09/10/2025
Legal Insights Newsletter 法律時事通訊
Recent Cases That Matter Beyond the Courtroom
近期值得關注的案例
Dear Readers, 親愛的讀者們：
The law is constantly evolving, and recent court cases show how legal principles play out in everyday life — from social media use to workplace rights, long-term leases, and beyond. In this issue, we highlight four important cases that touch on technology, children’s well-being, fairness in contracts, and workplace dignity. Each case has practical lessons for all of us.
法律不斷演變，近期的案例展示了法律如何在日常生活中發揮作用——從社交媒體的使用，到工作場所權益，再到長期租約。本期我們精選了四個案例，涉及科技、兒童福祉、合約公平以及職場尊嚴，每一個都帶來值得學習的啟示。
________________________________________
📱 TikTok v. Garland – Supreme Court Upholds “Divest-or-Ban” Law
📱 TikTok v. Garland – 聯邦最高法院維持「出售或禁用」法案
The Supreme Court upheld the federal law requiring TikTok to either separate from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a U.S. ban. The Court said the law doesn’t target speech itself but addresses national security risks.
美國最高法院維持了國會通過的法律，要求 TikTok 必須與其中國母公司字節跳動分割，否則將在美國被禁用。法院指出，此法律並非限制言論本身，而是針對國家安全風險。
Takeaway: Courts may allow limits on popular technology when foreign control poses security threats. Free expression is vital, but safety and data protection can outweigh it.
啟示： 當外國控制構成安全威脅時，法院可能允許限制熱門科技平台。言論自由固然重要，但安全與數據保護有時更為優先。
________________________________________
👧 NetChoice v. Bonta – California’s Rules for Kids on Social Media
👧 NetChoice v. Bonta – 加州針對兒童社交媒體的新規
California passed a law regulating how minors use social media. A federal appeals court upheld some parts and struck others:
加州頒布了法律，規範未成年人如何使用社交媒體。聯邦上訴法院部分維持，部分推翻：
• ✅ Accounts for kids must default to private.
• ✅ 未成年人的帳號必須預設為私人。
• ❌ The rule banning “like” counts was unconstitutional.
• ❌ 禁止顯示「讚數」的規定違憲。
• ⏳ Rules on age verification and algorithmic feeds are undecided for now.
• ⏳ 關於年齡驗證及演算法推送的規定尚未定案。
Takeaway: States can regulate to protect kids online, but not in ways that directly censor speech.
啟示： 各州可制定規則保護兒童上網安全，但不得以直接限制言論的方式進行。
________________________________________
⚖️ Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services – When the Employer’s Response Is the Problem
⚖️ Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services – 當雇主的回應本身成為問題
An employee reported sexual harassment from a coworker. Instead of investigating, HR mocked him online and management did nothing. He resigned and sued. The Court of Appeal revived his claim, ruling that an employer’s failure to act (and mocking response) can itself create a hostile work environment.
一名員工舉報同事對其性騷擾，但公司不僅沒有調查，人事部門還在網路上嘲笑他，管理層也袖手旁觀。該員工被迫辭職並提起訴訟。上訴法院裁定他的主張可以成立，因為雇主的不作為（甚至嘲諷）本身就能構成敵意的工作環境。
Takeaway: Employers must take harassment complaints seriously. Ignoring or ridiculing them is itself unlawful.
啟示： 雇主必須嚴肅對待騷擾投訴。忽視或嘲笑投訴本身就是違法。
________________________________________
🌿 Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy – Court Saves 99-Year Lease
🌿 Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy – 法院挽救了 99 年租約
A landlord tried to terminate a 99-year lease early by claiming minimal cattle grazing on the land made it “agricultural,” triggering a 51-year cap under California law. The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying minimal grazing for fire prevention is not “agriculture.” The lease remains valid until 2166, saving tenants from a $39 million forfeiture.
房東企圖提前終止一份99 年租約，理由是土地上有少量牛隻放牧，因此屬於「農業用地」，觸發加州法律 51 年租期上限。上訴法院不同意，指出為防火而進行的少量放牧不屬於「農業」。租約有效至 2166 年，承租人因此避免了 3,900 萬美元的損失。
Takeaway: Courts avoid unfair forfeitures and apply common sense. A lease that allows “any lawful purpose” won’t be cut short on technicalities.
啟示： 法院避免造成不公平的沒收，並會採取常識性的解釋。允許「任何合法用途」的租約，不會因技術性理由而被縮短。
________________________________________
✨ Final Thoughts 結語
These cases all highlight a common theme: balance. The courts weighed security against speech, safety against censorship, fairness against forfeiture, and dignity against indifference. Each outcome shows that while laws can be technical, judges often rely on fairness and common sense to avoid extreme results.
這些案例都展現了一個共同主題：平衡。法院在國安與言論之間、兒童安全與審查之間、公平與沒收之間、尊嚴與冷漠之間做出取捨。雖然法律往往技術性強，但法官們仍會依靠公平與常識來避免極端結果。
Daniel Fong
方見堯律師
