DROPLETS
UK company directors and in-house counsel advising corporate boards must revise governance protocols, as the UK Supreme Court has held that the statutory director good faith duty covers actual conduct, not just internal thought process, creating personal liability for covert or disloyal actions even if directors genuinely believed those actions benefited the company.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 that the section 172(1) Companies Act 2006 requirement for directors to act in good faith applies to both internal decision-making and external conduct, overturning the lower court’s finding that a director’s genuine belief they were acting in the company’s best interests was sufficient to avoid liability. The court held that covert, deceptive, or disloyal conduct by a director, even if motivated by a belief it would benefit the company, breaches the statutory good faith duty. In-house counsel should work with boards to clarify delegated authority limits, implement mandatory board reporting for high-stakes decisions, require collective approval for deviations from agreed strategies, and provide regular director training on statutory fiduciary duties to mitigate personal liability risk.
Importers who paid IEEPA tariffs must decide whether to sue in the Court of International Trade or pursue administrative refunds before the 180-day deadline lapses.
The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA, opening the door for importers to recover duties already paid. Two procedural paths exist: filing suit in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), or seeking administrative reliquidation through CBP. Each carries distinct risks—litigation offers broader remedies but requires timely filing, while administrative channels may be faster but offer narrower relief. Importers should immediately inventory IEEPA tariff payments, assess statute-of-limitations exposure, and weigh forum selection carefully. Companies that delayed filing protests or suits now face compressed decision windows, and the choice of forum will shape refund scope, interest recovery, and the ability to challenge future tariff actions.
U.S. nationals holding FCSC-certified Cuban confiscated property claims and counsel for Cuban state-owned entities with U.S. exposure must evaluate new litigation risk after the Supreme Court eliminated a core jurisdictional barrier to Title III suits.
On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. holding that the Helms-Burton Act’s Title III abrogates foreign sovereign immunity for Cuban state-owned agencies and instrumentalities, eliminating the requirement for plaintiffs to satisfy a separate Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exception to establish jurisdiction over these entities. The decision overturns lower court precedent that had blocked nearly all Title III suits against Cuban state entities, as the longstanding U.S. embargo on Cuba made it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to meet the FSIA’s commercial or expropriation activity exceptions. U.S. nationals with FCSC-certified Cuban property confiscation claims should evaluate filing or reviving Title III suits, while counsel for Cuban state-owned entities with U.S. exposure should assess litigation risk and defenses, noting post-judgment asset execution remains subject to separate FSIA execution immunity rules.
Food ingredient manufacturers, food producers, and suppliers of substances used in interstate food commerce must act because the proposed rule would end the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification system, requiring mandatory FDA notification for all self-determined GRAS substances and creating new public disclosure and compliance risks.
On August 11, 2026, FDA published a proposed rule converting the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification program to a mandatory requirement for all substances introduced into interstate commerce under a self-determined GRAS conclusion, covering both food ingredients and food contact substances. Unlike premarket approval, companies may continue marketing GRAS substances while awaiting FDA review of their notification, but filed notices and FDA response letters will be publicly available, increasing exposure to adverse public or regulatory scrutiny. The rule includes exceptions for substances with existing FDA 'no questions' letters, codified GRAS listings, and pre-1958 natural biological substances, plus a time-limited streamlined submission option for already-marketed substances. Comments are due December 9, 2026, and companies should immediately audit their GRAS portfolios to identify substances requiring notification, confirm whether existing FDA clearances cover their specific ingredients and use conditions, and update supplier contracts to clarify GRAS compliance responsibilitie
…
In-house counsel for U.S. offshore wind developers, utility off-takers, and project financiers must track this ruling, as it reopens the approval pathway for stalled multi-billion dollar projects previously blocked on environmental review grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in the Atlantic Shores offshore wind case that vacated prior lower-court blocks on final federal permits for the project and other pending U.S. offshore wind developments. The decision reverses earlier findings that federal environmental reviews for the projects violated the National Environmental Policy Act, clearing the way for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to issue final construction and operation permits for stalled projects. In-house counsel for affected developers, off-takers, and financiers should review pending permit applications for alignment with the ruling’s reasoning, update project timelines to reflect the revived approval process, and prepare for potential new legal challenges from coastal stakeholder groups.
In-house counsel at U.S. companies using AI, processing consumer data, or deploying dynamic pricing models face rising compliance risk from intensifying state AG enforcement and New Jersey’s new surveillance pricing ban.
