The Brief

Nearly half a decade after public officials sued Uber and Lyft, alleging that the companies were withholding billions of dollars in wages and compensation from drivers, negotiations with the state are set to begin Monday and continue for two weeks.

Drivers are demanding that the state push for a settlement that adequately recoups what they say are years of lost wages, improves workplace conditions — such as protections against drivers being deactivated from the apps — and raises wages moving forward.

More than 250,000 drivers who worked with Uber and Lyft between 2016 and 2020 could be eligible for the settlement, according to Rideshare Drivers United, an organization based in California. Roughly 5,000 drivers filed claims with the state labor commissioner’s office in 2020, alleging that they were denied overtime, mileage reimbursement and other benefits employees are entitled to.

That same year, then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego sued Uber and Lyft for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors. The labor commissioner’s office also sued the companies, alleging wage theft.

The two actions, in addition to several others filed on behalf of individual drivers, were combined into a single joint case before the San Francisco Superior Court. A closed-door mediation session with Uber is scheduled for Monday, while separate talks with Lyft are set to take place on April 8.

Members of the Rideshare Drivers United organization protest against Uber and Lyft during a demonstration in Los Angeles, California, on Feb.14, 2024. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)The lawsuits and subsequent negotiations cover a period of time before California voters passed Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that allowed Uber, Lyft and other gig companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors.

The proposition, which received more than $200 million in backing from gig companies, including Uber and Lyft, promised that independent workers would receive better wages and treatment, a stipulation that some drivers allege was not met.

Uber and Lyft “have been doing what they want. They take more than half of our paycheck and then leave us in bad condition and deactivate us unfairly,” said Ibrahim Diallo, a San Francisco resident who started driving for Uber in 2015 before his account was deactivated in 2023. “More than half of the Uber drivers have to drive 12 hours six days a week, sometimes even seven days, to be able to meet the bills.”

Drivers don’t get paid enough to make ends meet, and they also have to deal with maintenance costs, registration fees and paying for gas, Diallo said, adding that the ride-hailing companies are paying their drivers less and less each year.

“Uber and Lyft are useful, but we can do better,” he said. “We have to treat people with dignity. They have to get good pay to allow them to take weekends, at least spend time with their wife, with their children, and be happy.”

According to Uber, drivers earn at least 120% of minimum wage during active hours. The company also said it has invested more than $1 billion into direct benefits, including health care plans and accident insurance for workers.

“Drivers come to Uber precisely because of the unique flexibility that it provides,” an Uber spokesperson said in an email. “Prop 22 safeguarded their choice to work independently while ensuring important new protections. The voters of California have spoken — overwhelmingly — and we look forward to putting these years-old matters behind us.”

According to Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who researches the ride-hailing industry and has been critical of Uber and Lyft, studies show drivers are making less money than they did before Proposition 22. Researchers at the UC Berkeley Labor Center found last year that ride-hail drivers in the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles and three other metro areas made an hourly average wage of $5.97 without tips and $7.63 with tips, after taking into account expenses and wait times.

However, Dubal said it’s unlikely that the companies will concede much in terms of future protections for workers because of how much they invested in Proposition 22.

Drivers “deserve every penny of the billions of dollars that are owed to them,” she said. “It’s tragic that this is primarily about getting workers what they were owed 10 years ago and not ensuring that workers today are at least protected by the minimum wage, at least protected by unemployment insurance. Proposition 22 really precluded all of that.”

Tortillas sold in California are going to have a new ingredient, one that’s intended to help nurture healthy infants.

Starting Jan. 1, a new law will take effect requiring most tortillas and corn masa products sold in the state to contain folic acid, a vitamin that’s important to infant health.

Latinas in California are far less likely than other women to get enough folic acid early in pregnancy — a gap that can lead to life-altering birth defects.

State data show that, between 2017 and 2019 – the latest years for which state data is available – about 28% of Latinas reported taking folic acid the month before becoming pregnant. White women took the vitamin at a higher rate, with 46% of them reporting consuming folic acid, according to the California Department of Public Health.

This puts Latinas at higher risk of having a baby born with neural tube defects — defects of the brain and spinal cord. Some examples of that are conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly.

Research has shown that folic acid can reduce birth defects by up to 70%. That’s why it’s found in prenatal vitamins. But because women may not find out they are pregnant until weeks or months after, public health has long recommended that folic acid also be added to staple foods.

In 1998, the U.S. required manufacturers to fortify certain grain products with folic acid, such as pasta, rice, and cereals, to help women of reproductive age get the necessary amounts. Since that rule took effect, the rate of babies born with neural tube defects dropped by about a third, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But even with the addition to these foods, birth defect rates among babies born to Latinas have been consistently higher. In search of a more culturally appropriate addition, in 2016, the federal government allowed makers of corn masa to add folic acid to their foods – but didn’t require it.

Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, who authored the law said leaving folic acid out of corn masa products, used in many Latino staple foods, was a “real oversight.”

