Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
May 12th, 2022
Connecticut Privacy Law Adds Stitch to Confusing Legal Patchwork
Privacy & Data Security Group Chair Daniel M. Goldberg and Privacy & Data Security Associate Maria Nava are quoted in the article, “Connecticut Privacy Law Adds Stitch to Confusing Legal Patchwork” published by Bloomberg Law. The article discusses Connecticut’s newly enacted consumer privacy law which gives Connecticut residents the right to opt out of the processing and sale of their personal data and the right to ask that it be deleted while requiring companies to limit collecting personal data. With Connecticut being the fifth state to pass consumer privacy legislation after California, Virginia, Colorado, and Utah, the growing national patchwork complicates business compliance. Daniel is quoted saying, “Putting the laws into practice—making consumers’ rights easily accessible, for example—is another major problem stemming from the country’s patchwork system.” California, Colorado, and Connecticut require businesses to honor universal opt-out signals, while Utah and Virginia do not require those universal opt-outs. Daniel says, “Adding functionality for that type of tool to websites can be a challenge, especially with such differences” and “This is one area where I’m hopeful California will clarify specifics with regulations, and there’s a good chance other states could follow suit.”
With respect to children’s data, the Connecticut law requires opt-in consent for the processing of children’s sensitive data and requires that the processing be done in accordance with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which applies to those under 13. It goes further by prohibiting companies from processing the data of minors known to be ages 13 to 16 for purposes of targeted advertising and from selling it without consent. Maria says, “The new law defines ‘biometric data’ in a similar fashion to Virginia and Utah, which isn’t as comprehensive as the definition in California’s statute” and “There are exceptions in the law that weren’t originally in the bill, like photographs and audio recordings.”
Unlike the California Privacy Rights Act, which created a standalone privacy agency tasked with rulemaking, the Connecticut measure doesn’t establish a regulator or call for rules. The Connecticut attorney general isn’t tasked with rulemaking, as is the case in Colorado. Daniel says, “But it does convene a task force in the General Assembly where the topics for exploration range from algorithmic decision-making to children’s privacy.” He concludes by saying, “The findings could be considered for future tweaks or future laws.”
Read the full article here.
Other Quoted
Game companies must be flexible to comply with changing laws
Emma Smizer was recently featured as a panelist at GamesBeat Next 2025 and quoted in a GamesBeat article discussing global regulatory compliance and its impact on the gaming industry. The panel examined how evolving policy frameworks create new opportunities for developers and platforms navigating global markets.
Smizer addressed compliance challenges under emerging laws, specifically citing the Texas App Store Accountability Act. She noted that this kind of legislation changes how developers and platforms interact with users: “App stores have to do this age verification, but so do software and hardware developers. Global compliance is complicated, even just across the states… We’re moving toward a world where you can’t just be willfully ignorant about the age of your users.”
Her analysis emphasizes a growing trend that age verification and child safety requirements are not only regulatory hurdles but also can create opportunities and growth for businesses and sectors. Read the full summary of the panel here.
November 25 2025
Copyright Guide or Policy Change? Project Divides IP Attys
Law360 quoted Jacqueline Charlesworth on the controversy surrounding the American Law Institute’s copyright restatement project. Ms. Charlesworth criticized the initiative as advancing a “revisionist theory” that could weaken copyright protections. She was among nearly two dozen advisers who resigned from the project, signaling deep concerns about its direction.
The article highlights a broader debate within the IP community: whether the restatement simply clarifies existing law or attempts to reshape policy in favor of users. Ms. Charlesworth’s perspective emphasizes the stakes for rights holders as courts and practitioners consider how much influence the restatement may carry. Read the Law360 article about the copyright restatement project here.
November 19 2025
Reports of ‘Click-to-Cancel’s Death May Be Premature
A Competition Policy International article quoted Holly A. Melton on the continuing impact of the Federal Trade Commission’s “click-to-cancel” rule , despite a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Melton was quoted for her analysis of the FTC’s $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon over Prime subscription practices. In a blog post, Melton pointed to a clause in the agreement that anticipates future rulemaking around negative option features. “That’s not boilerplate,” she wrote. “It reads like a deliberate placeholder—future-proofing the settlement for the reappearance of Click to Cancel.” Melton interprets this as a strategic move by the FTC to potentially revive the rule through a new proceeding.
Melton’s outlook reflects a broader shift in the FTC’s enforcement priorities toward consumer-facing issues like subscription transparency and cancellation ease. She referenced Commissioner Mark Meador’s remarks about focusing on “everyday economic concerns affecting ordinary households” and noted that, even without immediate rulemaking, the agency’s litigation stance signals that subscription practices will remain a top-tier priority for the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Her guidance to advertisers and subscription services: “prioritize transparency, obtain affirmative consent, and make cancellation as effortless as sign-up. The ‘Click to Cancel’ may be down, but it’s not out,” Melton concluded, underscoring the FTC’s intent to keep its options open. Read the Competition Policy International post here.
November 11 2025