State attorneys general across multiple U.S. jurisdictions have announced stepped-up enforcement initiatives targeting AI development and deployment, consumer data privacy practices, and anti-competitive pricing strategies. New Jersey has recently enacted a ban on surveillance pricing, which prohibits using consumer behavioral data to set individualized prices for goods and services. The 2026 midterm election cycle and key state AG races will shape 2027 enforcement priorities, with potential for expanded regulatory focus across additional states. In-house counsel should audit current AI, data privacy, and pricing practices for compliance with existing state rules and the new New Jersey ban, monitor pending AG enforcement actions in their operating jurisdictions, and update internal compliance programs to address emerging state-level regulatory requirements.
In-house counsel at companies operating consumer-facing websites and apps face a shifting landscape as federal courts, Missouri, and California push back on serial website litigation.
Three converging developments are reshaping exposure under website privacy and accessibility theories. A federal court in the Central District of California has declared serial CIPA plaintiff Vivek Shah a vexatious litigant, requiring pre-approval for further filings after 29 suits since 2021, though coordinated plaintiff firms continue to drive most CIPA docket volume. Missouri's Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation, effective August 28, 2026, lets defendants and the state AG countersue for 'abusive litigation' and shields good-faith remediation efforts, making documentation of accessibility work critical. California SB 690 would bar private Section 638.51 'trap-and-trace' claims against website and app operators, reserving enforcement to the AG and applying retroactively two years, but plaintiffs are expected to reframe conduct as wiretapping under unaffected CIPA provisions. Companies should audit tracking technologies, preserve accessibility remediation records, and reassess CIPA exposure assumptions.
Lenders and distressed-debt acquirers pursuing loan-to-own strategies face a revived equitable challenge where the sole purpose of enforcement is acquiring the target rather than recovering debt.
The Court of Appeal in Glint Pay Ltd v Baker partially reversed the High Court, holding there is a realistic prospect that an out-of-court administrator appointment under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was invalid because the chargee's sole subjective purpose was to acquire the company's business, not to recover the debt. The court confirmed that no broad Braganza-style rationality duty constrains a chargee's core enforcement rights, but accepted a narrower implied term that ancillary powers (such as information requests) must be exercised for the security holder's legitimate commercial aims. The decision distinguishes mixed motives (permissible under Cukurova) from a sole improper purpose (potentially fatal). Practitioners structuring loan-to-own or debt-acquisition transactions should document a genuine debt-recovery rationale, anticipate evidentiary scrutiny of timing and sequencing, and expect further guidance when the case proceeds to trial.
Companies planning new AI and large data center projects in Texas, plus energy developers with pending ERCOT interconnection requests, face significant build delays as the grid operator pauses new connections to address an overloaded 1,800-project queue.
ERCOT, Texas’s primary grid operator, has paused all new grid connection requests for data centers and other large load projects after its interconnection queue swelled to 1,800 projects totaling 474GW of requested capacity, far exceeding current grid expansion capabilities. The indefinite pause blocks all new data center and large load interconnection requests submitted after the effective date, and will remain in place until ERCOT implements new queue management and grid upgrade rules, a process expected to take months. Affected companies should evaluate alternative power sourcing options, including on-site generation and power purchase agreements with existing interconnected facilities, and track ERCOT rulemaking updates to adjust project timelines.
In-house patent counsel and IP portfolio managers must adjust continuation prosecution and licensing strategies, as the USPTO's precedential decision preserves broad anti-harassment obviousness-type double patenting rejections and limits the scope of the recent Allergan ruling.
The USPTO's precedential Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex Parte Baurin narrows the 2024 Federal Circuit Allergan ruling to its specific date-related facts, meaning most patent applicants cannot use Allergan to avoid obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections. The ARP also affirmed OTDP rejections may be issued based on an anti-harassment rationale even without a patent term extension, and proposed a new framework limiting OTDP analysis to unjustified patent term extensions, though it lacks authority to implement the framework without Federal Circuit guidance. Applicants should evaluate consolidating commercially valuable claims into single patents where rapid grant is a priority, and monitor pending Federal Circuit appeals including In re Ablynx for further clarity on OTDP doctrine.
New Jersey employers using independent contractors must reassess classifications before October 1 under finalized ABC test rules that tighten the path to independent status.
