Search for:
Category

USA

Category

Articles about artificial intelligence appear daily in many legal publications — including this one. But, on 28 May, US Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote a concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Co. for the specific purpose of floating an idea about how judges might use generative AI.

On 20 May, the US District Court for the Central District of California affirmed a seven-figure jury verdict and granted a permanent injunction in a rare Robinson-Patman Act decision. The RPA is an antitrust statute that prohibits certain kinds of price discrimination in goods purchased for resale. The case, LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, was pursued by a group of local wholesaler plaintiffs that claimed a defendant eye drop manufacturer and its subsidiaries sold the plaintiffs eye drops on less favorable terms than the defendant’s club store wholesale customer.

In June 2024, the New York Assembly passed two bills that, if signed by the Governor, will impose extensive new requirements on companies operating in the state to enhance online protections for children. The first is the New York Child Data Protection Act, which imposes data minimization, consent and data processor agreement obligations on online services operators that actually know they collect minors’ personal information or target their services at minors. The second is the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, which prohibits online service operators from providing minors with “addictive feeds” absent parental consent.

On 20 June 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled, in a 7-to-2 decision in favor of the government, to uphold the constitutionality of the section 965 transition tax in Moore v. United States. This case has been closely watched because it informs a potential future dispute concerning the legality of a wealth tax and significant longstanding portions of the US tax regime. The original question presented was whether, under the Sixteenth Amendment, income must be realized before it can be taxed. The Court concluded that if a controlled foreign corporation realized income, then Congress could attribute that income to the corporation’s US shareholder and tax the shareholder accordingly. By applying this principle of attribution, the Court avoided the question of whether the Sixteenth Amendment includes a realization requirement, leaving that issue open for future litigation.

On 1 March 2024, New York Governor Hochul signed into law the amended LLC Transparency Act (“Act”). Enacted on 23 December 2023, the Act underwent significant revisions as a result of the agreement between the Governor and the legislators. The Act requires that all limited liability companies (LLCs) formed under the New York Limited Liability Company Act (“LLC Act”) or seeking authorization to do (or doing) business in New York State disclose information about certain of their beneficial owners, or submit a statement that the entity qualifies for an exemption from this requirement. All LLCs in existence prior to 1 January 2026 must comply with the Act before 1 January 2027.

The latest edition of The Global Employer: Focus on Global Immigration & Mobility is now available and includes an overview of key global immigration and mobility issues related to immigration, employment, compensation and employee benefits, income taxes and social insurance, and global equity compensation. It also identifies key government agencies, highlights current compliance and enforcement trends, and describes short and long term visas appropriate for business travel, training and employment assignments.

On 5 June 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Private Fund Adviser rule (“Rule”) in its entirety on the grounds that the SEC, in enacting the Rule, had exceeded its statutory authority. The Rule was adopted by the SEC in August 2023 and would have fundamentally changed the regulatory landscape for private equity funds and their investors. The outcome was somewhat unexpected as in oral arguments the petitioners only directly challenged three of the five provisions that make-up the Rule and there was significant discussion as to whether the five provisions of the Rule should be considered a single rule or if the five provisions should be considered separately.

Federal regulatory agencies have prioritized enforcement efforts that target the mishandling of data by companies that store and monetize large amounts of personal or sensitive information. This issue cuts across multiple regulatory areas which has prompted increased coordination between federal agencies. Notably, on March 26, 2024, the US Federal Communications Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission, publicized a coordinated effort to increase their technological capabilities to address privacy and competition concerns related to the use of data.

Please join Baker McKenzie and ICPA for a fireside chat with Lawrence Scheinert, Associate Director for Enforcement, Compliance, and Analysis at the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 

During the discussion, Lawrence will outline OFAC’s enforcement program and priorities. He will also share his insights on enforcement actions, multilateral coordination and cooperation with other US regulators such as BIS, FinCEN, and the DOJ, impact of enforcement actions on non-US companies, among other topics. 

Please join us on 18 and 19 June 2024 for this informative briefing to gain up-to-date insights that could significantly impact your company’s compliance strategies and operations.

In Esparza v. Kohl’s, Inc., the Plaintiff brought a putative class action accusing Kohl’s of allowing a third party to unlawfully eavesdrop on him while he had a brief conversation with an agent on a chat feature on Kohl’s website. This decision is significant because it confirms that sharing electronic data with third-party applications or service providers without the website visitor’s consent creates a risk of lawsuits and potential liability for website defendants in states that require all parties to consent to interception of communications.