 27.1%.

The improvement in the market is part of a broader recovery in real estate, helped by a number of factors all coming together.

Mortgage rates are near record lows, pushed down by the Federal Reserve's decision to buy $40 billion in mortgages to spur greater economic growth. The low rates, coupled with years of weak home sales, have resulted in affordable housing prices. Recently, home prices have started to rise, which is attracting buyers who were waiting for prices to bottom out.

There has also been a drop in unemployment, a positive development for people looking for mortgage loans.

Foreclosures have fallen to a five-year low, reducing the supply of distressed homes available on the market.

NY Man Faces Charges in Facebook Scam

Paul Ceglia, a wood-pellet salesman from Wellsville, New York, was charged with mail fraud and wire fraud over what the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan said was fabricated evidence to support his claim of a large ownership stake in Facebook. His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.

The businessman sued Facebook and its CEO in 2010 claiming a 2003 contract he signed with Mark Zuckerberg, then a Harvard University student, entitled him to a stake in the social media company. This past March, as part of that case, Facebook released emails sent by Mark  Zuckerberg around the time of the contract to show Paul Ceglia's claims were false.

"Ceglia used the federal court system to perpetuate his fraud and will now be held accountable for his criminal scheme," Orin Snyder, a partner at law firm Gibson Dunn representing Facebook and Mark  Zuckerberg in the civil case, said in a statement.

Paul Ceglia, 39, was arrested at his home Friday morning and was to appear in federal court in Buffalo later in the day, authorities said.

Investigators for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which is conducting the probe, made the arrest following Paul Ceglia's return this week after spending time out of the country, according to a source familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly on the case.

The case is USA v. Paul Ceglia, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

TiVo Settles Verizon Lawsuit for $250m

Verizon will pay  TiVo Inc. at least $250.4 million to license its digital video recording technology and settle a patent lawsuit. It is the third settlement that Tivo has garnered in recent patent cases. At the heart of the cases, Tivo has alleged that companies have copied its DVR technology. The company's string of settlements "bodes well for its future litigation," said Alan Gould, an analyst with Evercore, in a research note.

TiVo, based in Alviso, Calif., is set to go to trial in patent lawsuits over DVRs made by Google Inc.'s Motorola unit and Cisco Systems Inc. next year. Gould reiterated his "Overweight" rating on shares with a $13 price target. News of the settlement sent Tivo's stock up 38 cents, or 4 percent, to close at $9.94 Monday. The stock traded at a 52-week high of $12.37 in late March. Shares of New York-based Verizon Communications Inc. rose 4 cents to $45.68.

The two companies agreed to dismiss all pending litigation. They had been scheduled to go to trial in October. The deal with Verizon is the latest in a string of patent settlements for TiVo, which developed the first commercially available DVR. The device made it easy for people to record programs and watch them later, skipping over ads. Last year TiVo settled with satellite TV company Dish Network Corp. and its set-top box provider EchoStar Corp. for $500 million, and earlier this year resolved a lawsuit against AT & T Inc. for $215 million. The payments from those settlements are staggered over several years. The company has said the settlements bring its operations closer to profitability.

TiVo has posted an annual loss in eight of the past 10 years. Under the settlement with Verizon, TiVo will get an initial cash payment of $100 million and quarterly payments totaling $150.4 million through July 2018. Verizon will also pay monthly license fees through July 2018 for each of its DVR subscribers above a certain level. If the companies work together on certain joint initiatives, $29.4 million of the payment would be subject to a credit. The companies may also make Internet video services developed through Verizon's joint venture with video rental kiosk Redbox accessible through TiVo's DVRs.

Shepard Fairey Sentenced for Comtempt Charge in "Hop" Poster IP Case

NEW YORK -- Shepard Fairey, the street artist who created the "Hope" portrait of Barack Obama that became the symbol of the President's 2008 campaign, was sentenced to community service by a New York court on Friday after admitting he had lied about which image he used.

The Los Angeles native became a celebrity for creating the red, white and blue image of Obama silhouetted above the word "Hope" on a poster. Fairey pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of criminal contempt in February for doctoring and destroying evidence once he realized the photograph of Obama he used for the poster belonged to the Associated Press (AP). "I'd like to apologize for violating the court's trust, which was the worst thing I've ever done in my life," Fairey said at his sentencing hearing in Manhattan federal court.

