Compliance Stuff

  Virginia is poised to further expand its restrictions on employee non-competes. The Virginia legislature r ecently passed   SB 170   (the “SB 170”), making employee non-competes unenforceable if an employer terminates an employee without cause and does not provide severance or other monetary compensation . This new requirement applies to non-competes for employees at all levels regardless of compensation. Failure to comply with SB 170 can lead to civil penalties and private rights of action with recovery of attorney fees and damages. SB 170 is headed to Governor Abigail Spanberger, who is expected to sign it. This development is the latest in the growing patchwork of state non-compete laws. Although the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) nationwide non-compete rule has been  sidelined , scrutiny of restrictive covenants at the FTC remains. States, such as  Colorado ,  Illinois , and  Minnesota , continue to pass laws seeking to limit or ban employ...

Question:  Do I need to complete state privacy risk assessments in 2026? I know some CCPA deadlines aren’t until next year, but how can I prepare my team to comply with state privacy assessment requirements? Answer:   The start of the year is an excellent time to review and update your organization’s privacy assessment process, particularly in light of new regulations under the CCPA . It is likely that you will need to conduct privacy assessments in 2026 , though it depends on your organization’s data processing activities and which state consumer privacy laws apply to your organization. The CCPA’s new requirements include: Undertaking a risk assessment if the organization is “selling” or “sharing” personal data, processing sensitive data (with limited exceptions), using automated decision-making technology (ADMT) for a “significant decision,” or engaged in other types of processing that present a “significant risk” to consumers’ privacy. Conducting the risk assessment per the...

As federal momentum toward a comprehensive U.S. AI law remains stalled, state regulators are stepping decisively into the gap. H eading into 2026, state attorneys general are likely to play an increasingly central role in shaping AI governance, not by waiting for new statutes, but by actively enforcing existing consumer privacy and AI-related laws. Two trends stand out: the use of profiling restrictions as a de facto AI enforcement mechanism and the continued expansion of a state-by-state AI regulatory patchwork. Modern state privacy laws already provide regulators with a powerful hook. Many include limits on “profiling,” often defined as automated decision making and sometimes limited to solely automated processes, particularly where those activities produce legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. In practice, these provisions give state attorneys general a ready-made framework to scrutinize high-risk AI systems. Enforcement actions are likely to first focus on famili...

Earned wage access (EWA) products are increasingly reshaping the employer-employee relationship, with widespread adoption as well as regulatory scrutiny. EWA allows employees to obtain a portion of their accrued wages they have already earned before their regular payday. These programs are intended to help consumers bridge cash-flow gaps between pay periods. EWA is an alternative to small-dollar credit and credit alternative options—such as payday loans, credit cards, or overdraft protection—that consumers have historically used to cover interim expenses. Unlike traditional credit, EWAs are typically non-recourse, so consumers have no legal duty to repay the advance in the event of a default . In recent months, federal courts across multiple jurisdictions have signaled a growing willingness to treat EWA as a form of credit . In the past quarter alone, federal district courts in California, Washington, Maryland, and Pennsylvania have issued rulings adverse to EWA providers. And notabl...

New York became the first state to regulate emotionally responsive “AI companion” chatbots on November 5, 2025, when the Artificial Intelligence Companion Models Law entered effect . California’s SB 243 follows close behind, entering effect in January 2026. Both laws respond to growing concern over the potential mental health and safety risks associated with emotionally responsive AI systems, particularly when used by minors. The bills target similar concerns over these technologies but require different compliance measures, including related to notices, reports, and disclosures. Notably, California’s SB 243 authorizes a private right of action whereas New York’s law only authorizes the Attorney General to seek civil penalties. New York’s Artificial Intelligence Companion Models Law (General Business Law Article 47) Overview Codified under  General Business Law Article 47 , the AI Companion Models Law establishes mandatory safety protocols for companies operating AI companion model...

Introduction On July 30, 2025, the White House released a 166-page report titled “ Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology ” (the “Report”).[1] Authored by a working group of cabinet members and federal agency officials, the Report calls for the expansion of American digital asset markets; the abandonment of “regulation by enforcement” with a refocus of enforcement efforts on terrorists, drug cartels, and other bad actors; and a revamp of bank regulatory and tax policies, among other things. It identifies key federal and other regulators that exercise jurisdiction over digital asset markets and endorses the most sweeping set of Executive Branch recommendations to change financial laws within the United States since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Digital Asset Market Structure: The SEC and CFTC Consistent with previous administrations, the Report recognizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures T...