Now, with the implementation of Assembly Bill 1830, California is the first state to require folic acid in corn masa products. The law requires manufacturers that do business in the state to add 0.7 milligrams of folic acid to every pound of flour and to list the addition in their nutrition labels. The law makes exemptions for small batch producers like restaurants and markets that might make their own tortillas from scratch.

Months after California’s law was signed, Alabama passed its own version. Its law goes into effect in June 2026.

Some large manufacturers have already been adding folic acid to their products for years. Gruma, the parent company of Mission Foods, said it started fortifying its foods back in 2016, when the federal government first allowed it. A company spokesperson said Gruma “has a longstanding commitment to supporting legislative fortification initiatives” and supports the new laws in California and Alabama.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain.

Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930 — including films, books, musical compositions and more — will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century.

"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade.

This year's treasure trove features famous faces like the original Betty Boop — whose iconic hoop earrings originally took the form of floppy dog ears — and the initial version of Disney's Pluto, who first went by the name Rover.

"That's not only exciting in itself, but it's really an opportunity to look back at the history of these two incredible animation studios, Fleischer and Disney, and how their styles are imprinted in the DNA of today's cartoons," Jenkins says. "That's just a fun rabbit hole."

Literary highlights include William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the full version of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon, Watty Piper's The Little Engine that Could, the first four books of the Nancy Drew detective series and The Murder at the Vicarage, Agatha Christie's first Miss Marple mystery.

The movie selection spans war stories, musicals, thrillers, Westerns, comedies and more, coming from directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hughes and Salvador Dalí. Among them are All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Crackers starring the Marx Brothers, 1931 best picture winner Cimarron, and two Marlene Dietrich films, Morocco and The Blue Angel.

Several movies on the list feature future stars in their early days: Bing Crosby's first feature-film appearance in King of Jazz, Greta Garbo's first talkie Anna Christie and The Big Trail, John Wayne's first leading role.

Notably, Jenkins says, the films on this year's list all predate the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed studio guidelines that banned subjects from profanity, violence and nudity to interracial relationships and "lustful kissing" in movies from 1934 to 1968.

The musical compositions include "Georgia on my Mind," "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and four songs by Ira and George Gershwin: "I Got Rhythm," "I've Got a Crush on You," "But Not for Me" and "Embraceable You." Among the artworks are Piet Mondrian's "Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow" and the Jules Rimet Cup by Abel Lafleur — the original trophy of the FIFA World Cup from 1930 to 1970.

Jenkins says her four-person team spent well over 80 hours poring through the archives to compile this year's list. Writing the online summary was another feat, one she says kept her busy from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. over the course of two weeks.

But she thinks the crick in her neck is a small price to pay for shining a light on the value of public domain in "nurturing creativity and enabling access."

"What's really fun is that people are excited about it — people well beyond our world of copyright lawyers — especially when they start recognizing these works," she says. "And for me, one of the most exciting things is when you revisit a work that you loved in a different period of your life and get to look at it again."

The public domain unleashes new possibilities 

You may be wondering: Isn't there already a pretty famous Nancy Drew movie from 2007, and a cult-favorite Betty Boop musical on Broadway now?

Yes. But those productions had to get permission and pay money to adapt those characters at the time, Jenkins explains.

"What's different now is if you and me are really good at choreographing dance moves and writing lyrics for songs, we could make our own musical featuring Betty Boop 1.0 and we can go in whatever crazy directions we want," she says.

As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026.

Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz-inspired Wicked movies.

And public domain isn't just good news for those who want to create art, but also for those who simply want to consume it.

"It goes well beyond creativity to availability, to preservation, to being able to use things freely in school," Jenkins explains.

For example, Jenkins says, books tend to become cheaper — and available in more editions — once they enter the public domain.

A lot of creative works from the 1930s haven't been in print for decades, and ownership questions have kept many from being available online at all — at least while they were under copyright.

"Publishing houses go out of business, people die, ownership changes hands," Jenkins adds. "I mean, who on Earth owns the copyright to those random works from … almost a century ago? And when they go into the public domain, you don't have to worry about that."

Another benefit is that third parties can now digitize old films and sound recordings that have physically deteriorated over the decades — allowing for their preservation and wider distribution.

Jenkins says that's especially exciting for teachers, who can make use of these resources for free at a time when school budgets are shrinking. And even those who are not regularly in a classroom can learn a lot from this sampling of works.

"Now we're all having these conversations with our chatbots and wondering what it means that we're reacting to artistic work or to words that are generated by a machine, it was just really striking to feel the humanity behind all these works from 1930," Jenkins says, explaining that they were all created by people living in the shadow of World War I.

While there are many unresolved questions around AI and intellectual property, Jenkins says one thing is clear: "Human authorship is a requisite for copyright." So if a bot writes your Boop musical, don't expect it to be protected.

Copyright 2025 NPR

California lawmakers made major changes to the state’s car-buying rules this year, including a controversial rewrite of the state law that allows buyers to get their money back if they are sold a defective vehicle and a right to return a used vehicle within three days.