The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has finalized regulations implementing the state's ABC test for worker classification, with an October 1, 2026 effective date. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity can satisfy all three prongs: the worker is free from control, performs work outside the usual course of the business, and is engaged in an independently established trade. The new rules provide additional guidance on each prong and on documentation expectations. Misclassification can trigger back wages, unemployment contributions, penalties, and joint-and-several liability for contractors under state wage payment law. Employers should audit current contractor arrangements, update agreements, and prepare for potential reclassification or restructured engagement models before the deadline.
Consumer-facing manufacturers and retailers named in post-IEEPA refund class actions should expect aggressive causation challenges, as plaintiffs struggle to isolate tariff-driven price increases from broader market forces.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, billions in refunds are flowing through shippers and retailers, and a wave of consumer class actions has followed seeking to recover amounts consumers paid directly or indirectly. Practitioners note that plaintiffs in these cases face significant evidentiary hurdles: tracing any specific price increase to tariffs alone is difficult given that most companies set prices based on multiple inputs, including labor, materials, freight, and demand. Defendants should leverage this multifactorial pricing reality in motions to dismiss and class certification challenges, focusing on the absence of common, tariff-specific injury. Companies should also audit refund pass-through practices and document pricing methodologies now to support defenses and potential indemnification claims against upstream parties receiving IEEPA refunds.
In-house counsel for companies operating across the U.S. and EU must align AI compliance programs with divergent regional regulatory requirements to mitigate enforcement risk and avoid unnecessary operational constraints.
Published in the 2026 Issue 5 of the Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, the article provides a side-by-side analysis of U.S. and EU AI regulatory structures. It explains that U.S. AI rules are anchored in consumer protection principles with fragmented, sector-specific mandates, while the EU’s multi-dimensional framework combines product safety standards, fundamental rights protections, and internal market harmonization requirements. For cross-border businesses operating on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis recommends selecting a consistent global AI governance baseline, calibrating compliance investment to actual regional risk exposure, and building flexibility into governance structures to adapt to ongoing regulatory evolution in both jurisdictions.
In-house counsel overseeing cross-border corporate investments and acquisitions must review updated foreign direct investment regulatory requirements to avoid compliance penalties and deal delays.
A new Jones Day client alert details recent changes to foreign direct investment regulatory requirements across major global jurisdictions. The guidance covers revised transaction screening processes, updated ownership disclosure mandates, and adjusted national security review thresholds for both inbound and outbound cross-border deals. In-house counsel should use the alert to update their organization’s due diligence checklists and post-closing compliance frameworks, mitigating risk of transaction delays, deal blockage, or enforcement penalties for non-compliance with current rules.
Food ingredient manufacturers, food producers, and suppliers of substances used in interstate food commerce must act because the proposed rule would end the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification system, requiring mandatory FDA notification for all self-determined GRAS substances and creating new public disclosure and compliance risks.
On August 11, 2026, FDA published a proposed rule converting the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification program to a mandatory requirement for all substances introduced into interstate commerce under a self-determined GRAS conclusion, covering both food ingredients and food contact substances. Unlike premarket approval, companies may continue marketing GRAS substances while awaiting FDA review of their notification, but filed notices and FDA response letters will be publicly available, increasing exposure to adverse public or regulatory scrutiny. The rule includes exceptions for substances with existing FDA 'no questions' letters, codified GRAS listings, and pre-1958 natural biological substances, plus a time-limited streamlined submission option for already-marketed substances. Comments are due December 9, 2026, and companies should immediately audit their GRAS portfolios to identify substances requiring notification, confirm whether existing FDA clearances cover their specific ingredients and use conditions, and update supplier contracts to clarify GRAS compliance responsibilitie
…
Lenders and distressed-debt acquirers pursuing loan-to-own strategies face a revived equitable challenge where the sole purpose of enforcement is acquiring the target rather than recovering debt.
The Court of Appeal in Glint Pay Ltd v Baker partially reversed the High Court, holding there is a realistic prospect that an out-of-court administrator appointment under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was invalid because the chargee's sole subjective purpose was to acquire the company's business, not to recover the debt. The court confirmed that no broad Braganza-style rationality duty constrains a chargee's core enforcement rights, but accepted a narrower implied term that ancillary powers (such as information requests) must be exercised for the security holder's legitimate commercial aims. The decision distinguishes mixed motives (permissible under Cukurova) from a sole improper purpose (potentially fatal). Practitioners structuring loan-to-own or debt-acquisition transactions should document a genuine debt-recovery rationale, anticipate evidentiary scrutiny of timing and sequencing, and expect further guidance when the case proceeds to trial.
