I took the emphasis to be “independently established” trade, past tense. However, I’ll asmit I have less understanding of point 3 vs. point 2. That said, this

I took the emphasis to be “independently established” trade, past tense. However, I’ll asmit I have less understanding of point 3 vs. point 2. That said, this reddit post seems to indicate DBA was insufficient, and LLC rules are complex. However, I am not sure these directly address what makes for an established trade. https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/eurg0j/need_major_help_with_ab5_and_problems_forming_an/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmIndustryLA/comments/eurg0j/need... https://www.targetcw.com/blog/1099/ab5 https://www.targetcw.com/blog/1099/ab5 It seems this comes from the dynamex decision. Not clear if the judges thought through the starting point of being a contractor. They talk about seeking a license and seeking business. But I don’t know that they discussed how a business can legally hire a fresh contractor with legal certainty. There would be a legitimate fear the contractor may seek employee protections after work begins. Really we’d need legal advice on this point. I think point 2 is the strongest part of the argument I made above. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/05/five-key-issues-california-employers-must-know-supreme-courts-ruling-independent-contractors/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/05/five-k...