Timeline for Is customer list really a trade secret in California?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2019 at 1:57 | comment | added | Smock | I'm still not sure that a list of customers names and numbers is a trade secret. Unless there's some extra information in there besides the name and number of the customer (like their favourite music, topics of conversation they like) I can't see how that could be classed as a compilation of information that is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable by others, and by which a person or company can obtain an economic advantage over competitors. (if that definition holds in your jurisdiction). | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 23:27 | comment | added | user2138912 | Could it be argued, that in trivial case of hair salons, if an employee leaves his employer, then starting from that moment, the subset of customer contact list that wanted to get services from that specific employee is not a trade secret anymore? Because this subset of contact list does not give anymore advantage to the former employer without that employee who left. Of course those customers who stay are loyal to employer and is trade secret. But since they were not persuaded to move they did not cause any "damages" to the former employer. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 23:16 | history | edited | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 604 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2019 at 20:00 | comment | added | Pete B. | I would not say it is tax evasion as it is common practice in the industry. However, if they only tried to take their own clients, I would say that the plaintiff does not have a valid claim. If they "stole" others' clients, then perhaps they do. Keep in mind, I am no lawyer. I just read this site because it is fascinating. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 19:46 | comment | added | user2138912 | @PeteB. Their ex-employer was giving them 1099 and not w-2 forms as employer should. So plaintiff thinks that the other two defendants were their employees when it came to loyalty towards plaintiff as employer (i.e. who owns the customers), but independent contractors when it came to [not] paying their payroll taxes. In my opinion IRS should investigate whether this is intentional tax evasion. Tried to call plaintiff 3 times after dropping innocent hint that I may tip them to IRS and his secretary is not connecting me to him anymore. Not sure yet how to interpret that. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 19:31 | comment | added | Pete B. | Often times hair salons rent booths to the stylists who are individual contractors. Are these actual employees or were they booth renters? | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 16:37 | comment | added | user2138912 | @Smock plaintiff in complaint alleges that there was a physical contact book that was misused by ex-employees. And at the same time also alleges that the other two defendants were giving out their personal phone numbers for the last few months (which, in my opinion, is not misappropriation of trade secret as employees were voluntarily giving out their personal phone numbers that don't have anything to do with trade secret). They are also being sued "for intentional interference with economic relationship". | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 13:29 | comment | added | Smock | Perhaps they just memorised/copied the list? Would the Plaintiff not need to prove they used the information in the list to persuade customers to change from their old hairdresser to their new one? (ie phoned the customer on the list, telling them they have moved) If it's just word of mouth or making information generally accessible I can't see there being a case to answer. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 12:15 | history | answered | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |