On 20 January 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation to update and replace the Cybersecurity Act (Regulation 2019/881). The proposal—known as the Cybersecurity Act 2 (CSA2)—forms part of a wider package aimed at modernizing and streamlining the EU’s cybersecurity framework and is closely linked to the Commission’s parallel proposal to amend…

When the UK Modern Slavery Act (“MSA”) came into force in 2015, it was hailed as a landmark for supply chain transparency on a key human rights risk. Today, there is widespread recognition among stakeholders that the UK may have fallen behind in its approach to corporate human rights regulation. The MSA’s core…

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a final rule, titled Revision to License Review Policy for Advanced Computing Commodities (the “BIS Rule”), that implements a more favorable license application review policy for exports from the United States of certain advanced computing commodities, including NVIDIA H200 and…

On January 8, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CalPrivacy”) announced an enforcement action against Rickenbacher Data LLC (d/b/a “Datamasters”), an information reseller, for failing to register as a data broker under the California Delete Act.  Datamasters agreed to pay a $45,000 administrative fine, among other remedial measures.  In November, CalPrivacy launched a Data Broker Enforcement Strike Force within its enforcement division to investigate violations of the law in the data broker industry, which builds upon a 2024 investigative sweep into data broker compliance.

More than one billion dollars were spent in 2024 elections supporting or opposing state and local ballot measures. With high-profile and contentious issues expected to be on the ballot, such as congressional redistricting, AI regulation, minimum wage increases, and more, that number promises to be even larger in 2026. As state legislatures become more polarized…

On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) (N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 1050–55) to prohibit certain types of so-called “stay-or-pay” agreements that require an employee to repay an employer for certain expenses or compensation if the employee terminates employment within a certain period of time after their start date.  These obligations often include repayment for expenses such as training, education, quit fees, damages clauses, sign-on-bonuses, and other types of cash payments tied to a mandatory stay period.  The Act, which took effect on December 19, 2025, is similar to a new California law that took effect on January 1, 2026.

The New York Act and the new California statute follow on the heels of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) February 2025 recission of a 2024 NLRB General Counsel memorandum, which proposed that the NLRB adopt a framework to presume that any stay-or-pay provision is unlawful even if entered into voluntarily.  The NLRB’s recission of this memo paved the way for New York and California (and potentially other states) to regulate stay-or-pay agreements at the state level.

More than one billion dollars were spent in 2024 elections supporting or opposing state and local ballot measures. With high-profile and contentious issues expected to be on the ballot, such as congressional redistricting, AI regulation, minimum wage increases, and more, that number promises to be even larger in 2026. As state legislatures become more polarized…

On December 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), through the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (“ASTP”)/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) (collectively, “ASTP/ONC”), issued a proposed rule to update its Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability (“HTI”) regulations, as well as a notice to withdraw prior proposals issued as part of the HTI-2 proposed rule.   

In many privacy and other technology-related class actions, the question of whether consumers consent to the practice at issue is central.  In these cases, class action defendants have defeated motions for class certification by successfully arguing that consent is an individualized issue that is not susceptible to common proof.  And though class action plaintiffs may try and avoid this problem by excluding consenting individuals from their class definition, that solution can create new problems, including impermissible “fail-safe” classes—i.e., classes that cannot be defined until a case is resolved on the merits.

On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) (N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 1050–55) to prohibit certain types of so-called “stay-or-pay” agreements that require an employee to repay an employer for certain expenses or compensation if the employee terminates employment within a certain period of time after their start date.  These obligations often include repayment for expenses such as training, education, quit fees, damages clauses, sign-on-bonuses, and other types of cash payments tied to a mandatory stay period.  The Act, which took effect on December 19, 2025, is similar to a new California law that took effect on January 1, 2026.

The New York Act and the new California statute follow on the heels of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) February 2025 recission of a 2024 NLRB General Counsel memorandum, which proposed that the NLRB adopt a framework to presume that any stay-or-pay provision is unlawful even if entered into voluntarily.  The NLRB’s recission of this memo paved the way for New York and California (and potentially other states) to regulate stay-or-pay agreements at the state level.