Prosecutors had sought some prison time for Fairey, who faced up to six months in prison on the charge, but the Court sentenced Fairey to serve 300 hours of community service, the details of which were not immediately decided.

Although lawyers at Friday's hearing sparred for nearly an hour over what sentence Fairey should receive, the word "Obama" was not uttered a single time. The conclusion of the case coincided with Obama accepting his Democratic Party's nomination on Thursday night to run for re-election in November.

The dispute over the "Hope" poster began when Fairey pre-emptively sued AP in February 2009 seeking a ruling that his work was protected from AP's potential claims over the copyright of the original photograph of Obama. AP then countersued for copyright infringement. After it was discovered that some of Fairey's records had been improperly deleted, he admitted that he had intentionally lied about which photograph he had based his poster on. He was charged because deleting his files and altering them was a violation of an order by the federal judge overseeing the civil dispute with AP.

The judge said both parties must share all documents with the other side. In January last year, AP and Fairey settled their copyright dispute. AP said in a statement on Friday that it was "glad this matter is finally behind us." The photograph that Fairey based his poster on was taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia at a panel discussion at the National Press Club in April 2006 when Obama was still a U.S. senator from Illinois.

The case is USA v. Shepard Fairey, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-cr-180.

Court Tosses Multimillion-dollar verdict against RIM

TORONTO — A U.S. judge has overturned a multimillion-dollar patent-infringement verdict against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion.

The judge determined that Mformation Technologies Inc., which makes software for managing mobile devices, failed to show that RIM infringed on a key patent in question.

A federal jury in San Francisco had awarded Mformation $147.2 million last month based on an infringement finding. The judge overseeing the case nullified the earlier decision Wednesday.

Mformation, of Edison, N.J., accused RIM in 2008 of infringing on its 1999 invention for remotely managing wireless devices. Mformation's software allows companies to remotely access employee cellphones to do software upgrades, change passwords or wipe data from phones that have been stolen.

FTC finalizes privacy settlement with Facebook

NEW YORK — The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Friday to finalize its settlement with Facebook, resolving charges that the social network exposed details about users' lives without getting the required legal consent.

Facebook agreed to submit to government audits of its privacy practices every other year for the next two decades. The company also committed to getting explicit approval from users before changing the types of content it makes public.

The settlement, announced in November, is similar to agreements the FTC reached separately with Google and Myspace.

The FTC approved the settlement Friday after a public-comment period. It came a day after the FTC fined Google $22.5 million to resolve allegations that Google didn't comply with the earlier settlement. more

Netflix CEO buys $1 million in Facebook stock

Netflix stock is on the rise in recent days as Reed Hastings, it's  co-founder and a Facebook board member, recently bought $1 million worth of shares in the beleaguered social networking site, Facebook, according to a regulatory filing submitted Wednesday. Hastings purchased roughly 47,800 shares at an average purchase price of $21.03 each.  Other investors were eager to jump on the bandwagon loading up on Facebook shares, which rose about 3.79% on the news of Hasting's buy. Facebook went public in May at $38 per share, but its stock  shed much of it's value, closing Friday at $21.81.

Facebook granted Hastings 20,000 restricted stock units when he joined the company's board in June 2011. 

Music Performance Rights Become Key Asset in Economic Slowdown

As revenue from digital downloads, which analysts had hoped would help revitalize a music industry hobbled by years of flagging CD sales, continued to disappoint in 2010, income from performing-right royalties have become increasingly important to songwriter/artists around the world. While the annual “Recording Industry in Numbers” report issued recently by the UK-based International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) shows a continuing slide in music sales, performing-right revenues, which showed pockets of resilience during 2010, play a much greater role in the marketplace, with increased emphasis on enforcement and more diligent methods of collections.

For 2010, global music sales fell 8.4 percent to $17.38 billion, led by the ongoing decline in physical media, which dropped another 14.2 percent in 2010, according to IFPI. After peaking at just over 706 million units in 2000, CD sales have since plummeted more than 50 percent.

