AI Chats and Law Enforcement: What Are You Sharing?
AI chat platforms are increasingly becoming repositories of sensitive personal, professional, and legal information, and the legal frameworks governing what can be done with that information remain unsettled. This can have serious repercussions for individuals, businesses, and their advisors who happen to find themselves in the complex intersection of law enforcement and information privacy. What are users actually sharing? The volume and sensitivity of information flowing into AI chat platfor...
Risks of Shared AI Workspaces and Confidentiality, Security, and Privacy Concerns
Traditionally, the relationship between a company and its outside advisors, law firms, consultants, and financial advisors has been governed by confidentiality agreements, attorney-client privilege, and codes of professional ethics. These agreements assure that these outside advisors have access only to the information necessary for the scope of the project. However, artificial intelligence is becoming a mainstay in these working relationships, dismantling that clear separation. AI-powered pro...
What to Know About CIPA and Shine the Light Claims
Doing Business in California? What To Know About CIPA and Shine the Light Claims Blog Contributor: Madeline Yuki Gaudlitz, 2L at the University of Michigan Law School In recent months, companies operating in California have reported an increase in demand letters requesting damages for alleged violations under new and existing privacy laws. Under current data privacy legislation, companies can expect these claims to continue. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have relied on two statutes as a basis...
AI and Legal Privilege: Updates from Federal District Courts
AI and Legal Privilege: Updates from Federal District Courts US v. Heppner and Warner v. Gilbarco “Chat, is our conversation protected?” As usual, the answer may be “it depends.” Highlights from two recent federal district court cases, US v. Heppner and Warner v. Gilbarco, provide different answers to this question. The learning? If you are using AI tools for legal-related matters, you should think twice before entering personal information or other case-related information. United States v....
Kids, Clicks, and Compliance: Data Safety Laws You Can’t Ignore
Understanding age assurance vs. age verification vs. age signals and their impact on children and developers For companies operating online, safeguarding kids in a digital world means navigating complex data protection rules along with many compliance challenges. In the vacuum of federal legislation, individual states started passing their own regulations, creating a fast-growing patchwork of age-verification laws across the country. In several U.S. states, such as Florida, Texas, Louisiana, a...
Using AI’s Tools in Hiring, Firing, and Compensation Decisions
What Employers Need to Know About Using ADMT in Employment Decisions Decisions about hiring, termination, and compensation represent substantial administrative costs for employers. Automated decision-making technologies (“ADMT”) can significantly streamline the process. However, employers using ADMT should be aware of recent and existing regulations governing the use of AI tools in evaluating prospective and current employees. In addition to recent AI-specific regulation, use of AI tools in maki...
California Sets National AI Policy
In The Vacuum Of Federal Legislation, California Sets National AI Policy by Lily Li | Founder of Metaverse Law | Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer Within a day of taking office, President Trump overturned Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.[1] The agencies quickly followed suit. The EEOC and DOL withdrew their guidance on AI and workplace discrimination, and the HHS stalled on its proposed updates to the HIPAA security r...
CalPrivacy’s Data Broker Enforcement Strike Force: updates and enforcement actions
On November 26, 2025, CalPrivacy (previously the CPPA) issued a decision requiring ROR Partners LLC to pay $56,600 for failure to register as a data broker under California’s Delete Act. According to the decision, the company used “billions of data points” from over 262 million Americans to create consumer profiles and audience lists, which ROR’s clients could then use for targeted advertising. This action was brought as part of CalPrivacy’s Data Broker Enforcement Strike Force, designed to inv...