UK company directors and in-house counsel advising corporate boards must revise governance protocols, as the UK Supreme Court has held that the statutory director good faith duty covers actual conduct, not just internal thought process, creating personal liability for covert or disloyal actions even if directors genuinely believed those actions benefited the company.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 that the section 172(1) Companies Act 2006 requirement for directors to act in good faith applies to both internal decision-making and external conduct, overturning the lower court’s finding that a director’s genuine belief they were acting in the company’s best interests was sufficient to avoid liability. The court held that covert, deceptive, or disloyal conduct by a director, even if motivated by a belief it would benefit the company, breaches the statutory good faith duty. In-house counsel should work with boards to clarify delegated authority limits, implement mandatory board reporting for high-stakes decisions, require collective approval for deviations from agreed strategies, and provide regular director training on statutory fiduciary duties to mitigate personal liability risk.
New Jersey employers using independent contractors must reassess classifications before October 1 under finalized ABC test rules that tighten the path to independent status.
The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has finalized regulations implementing the state's ABC test for worker classification, with an October 1, 2026 effective date. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring entity can satisfy all three prongs: the worker is free from control, performs work outside the usual course of the business, and is engaged in an independently established trade. The new rules provide additional guidance on each prong and on documentation expectations. Misclassification can trigger back wages, unemployment contributions, penalties, and joint-and-several liability for contractors under state wage payment law. Employers should audit current contractor arrangements, update agreements, and prepare for potential reclassification or restructured engagement models before the deadline.
In-house counsel for U.S. offshore wind developers, utility off-takers, and project financiers must track this ruling, as it reopens the approval pathway for stalled multi-billion dollar projects previously blocked on environmental review grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in the Atlantic Shores offshore wind case that vacated prior lower-court blocks on final federal permits for the project and other pending U.S. offshore wind developments. The decision reverses earlier findings that federal environmental reviews for the projects violated the National Environmental Policy Act, clearing the way for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to issue final construction and operation permits for stalled projects. In-house counsel for affected developers, off-takers, and financiers should review pending permit applications for alignment with the ruling’s reasoning, update project timelines to reflect the revived approval process, and prepare for potential new legal challenges from coastal stakeholder groups.
Companies planning new AI and large data center projects in Texas, plus energy developers with pending ERCOT interconnection requests, face significant build delays as the grid operator pauses new connections to address an overloaded 1,800-project queue.
ERCOT, Texas’s primary grid operator, has paused all new grid connection requests for data centers and other large load projects after its interconnection queue swelled to 1,800 projects totaling 474GW of requested capacity, far exceeding current grid expansion capabilities. The indefinite pause blocks all new data center and large load interconnection requests submitted after the effective date, and will remain in place until ERCOT implements new queue management and grid upgrade rules, a process expected to take months. Affected companies should evaluate alternative power sourcing options, including on-site generation and power purchase agreements with existing interconnected facilities, and track ERCOT rulemaking updates to adjust project timelines.
Food ingredient manufacturers, food producers, and suppliers of substances used in interstate food commerce must act because the proposed rule would end the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification system, requiring mandatory FDA notification for all self-determined GRAS substances and creating new public disclosure and compliance risks.
On August 11, 2026, FDA published a proposed rule converting the decades-long voluntary GRAS notification program to a mandatory requirement for all substances introduced into interstate commerce under a self-determined GRAS conclusion, covering both food ingredients and food contact substances. Unlike premarket approval, companies may continue marketing GRAS substances while awaiting FDA review of their notification, but filed notices and FDA response letters will be publicly available, increasing exposure to adverse public or regulatory scrutiny. The rule includes exceptions for substances with existing FDA 'no questions' letters, codified GRAS listings, and pre-1958 natural biological substances, plus a time-limited streamlined submission option for already-marketed substances. Comments are due December 9, 2026, and companies should immediately audit their GRAS portfolios to identify substances requiring notification, confirm whether existing FDA clearances cover their specific ingredients and use conditions, and update supplier contracts to clarify GRAS compliance responsibilitie
…
Importers who paid IEEPA tariffs must decide whether to sue in the Court of International Trade or pursue administrative refunds before the 180-day deadline lapses.
The Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA, opening the door for importers to recover duties already paid. Two procedural paths exist: filing suit in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), or seeking administrative reliquidation through CBP. Each carries distinct risks—litigation offers broader remedies but requires timely filing, while administrative channels may be faster but offer narrower relief. Importers should immediately inventory IEEPA tariff payments, assess statute-of-limitations exposure, and weigh forum selection carefully. Companies that delayed filing protests or suits now face compressed decision windows, and the choice of forum will shape refund scope, interest recovery, and the ability to challenge future tariff actions.
Consumer-facing manufacturers and retailers named in post-IEEPA refund class actions should expect aggressive causation challenges, as plaintiffs struggle to isolate tariff-driven price increases from broader market forces.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, billions in refunds are flowing through shippers and retailers, and a wave of consumer class actions has followed seeking to recover amounts consumers paid directly or indirectly. Practitioners note that plaintiffs in these cases face significant evidentiary hurdles: tracing any specific price increase to tariffs alone is difficult given that most companies set prices based on multiple inputs, including labor, materials, freight, and demand. Defendants should leverage this multifactorial pricing reality in motions to dismiss and class certification challenges, focusing on the absence of common, tariff-specific injury. Companies should also audit refund pass-through practices and document pricing methodologies now to support defenses and potential indemnification claims against upstream parties receiving IEEPA refunds.
In-house counsel overseeing cross-border corporate investments and acquisitions must review updated foreign direct investment regulatory requirements to avoid compliance penalties and deal delays.
A new Jones Day client alert details recent changes to foreign direct investment regulatory requirements across major global jurisdictions. The guidance covers revised transaction screening processes, updated ownership disclosure mandates, and adjusted national security review thresholds for both inbound and outbound cross-border deals. In-house counsel should use the alert to update their organization’s due diligence checklists and post-closing compliance frameworks, mitigating risk of transaction delays, deal blockage, or enforcement penalties for non-compliance with current rules.
In-house patent counsel and IP portfolio managers must adjust continuation prosecution and licensing strategies, as the USPTO's precedential decision preserves broad anti-harassment obviousness-type double patenting rejections and limits the scope of the recent Allergan ruling.
The USPTO's precedential Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex Parte Baurin narrows the 2024 Federal Circuit Allergan ruling to its specific date-related facts, meaning most patent applicants cannot use Allergan to avoid obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections. The ARP also affirmed OTDP rejections may be issued based on an anti-harassment rationale even without a patent term extension, and proposed a new framework limiting OTDP analysis to unjustified patent term extensions, though it lacks authority to implement the framework without Federal Circuit guidance. Applicants should evaluate consolidating commercially valuable claims into single patents where rapid grant is a priority, and monitor pending Federal Circuit appeals including In re Ablynx for further clarity on OTDP doctrine.
In-house counsel at companies operating consumer-facing websites and apps face a shifting landscape as federal courts, Missouri, and California push back on serial website litigation.
Three converging developments are reshaping exposure under website privacy and accessibility theories. A federal court in the Central District of California has declared serial CIPA plaintiff Vivek Shah a vexatious litigant, requiring pre-approval for further filings after 29 suits since 2021, though coordinated plaintiff firms continue to drive most CIPA docket volume. Missouri's Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation, effective August 28, 2026, lets defendants and the state AG countersue for 'abusive litigation' and shields good-faith remediation efforts, making documentation of accessibility work critical. California SB 690 would bar private Section 638.51 'trap-and-trace' claims against website and app operators, reserving enforcement to the AG and applying retroactively two years, but plaintiffs are expected to reframe conduct as wiretapping under unaffected CIPA provisions. Companies should audit tracking technologies, preserve accessibility remediation records, and reassess CIPA exposure assumptions.
In-house counsel at U.S. companies using AI, processing consumer data, or deploying dynamic pricing models face rising compliance risk from intensifying state AG enforcement and New Jersey’s new surveillance pricing ban.
State attorneys general across multiple U.S. jurisdictions have announced stepped-up enforcement initiatives targeting AI development and deployment, consumer data privacy practices, and anti-competitive pricing strategies. New Jersey has recently enacted a ban on surveillance pricing, which prohibits using consumer behavioral data to set individualized prices for goods and services. The 2026 midterm election cycle and key state AG races will shape 2027 enforcement priorities, with potential for expanded regulatory focus across additional states. In-house counsel should audit current AI, data privacy, and pricing practices for compliance with existing state rules and the new New Jersey ban, monitor pending AG enforcement actions in their operating jurisdictions, and update internal compliance programs to address emerging state-level regulatory requirements.