The double-digit CD fall-off was only marginally offset by single-digit download sales, which rose a mere 5.1 percent worldwide last year, or nearly 4 percent lower than in 2009 and well off the 34 percent gains recorded just four years earlier. In the U.S., digital revenues remained nearly flat (1.2 percent) year to year, says IFPI.

Things weren’t much better at the music box office. For 2010, concert-ticket sales were off 15 percent from the previous year, from around 45 million in 2009 to 38 million last year according to figures compiled by trade magazine and online concert resource Pollstar.

There were however, encouraging signs that performance-rights revenues could buck the trend. Citing greater strength in areas like cable, satellite audio and new media, for its 2010 fiscal year BMI reported$917 million in revenues, up 1.3 percent from the prior year. Total distributions to BMI’s stable of songwriters, composers and music publishers reached $789 million. Over the last five years, BMI’s royalty distributions have increased by more than $116 million or 17%.

Separately, IFPI reported that collections by global music-licensing firms increased 50 percent over the last five years, from $1.2 billion in 2006 to $1.8 billion last year. (IFPI’s figures are based on collections on behalf of performers and producers only.)

Piracy Still Impacting Revenues
Industry groups like IFPI blame illegal downloading for the continued slide in global music sales, led by such notorious BitTorrent and file-hosting sites as isoHunt, Pirate Bay, RapidShare and MegaUpload. Despite strong demand for new music on a global level, the persistence of piracy means that major record companies “are operating at only a fraction of their potential,” notes IFPI chief executive Frances Moore. “Determined action by governments and intermediaries to tackle this problem could create a framework for increased growth, more investment in artists and greater consumer choice."

Even when users aren’t downloading scot-free, however, they still have plenty of ways to listen for next to nothing. For example, first-time subscribers to DRM-based download service Rhapsody who elect to cancel their membership receive a generous counteroffer: just $4.99 a month for unlimited streaming to up to three different authorized PCs. And while emerging “cloud-based” providers like Spotify and Vodafone offer a premium paid-for option, listeners can also elect to stream for free through a separate ad-supported tier.

Still, with an estimated global subscriber base of over 10 million, services like Rhapsody and Spotify are key to the future growth of the music industry, say experts. Cited in the IFPI report, NPD Group, a provider of consumer- and retail-market research, suggests that “entertainment companies in the US are slowly moving toward a subscription and micro-payment model, whether for digital books, game add-ons, or home video” and that “the explosion in connected or smart devices in the home and mobile space has already begun to redefine the platforms for digital music.” Going forward, IFPI believes that cloud-based programs will lead to a much more competitive marketplace as “a new generation of licensed services [give] access to music across many platforms and devices.”

Such permutations represent both a blessing and a curse for the major labels. Despite the potential to attract millions of newcomers, “all-you-can-eat” subscription services allow users to have unfettered access to music they’ve already purchased — hardly the big revenue generator the industry has been hoping for. The same holds true for so-called “digital lockers” such as Amazon’s Cloud Drive, an online music-backup service debuted last month that allows Amazon customers to store music “in the cloud" with the ability to access personal libraries from any location and on any computer. Having ceded the CD-buying market (or what’s left of it) to iTunes, Amazon sees its locker concept as a way to seriously compete against Apple’s online behemoth in the digital-music sweeps. While “effectively an alternative way to build an ecosystem that ties customers in,” says Mark Mulligan, digital-media analyst for Forrester Research, it remains to be seen how and when the majors will be able to cash in on these types of service offerings.

The continued pullback in global music sales highlights the growing importance of revenue generated by performance royalties, according to IFPI. This includes music used in commercial environments such as stores, restaurants and nightclubs, in addition to radio and television broadcasts.

“Performance-rights collections represent a significant income stream for record companies and artists,” says IFPI. “Businesses that use recorded music to attract and retain customers, drive productivity and motivate employees increasingly pay a fair price for doing so wherever they are located.” Greater enforcement of licensing arrangements, as well as improved productivity by music-licensing companies, has helped keep collections strong in recent years. However, continued vigilance is required in order to ensure ongoing compliance, says the organization.