After an intense lobbying push this year from automobile companies, dealers and consumer groups, more legislative battles over California vehicle purchases could follow in 2026. Sky-high car prices show no signs of falling, and a Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration have sought to thwart Newsom’s goal of having 100% of new cars sold in California be zero-emission by 2035.

Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat representing the El Segundo area, said he expects California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature will likely push back against national Republicans’ attack on California’s vehicle policies in some form next year, though he said it wasn’t yet clear how.

“We’re very committed to this path, so stay tuned, but clean air is a priority for our state,” said Allen, who chairs the Senate’s Select Committee on Transitioning to a Zero-Emission Energy Future.

In the meantime, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Allen’s Senate Bill 766, creating a first-in-the-nation policy that allows a buyer to return a used vehicle for a full refund within three days if the purchase price was less than $50,000. Dealers can charge a restocking fee.

The law, which takes effect in October, also contains other protections for buyers intended to prevent them from getting suckered.

Car dealers will have to tell a potential buyer — including in advertisements and initial written communications — the actual price of a vehicle instead of an unrealistic advertised price. Potential buyers will also have to be informed of the full financing costs and lease terms. 

The law also prohibits dealers from charging for add-ons that have no benefit to the buyer, such as free oil changes for electric vehicles — which don’t need oil changes.

“That is a huge deal,” said Rosemary Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, which championed the bill. “It’s historic. It’s going to make cars more affordable.”

Allen said he came up with the idea for the bill after shopping for a used car in 2024. He said he wanted to see what it was like trying to buy a used car in California and didn’t tell the various dealerships he visited that he was a state senator.

“I was kind of shocked by the hustle and the extent to which prices were quoted online and that ended up not really being truthful,” he said.

He ended up buying a 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E, an electric vehicle.

Newsom blocked document fee increase

Most bills take effect immediately the year after they are signed, but lawmakers delayed the implementation of Allen’s bill until October to give dealers time to change their paperwork, amend their contracts and change their signs to meet the new law’s requirements.

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association, said the law should make buying a used car more transparent and easier for consumers.

“The bill certainly is a net positive in terms of more transparency about the total price and advertising,” he said.

But he said the new law “clearly imposed more responsibility on dealers,” which is why Maas said his group was extremely frustrated Newsom vetoed its bill that would have allowed dealers to raise document-processing fees by $175.

Senate Bill 791 would have raised the fees dealers can charge to process Department of Motor Vehicles and other paperwork from the current cap of $85 to up to 1% of the purchase price, capped at $260.

Maas said dealers were frustrated by Newsom’s veto message which said the fee increase wasn’t necessary because the state had imposed “no new state requirements” on car dealers.

Maas said it was “especially frustrating that the veto message somewhat cavalierly said there are no new state requirements when the governor signed just such requirements a week earlier.”

Before the veto, SB 791 passed the Legislature overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support. The California New Car Dealers Association has donated at least $3 million to legislators since 2015, according to the Digital Democracy database.

Maas said there are so many forms car buyers must fill out, almost all of them stemming from a law the Legislature passed, they’re getting to be like click-through agreements on websites that everyone just agrees to without actually reading.

“You shove form after form after form in front of consumers,” he said. “Consumers just tune it out, turn it off, and say, ‘You know what? I just want to know what my monthly payment is, what’s the interest rate, what the total price of the car is. And then let’s go. Why do I have to sit in here for a half hour or an hour and fill out all these forms?’ ”

Consumers face a watered-down lemon law

Newsom also signed Senate Bill 26, a bill that allows car manufacturers to opt out of changes to the state’s lemon law that gives consumers a right to get their money back if they buy a defective vehicle — sometimes referred to as a “lemon.”

The result is that California car buyers have different legal protections under the state’s lemon law depending on which brand they buy.

The bill Newsom signed was in response to a law lawmakers hastily passed at the end of the 2024 legislative session, watering down the state’s 55-year-old landmark lemon law. Some

auto companies, namely GM and Ford, were being sued so often for allegedly selling so many lemons that state courts were clogged with lawsuits.

The companies and some attorney groups persuaded lawmakers and Newsom to pass legislation in 2024 that shrank the length of time a car buyer could sue under the lemon law to just six years instead of the entire life of a vehicle’s warranty

Last year’s legislation also puts more onus on car owners to initiate claims, not auto companies.

But other companies that don’t get sued as often for selling defective vehicles, such as Toyota and Honda, opposed the rule change. Those companies said the new law didn’t give them time to prepare their best defense

Newsom ended up reluctantly signing the 2024 bill, but he urged the Legislature to come back with a new bill in 2025 that would allow companies to opt out of the changes. SB 26 passed overwhelmingly and Newsom signed it.

Meanwhile, several car companies, including Ford and GM and dozens of RV and motorcycle manufacturers, opted in to the 2024 law this year.

Toyota and Honda, as expected, did not.