Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Collection, use, and storage of personal data. Data breach, data privacy, artificial intelligence.

AI Survival Guide: Best Practices to Mitigate AI Litigation Risk

September 18th, 2024|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Organizations using artificial intelligence-based technologies that perform facial recognition or other facial analysis, website advertising, profiling, automated decision making, educational operations, clinical medicine, generative AI, and more, increasingly face the risk of being targeted by class action lawsuits and government enforcement actions alleging that they improperly obtained, disclosed, and misused personal data of website visitors, employees, customers, students, patients, and others, or that they infringed copyrights, fixed prices, and more. These disputes often seek millions or billions of dollars against businesses of all sizes. This webinar identifies recent trends in such varied but similar AI litigation, draws common threads, and discusses best practices that corporate counsel should consider to mitigate AI litigation risk. Our excellent speakers are Jerry Maatman and Justin Donoho of Duane Morris.

Read More

Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations

July 9th, 2024|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Cort Malone and John Leonard discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, and insurance coverage considerations and rulings.

Read More

The Blueprint for an “AI Bill of Rights”

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Authors Peter Schildkraut is a co-leader of the firm's Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry team and provides strategic counsel on artificial intelligence, spectrum use, broadband, and other TMT regulatory matters. Mr. Schildkraut helps clients navigate the ever-changing opportunities and challenges of technology, policy, and law to achieve their business objectives at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and elsewhere. He is the author of "AI Regulation: What You Need To Know To Stay Ahead of the Curve. James W. Kim is a nationally recognized expert in procurement law that regularly advises companies that do business with the US government, with a focus on professional services organizations and the life sciences industry. He is a regular speaker and author on procurement and drug pricing matters and his work is regularly featured in nationally-distributed industry print and digital media. Mr. Kim provides clients with strategic counsel related to US government funding and US market access, including assistance with more than $5 billion in procurement and grant awards and regulatory counsel related to more than $40 billion in successful M&A transactions. Marne Marotta works with clients facing complex challenges to develop and implement dynamic government relations strategies. Drawing from her experience in the Senate and the executive branch, she provides clients with strategic guidance and counseling, devises and implements comprehensive advocacy campaigns, [...]

Read More

Big Tech’s Race to Develop Superior Artificial Intelligence Technology

May 11th, 2023|Categories: Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Big Tech’s Race to Develop Superior Artificial Intelligence Technology Will A.I. Compromise Free Enterprise, Disclosure and Security? America’s Big Five tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft – are racing to develop technology they claim will change the world -- again. The tech Goliaths have more than 33,000 researchers at their disposal to create artificial intelligence (A.I.) technology with an obvious and perpetual prize: revenue.  It's the talk of the world. NBC Nightly News recently predicted the impacts that A.I. will have on society in the coming years. A.I. tech was also the center of attention at the 2023 Davos Economic Summit.  Prominent tech leaders such as Elon Musk and the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, heralded that A.I. will improve virtually everyone’s lives, but with some risks involved.  Andrew Perlman, dean of Suffolk University Law School, says there is nothing "future" about it. In The Implications of ChatGPT for Legal Services and Society, he wrote, "The disruptions from AI's rapid development are no longer in the distant future. They have arrived ..." And for the legal industry, he said, "ChatGPT may portend an even more momentous shift than the advent of the internet." Just one legal application out there today is the use of A.I. technology (GPT-3) by Docket Alarm, a popular court docket [...]

Read More

Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency

August 19th, 2022|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Wait Wait ... Don't Settle! Essential elements of effective class action settlements. When it comes to complex class action litigation, once the hard work is done – litigation and settlement – more hard work begins – administering it.  But is the deal really ready? After years of arduous proceedings, discovery, motions, appeals, hearings, negotiations, and more, the scope and structure of your settlement has been drafted. Everyone is in agreement. The hard work of the courts, the attorneys, the legal teams, and the litigants is complete. Now it's time to administer the settlement. Send out notices. Cut the checks. Get people paid. Boom! Sit back and relax. Get a claims administrator to take it from there. But wait … you find out that the terms of the agreement, the promises made, the budget established, and the deadlines calendared are not only inefficient, they are completely unworkable. Now the settlement is in jeopardy. The clients are frustrated. The court is frustrated. And you have a headache. That is a situation you, as a class action attorney, never want to find yourself in. The best way to avoid this quagmire is for attorneys to work with a professional and experienced claims administrator before you agree on settlement terms, someone who has been to this rodeo [...]

Read More

Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law

April 27th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Risk Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

A Significant Deviation: Target v. Ace Finds Loss-of-Use Damages Included Post-Breach Card Replacement Analysis On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Target”) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage. Target Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-2916 (WMW/DTS), 2022 WL 848095 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2022), vacating 517 F. Supp. 3d 798 (D. Minn. 2021). The new decision deviates from how other courts have evaluated general liability coverage for damages because of “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” Insurers would do well to take notice. Background In 2013, Target was the victim of a massive data breach that occurred after hackers installed malicious software on its computer network, which enabled them to steal the payment card data and personal contact information of an estimated 110 million individuals with Target payment cards (the “Data Breach”). Multiple lawsuits were brought against Target, including suits by financial institutions (the “Issuing Banks”) that had issued debit and credit cards (the “Payment Cards”) affected by the Data Breach. The Issuing Banks filed class action [...]

