The employee, who lived and worked in California, had to sign an agreement that included competition and non-acquisition rules. Non-competitive rules like this are incessible in California. In many legal systems, there are employment laws that aim to protect workers in their inherently unequal bargaining position with employers. But despite the legal standards and conditions of employment and the political considerations associated with them, which are often at stake, the employment relationship – basically – is a contract. Indeed, parties to a cross-border working relationship can effectively choose laws of origin that address discretionary personnel issues outside the scope of local “mandatory rules.” Indeed, this principle justifies “global employment enterprises” – GECs, multinationals created to employ a body of career emigrants from a multinational company who work worldwide – and this principle explains why electoral clauses of country of origin law are common in international compensation and stock bonus agreements. Other section 925, sub-division b), also states that an offending provision “is struck down by the worker and if a provision is set aside at the worker`s request, the case will rule in California and California law for the litigation.” This indicates that the employee is the one who controls whether or not the provision (choice of law or jurisdiction) is respected. The status is highly unusual in that it did not simply null and forth the provision, but cancelled it. Logically, this means that this is not an illegal provision – otherwise it would simply be null and void – but potentially illegal depending on what the employee chooses and whether the employee was accidentally represented by counsel when the contract was entered into. The law is clearly written to allow the worker to use (and enforce) the dubious provision if it is in his favour or if it requires cancellation, if it is not favourable. It is probably not an illegal clause or an illegal act of the employer to use it if the worker likes it and chooses to impose it. In this scenario, the employer does not have the opportunity to know in advance what decision the worker will make in this regard, which is important since the employer`s knowledge is an important factor in determining liability. On the contrary, the addition of a language that allows a worker to invalidate the agreement appears to be a response to previous bills that had been vetoed in previous legislatures, including AB 267 (Swanson, 2011), AB 335 (Fuentes, 2009) and AB 1043 (Swanson, 2007). In attempting to distinguish this legislation from previous unsuccessful bills, legislative history here stated that “unlike these bills, this bill would invalidate the choice of law and the choice of provisions of the worker forum and would not automatically render null and void.” This allows employers and workers to define their relationship through the contract; The inclusion of “choice of law” clauses may be an important aspect.