California’s 2024 ballot not only elected our nation’s next president, 53 members of Congress, 100 state legislators and thousands of local officials–it also featured a statewide test of the state’s latest salvo in its battle against corporate-backed ballot measures: changing the ballot itself.

California lawmakers have pursued several reforms in response to a number of corporate-backed ballot measures that have undermined, stalled and even blocked progressive legislation. Their latest effort is changing the design of ballots to include more information about who is supporting and opposing ballot measures. Early results of the Legislature’s reforms appear to be mixed.

This modification continues California’s long and storied history of direct democracy. California voters amended the state constitution in 1911 to create the referendum and initiative in the state, processes that allow voters to overturn laws and directly place proposed legislation on the ballot respectively. Since then, Californians have collected signatures for over 1,600 statewide ballot measures and qualified over 300 initiatives.

The California ballot referendum and initiative processes were originally envisioned as a way for everyday Californians to check an unresponsive legislature potentially beholden to the railroad and corporate interests that dominated state politics at the time. Corporations, however, have increasingly leveraged these processes to stall or even block bills aimed at regulating industry. Corporations have paid firms to gather signatures to qualify ballot measures, made significant contributions to ballot measures’ campaign committees and even paid for campaign advertisements and mailers in support of ballot measures. The Network previously discussed Proposition 22, one of the most expensive ballot measures in California history that exempted app-based gig companies like Uber and Lyft from AB 5 and allowed them to continue classifying their drivers as independent contractors.

Even corporate-backed ballot measures that are ultimately unsuccessful can impact companies’ bottom line. In 2021 and 2022, for example, tobacco companies sponsored–and ultimately qualified–Proposition 31, a referendum seeking to overturn SB 793, a 2020 state law banning certain flavored tobacco products. California voters, however, decisively affirmed the state law when the referendum appeared before voters in the 2022 General Election. Nevertheless, the companies’ $20 million investment to qualify Proposition 31 successfully delayed the implementation of SB 793 until after the general election, allowing their flavored tobacco products to remain on store shelves for an additional two years. Similarly, California oil companies successfully delayed the implementation of a 2022 state law banning new oil wells near residential areas for two years by qualifying a referendum. The companies later withdrew the measure just before the Secretary of State finalized the 2024 General Election ballot, and the law has since taken effect as the companies challenge it in court.

California legislators have increasingly taken aim at corporate-backed ballot measures, targeting multiple stages of the initiative process. The most visible change to California voters is on their ballots.

AB 1416 adjusted the layout on the ballot for each statewide proposition to include 15-word lists of businesses, non-profits and individuals supporting and opposing each measure. AB 1416 proponents believe printing a list of supporters and opponents on the ballot will increase transparency about who is supporting ballot measures, and provide voters with that information “right on the ballot itself.” Proponents argue the information will help voters make informed choices about whether to support a measure, similar to how listing candidates’ party affiliation and occupation designations on the ballot help voters decide which candidates to support.

AB 1416 also extends the requirement for printing lists of supporters and opponents on the ballot to local ballot measures but permits counties, which administer local elections, to opt out. Some Bay Area counties, including Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Contra Costa, have opted out of AB 1416’s local ballot measure requirements for at least the 2024 election cycle.

It remains to be seen, however, if political actors will try to leverage this new, state-mandated space on the ballot to influence voters. Journalists have documented how candidates have long used their occupation-designation space on the ballot to try to influence voters. The California Senate Election and Constitutional Amendments Committee’s analysis of AB 1416 identified the “potential for chicanery,” noting that while there are protections against listing sham organizations on the ballot, political actors could still “game” AB 1416’s rules to confuse voters.

AB 1416 represents only part of the Legislature’s efforts to crack down on corporate-backed ballot measures. SB 1360 took aim at paid-signature gathering practices commonly used by corporations to qualify ballot measures, requiring that a ballot measure committee’s top three funders be listed on each page of petitions used to gather signatures to qualify the measure and modifying the campaign finance disclosure requirements for campaign ads. AB 421, which took effect last year, attempted to build on AB 1416 by further clarifying language on the ballot for referenda to ask voters to “overturn” or “keep” state law; earlier versions of the bill also targeted the signature gathering process by requiring ballot measure signature-gatherers to disclose if they are being paid for gathering signatures and strengthen penalties for signature-gatherers who violate state disclosure requirements.

