Constitutional grounds for challenging California&#39;s AB5 in Federal court?
<p>California's <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Assembly Bill No 5</a> came into force on January 1 2020, and has had a profound effect on consultants and other independent contractors since then. It broadly affects two classes of B2B:</p>
<ol>
<li>1099-based agreements via its ABC test</li>
<li>C2C through its rigid 12 point requirements of Corps &amp; LLC's doing business with each other.</li>
</ol>
<p>Multiple entities have sued California for violation of the FIRST and FOURTEENTH amendments. Can anyone explain how these potential violations pertain to AB5?</p>

<p>The basic purpose of AB 5 was to codify the California courts' standard for determining whether workers who would typically be considered freelancers are employees or independent contractors.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs' theory is that AB 5 raises First Amendment issues because its rules for freelance journalists are different from its rules for other freelance writers, and because it . If that is the case, it could be considered a content-based restriction on speech, which is generally impermissible. (The Fourteenth Amendment is the law that makes the First Amendment applicable to the states.)</p>
<p>You can read the full complaint <a href="https://asja.org/Portals/0/Files/Public/Documents/shoptalk/ASJAcomplaint.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

california constitutional-law first-amendment