Read More

Despite Relative Inactivity on the Virtual Front in Ukraine, Russia’s Global Cyber-Attacks are Coming

March 29th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Editor Tom is HB’s Founder and Managing Director. His career in litigation content spans four decades during which he was editor, managing editor, and finally publisher at Mealey’s Litigation Reports. After Mealey’s was acquired by LexisNexis Tom became a vice president involved in creating new content and services at the legal research and services giant. He has always overseen or directly created articles, blogs, conferences, webinars, data collections, and now podcasts — all on litigation. Tom founded HB in 2008, and four years later he founded Custom Legal Content, a boutique content creation shop serving boutique and specialized legal practices and litigation services. In addition to his work at HB and CLC, Tom is Editor in Chief of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast. For years he was a leader in an international specialized publishing association, frequently speaking and writing about publishing, and is now active in an open community of content and event producers called Renewd. Sometime during the last millennium Tom proudly graduated with a B.A. in Communications from Bethany College in West Virginia. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Despite Relative Inactivity on the [...]

Read More

Tanks and Banks: What Fintechs Must Know About Sanctions on Russia

March 25th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Guest A highly regarded attorney and much-sought-after speaker for his expertise on the laws and operations of the technology-driven global financial system. Also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Tanks and Banks: What Fintechs Must Know About Sanctions on Russia Tom Hagy Interviews Brad Rustin of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough Click below to get the complete article.

Read More

Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Year in Review 2021

March 21st, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Authors The authors are all attorneys with the Kennedys law firm (kennedyslaw.com). Joshua Mooney (joshua.mooney@kennedyslaw) and Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) are partners. Tracey Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) and Alexis Childs (alexis.childs@kennedyslaw.com) are associates. Bridget Mead, associate, and Javier Vijil, senior associate, also contributed to this article. Judy Selby is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy 2021 in Review By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, Tracey Kline, and Alexis Childs Abstract: As the world emerged from lockdown, it should come as no surprise that cybersecurity and data privacy remained dominant topics in the media and legal industry. Some of 2021 was much like 2020—ransomware attacks continued to fill the headlines, and in the aggregate, constituted significant loss paid under cyber insurance policies. OFAC reminded victim companies and incident response firms (and cyber carriers) that it remains unlawful to pay ransom payments to designated organizations. Comprehensive federal legislation addressing cyber defenses and notification requirements never materialized. Yet in 2021, we saw new and significant developments. U.S. law continued its drift toward comprehensive privacy regulation with two new significant pieces of privacy legislation and California’s enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act. In the absence of federal legislation, federal agencies either [...]

Read More

The Impact of Sanctions on Russia on Global Financial Markets with Brad Rustin

March 17th, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Impact on Global Financial Systems of U.S. Sanctions on Russia with Brad Rustin But what risks do American corporations and financial institutions face in light of these measures? What difficult reverberations will companies feel across the world? What should global businesses and FinTechs be doing right now to avoid, among other things, violating the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)? What role will cryptocurrency play in all of this? Also, do institutions whose data are stored in Russia and Ukraine face an additional risk as a parallel (albeit less horrific) battle rages on in cyberspace? Listen to my interview with Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP and chair of the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice. Brad is a highly regarded FinTech law and industry expert. This will be apparent when you listen. Brad is also on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. This is a special rapid-release episode given we feel the insights Brad shares are insights business and FinTech’s -- and their attorneys -- urgently need to hear. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself [...]

Read More

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

January 13th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , , |

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should [...]

Read More

The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP

January 7th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , , |

The Author Vince Vitkowsky is a partner in Gfeller Laurie LLP, resident in New York. He focuses on cyber risks, liabilities, insurance, and litigation. Vince assists insurers and reinsurers in product development, and in all aspects of coverage evaluation and dispute resolution in many lines of business, including cyber, CGL, property, and professional liability. He also assists in complex claim evaluations, and if necessary, the defense of insureds in complex matters. Vince is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Contact: vvitkowsky@gllawgroup.com More from Vince and his colleagues. The New LMA War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies By Vincent J. Vitkowsky On November 25, 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association released four War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions (“Exclusions”). The LMA Cyber Business Panel spent well over two years drafting the Exclusions, which are models for use in standalone cyber insurance policies.  Lloyd’s has agreed that they meet the requirement that all insurance and reinsurance policies written at Lloyd’s must, except in very limited circumstances, contain a clause which excludes all losses caused by war.  The Exclusions address some difficult issues troubling the cyber insurance market for several years, following cyberattacks by nation-states (“states”) and threat actors associated [...]

Read More
Go to Top