Experience

Elections and Constitutional Law: Successfully Challenged Certification of Initiative Petition

In a victory for consumers and the ride-hailing public, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently barred the Secretary of State from placing on the November ballot initiative petitions proposed by companies such as Uber, Lyft, and Doordash that sought to insulate them from liability for automobile accidents and other wrongs committed by their drivers. The consumers were represented by Thomas Bean and Sarah Grossnickle from Verrill Dana LLP and M. Patrick Moore from Hemenway & Barnes LLP.

The Court held that the initiative petitions did not meet the requirement in Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution that ballot questions to include only subjects “which are related or which are mutually dependent.” The Court held that the petitions failed the “related subjects” requirement because they contained “at least two substantively distinct policy decisions.” The initiative petitions sought to classify drivers for rideshare and delivery companies as independent contractors and provide certain minimum compensation and benefits. But “buried in obscure language at the end of the petitions” were provisions that also narrowed the scope of tort recovery for third parties, including those who may have been injured in traffic accidents caused by the negligence of app-based drivers, or even sexually assaulted by them.

The Court noted that voters may “strongly approve of better wages and benefits for drivers struggling to make ends meet in the gig economy, but at the same time strongly oppose limiting their own rights to recover money damages from network companies if the tortious actions of drivers who provide services through those companies’ platforms cause them injury.” The Court concluded, “[p]etitions that bury separate policy decisions in obscure language heighten concerns that voters will be confused, misled, and deprived of a meaningful choice -- the very concerns that underlie art. 48's related subjects requirement.”

The decision is El Koussa v. Attorney General, Mass., No. SJC-13237.

Firm Highlights

Matter

Patent Litigation: Semiconductors

Represented semiconductor manufacturer in patent case against competitor in litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which both sides asserted patents relating to power management and A-D converters; conducted Markman...

Publication/Podcast

Early Asset Forfeiture Is Key Part Of Criminal Defense Plans

Verrill attorney David Lazarus was recently published in Law360 for his article "Early Asset Forfeiture Is Key Part Of Criminal Defense Plans." In the article Lazarus explains "asset forfeiture is a component of almost...

News

77 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2023, Including Six Named Lawyers of the Year

Matter

Patent & Trade Secret Litigation: IT Infrastructure Software

Represented large provider of IT management solutions in lawsuits in U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Northern District of California against competitor alleging infringement of patents relating to...

News

Life After 'Varsity Blues': What's Next For The Boston Feds

News

Verrill Partner Robert Ruesch Elected to American Bar Association’s Forum on Construction Law’s Governing Committee

Matter

Patent Litigation: Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Represented small biotech company and two academic researchers against large pharmaceutical company in dispute over inventorship of several patents relating to mesenchymal stem cells and their uses, as well as defending against numerous state...

News

Verrill Welcomes Back Attorney Stephen B. Segal to Firm’s Litigation & Trial Group

News

Verrill Welcomes Team of Highly Skilled Litigators to Maine Office

(August 3, 2022) – Verrill is pleased to welcome experienced trial attorneys Philip Coffin, Jeffrey Russell, and Cyrus Cheslak, all resident in the firm’s Portland, Maine office. All three attorneys, in addition to two...

Matter

Patent Litigation: NPEs

Represented many companies over the years in patent litigations brought by numerous non-practicing entities, including in U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware and Northern District of California; aggressively...

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700