It’s unclear whether California’s latest reforms have increased voter information or changed how voters respond to potentially misleading corporate-backed ballot measures as the legislature intended. In last year’s election, California voters narrowly approved Proposition 34, a measure heavily funded by the California Apartment Association and other real estate interest groups. The measure enacted new restrictions opponents claim are aimed effectively at a single healthcare provider, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, requiring them to spend 98 percent of revenue from a federal drug discount program on direct patient care. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which derives most of its revenue from the federal drug discount program, has spent over $150 million to sponsor multiple statewide ballot measures to allow local governments to expand rent control. Despite the state’s new reforms, the real-estate industry-backed Proposition 34 received voter approval to prohibit the state’s leading rent control advocate from using its primary source of revenue for political activity.

The California legislature has reconvened for its 2025-2026 legislative session. Time will tell what additional reforms to the state’s ballot measure process, if any, will emerge from this session and affect the way businesses engage with direct democracy in California.

The American Bar Association (ABA) recently highlighted the many ways that artificial intelligence (AI) can benefit law firms. From streamlining processes to automating tasks, AI is transforming the legal industry at a rapid pace. Currently, there are estimates suggesting that AI could automate up to 44% of legal work, which is helping drive this change. However, this increased reliance on AI comes with significant risks, including a sharp rise in cyberattacks targeting law firms—particularly Big Law firms, increasingly costing them millions in class action suits. While AI is often talked about, firms’ use of third-party technology providers also plays a significant role in these cyberattacks.

In the first five months of 2024, 21 law firms have already filed data breach reports with the attorney general’s office. In comparison, only 28 such reports were filed throughout all of 2023. As AI becomes more integrated into Big Law firms—slowly but steadily—its dual use is emerging. While AI tools are improving efficiency and reducing costs, they are also being leveraged by cybercriminals to carry out more sophisticated attacks. This trend will likely accelerate in the coming years, with both the number and scope of cyberattacks on law firms expected to rise.

Big Law firms are especially vulnerable to cyber threats due to the sensitive nature of the data they handle. These firms often possess highly confidential information, including patents, intellectual property, and personal or corporate secrets related to major companies and high-profile deals. Even industry giants like Kirkland & Ellis, Proskauer Rose, and Allen & Overy have been targeted by data breaches and ransomware attacks, highlighting that no firm is immune from these attacks. Surveys on cybersecurity breaches show that around 50 percent of firms surveyed either experience security breaches or not knowing whether they have. There is a clear correlation between firm size and “not knowing” of breaches with smaller firms with 2–9 employees reporting rates of around 5%, while larger firms with 500 or more employees experience breach rates of up to 60%. The survey also indicated a significant increase in client requests for security requirements and guidelines of larger firms.

The rise of remote work has further exacerbated cybersecurity risks for law firms. With many legal professionals now working from home, often on unsecured networks, the potential for cyber incidents has significantly increased. Public Wi-Fi networks, which are frequently used by remote workers, are particularly vulnerable to hacking and pose a serious concern for law firms trying to protect client data. Remote work also makes it more difficult to enforce cybersecurity policies and monitor compliance. Without a controlled office environment, employees may not follow best practices for securing their devices or data, making firms more susceptible to attacks. Two of the most common attacks on firms consist of: (1) phishing (malicious emails or messages designed to trick employees into providing sensitive information or granting access to secure systems) and (2) ransomware (a type of malware that encrypts a firm’s data, with cybercriminals demanding a ransom for its release). There are also other forms of attacks, which include exploitation of vulnerabilities in third-party software used by firms.

Given the increasing reliance on AI and the growing risks posed by remote work, it is crucial for law firm leaders to prioritize cybersecurity. Implementing comprehensive security protocols, training employees to recognize phishing attempts, and investing in AI-driven cybersecurity solutions will be essential to mitigating these risks. Firms must also ensure that remote work policies account for secure network usage and compliance with cybersecurity standards.

As AI continues to reshape the legal industry, the threat landscape will only become more complex. Law firms—especially Big Law—must act now to protect their sensitive data, maintain client trust, and prevent the major class actions lawsuits that have been increasing due to these attacks.