U.S. nationals holding FCSC-certified Cuban confiscated property claims and counsel for Cuban state-owned entities with U.S. exposure must evaluate new litigation risk after the Supreme Court eliminated a core jurisdictional barrier to Title III suits.
On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. holding that the Helms-Burton Act’s Title III abrogates foreign sovereign immunity for Cuban state-owned agencies and instrumentalities, eliminating the requirement for plaintiffs to satisfy a separate Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exception to establish jurisdiction over these entities. The decision overturns lower court precedent that had blocked nearly all Title III suits against Cuban state entities, as the longstanding U.S. embargo on Cuba made it nearly impossible for plaintiffs to meet the FSIA’s commercial or expropriation activity exceptions. U.S. nationals with FCSC-certified Cuban property confiscation claims should evaluate filing or reviving Title III suits, while counsel for Cuban state-owned entities with U.S. exposure should assess litigation risk and defenses, noting post-judgment asset execution remains subject to separate FSIA execution immunity rules.
In-house counsel for companies operating across the U.S. and EU must align AI compliance programs with divergent regional regulatory requirements to mitigate enforcement risk and avoid unnecessary operational constraints.
Published in the 2026 Issue 5 of the Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, the article provides a side-by-side analysis of U.S. and EU AI regulatory structures. It explains that U.S. AI rules are anchored in consumer protection principles with fragmented, sector-specific mandates, while the EU’s multi-dimensional framework combines product safety standards, fundamental rights protections, and internal market harmonization requirements. For cross-border businesses operating on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis recommends selecting a consistent global AI governance baseline, calibrating compliance investment to actual regional risk exposure, and building flexibility into governance structures to adapt to ongoing regulatory evolution in both jurisdictions.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- New guidance urges employers to document workplace violence risk factors to cut liability
In-house employment counsel and HR leadership must act because unaddressed workplace violence risk factors expose employers to significant liability and preventable employee harm.
- New Jersey Diana Decision Signals Heightened FDCPA Exposure for Debt Buyers
Debt buyers and collection counsel must reassess standing and documentation practices after a New Jersey appellate ruling expanded consumer liability theories.
- California Courts Assess Arbitration Fee Disputes One Year After Hohenshelt Ruling
California employers must revise employment arbitration fee allocation terms to comply with the Hohenshelt ruling, which shifted cost-bearing rules for employee arbitration proceedings.
- Climate-Driven Weather Events May Expand FMLA Leave Obligations
HR leaders and in-house counsel should reassess leave policies as climate-fueled disasters increasingly trigger FMLA and state leave entitlements.
- Disability claims surge 79% as neurodiversity awareness rises
HR and benefits leaders face a sharp rise in neurodiversity-related disability claims and need updated accommodation frameworks to manage legal exposure.
- Panel Shares Best Practices for Relationship-Preserving Dispute Resolution Clauses
In-house counsel drafting commercial contracts must incorporate tailored dispute resolution provisions to minimize costly disputes and preserve critical ongoing business relationships.
- New Labor Bargaining Model Legislation Raises Preemption, Pushback Concerns
In-house counsel managing unionized workforces must track this proposed labor bargaining model legislation, as its preemption ambiguities and anticipated industry pushback could create new compliance and bargaining obligations if adopted in their operating jurisdictions.
- Post-Pandemic Mental Health Leave Requests Climb on Reduced Stigma, Generational Shift
In-house employment counsel and HR leadership must update workplace leave and accommodation policies to address rising post-pandemic mental health-related requests and reduce associated legal liability.
- California Appellate Courts Split on Remote Worker Standing for Arrest Record Claims
California employers with remote workforces face unpredictable liability risk from conflicting appellate rulings on employee standing to bring state arrest record discrimination claims.
- Federal Court Dismisses Class Action Over Healthcare Website Third-Party Data Sharing
In-house counsel for healthcare providers and businesses with consumer-facing websites using third-party tracking tools must note this ruling, which holds bare allegations of data sharing without specific concrete harm are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and related state privacy claims.
- Upcoming Webinar Covers Summer Privacy Developments and Fall Regulatory Priorities
In-house privacy and legal operations teams should attend to gain actionable insights on recent state privacy law changes, regulator fall enforcement priorities, and evolving TCPA and consumer protection compliance risks.