Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Tools in the Toolbox - Pre-Development Loans
CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 24 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by member Kirstyn Fritz:
* * *
Tools in the toolbox: Pre-development loans
In commercial real estate, every successful project starts long before the first shovel hits the ground. Careful planning, strategic decisions, and financing set the stage, and one often-overlooked tool is the pre-development loan.
A pre-development loan is a short-term financing tool that provides funding during the early stages of a project, before construction begins. These loans can be used to cover expenses
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 24 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by member Kirstyn Fritz:
* * *
Tools in the toolbox: Pre-development loans
In commercial real estate, every successful project starts long before the first shovel hits the ground. Careful planning, strategic decisions, and financing set the stage, and one often-overlooked tool is the pre-development loan.
A pre-development loan is a short-term financing tool that provides funding during the early stages of a project, before construction begins. These loans can be used to cover expensessuch as:
* Site due diligence;
* Environmental and zoning studies;
* Design and architectural planning;
* Lender commitment fees; and
* Legal and consulting services
Think of it as seed money that helps a project take root.
Why pre-development loans matters:
* Mitigate Early Risk: Real estate development is inherently risky. Pre-development loans provide the funding to test a project's feasibility before committing large sums to construction.
* Enable Due Diligence: Comprehensive planning and analysis are crucial. These loans fund the studies and reports that investors, lenders, and municipalities rely on to greenlight a project.
* Strengthen Investor Confidence: Demonstrating that a project is properly vetted and financed - even at the early stages - can make subsequent construction financing easier to secure.
* Bridge Timing Gaps: Land acquisition, permitting, and design phases can be time-consuming. Pre-development loans keep momentum going while waiting for long-term financing to materialize.
While pre-development loans are invaluable, they are not without challenges. Typically, they carry higher interest rates than construction loans and often require personal guarantees or a proven track record. From a legal perspective, drafting clear loan documents and understanding the recourse provisions is essential to protect both the borrower and the lender.
Pre-development loans are the first link in a chain that leads from concept to completion. For developers, understanding how to leverage this tool effectively can make the difference between a stalled idea and a successful, thriving project.
If you're working on a real estate project and want to talk about pre-development financing, I'm always happy to connect. Feel free to reach out!
* * *
Kirstyn Fritz
Member
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/tools-in-the-toolbox-pre-development-loans
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Law Could Be on the Chopping Block
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 24 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Philip L. Gordon:
* * *
Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Law Could Be on the Chopping Block
When he signed Colorado's artificial intelligence law (SB 24-205, the "Act") into law, Colorado Governor Jared Polis told the Colorado General Assembly, by letter, that he did so "with reservations." Polis criticized the Act for "creat[ing] a complex compliance regime," and expressed "concern[] about [its] impact . . on an industry that is fueling critical
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 24 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Philip L. Gordon:
* * *
Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Law Could Be on the Chopping Block
When he signed Colorado's artificial intelligence law (SB 24-205, the "Act") into law, Colorado Governor Jared Polis told the Colorado General Assembly, by letter, that he did so "with reservations." Polis criticized the Act for "creat[ing] a complex compliance regime," and expressed "concern[] about [its] impact . . on an industry that is fueling criticaltechnological advancements...." He urged the General Assembly "to amend [the Act] to conform with evidence based findings and recommendations for the regulation of [the AI] industry."
The General Assembly tried but failed to heed the governor's words at a special legislative session in August 2025, when it extended the Act's effective date from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026. With no amendment of the Act yet proposed in the current legislative session, the governor's AI Policy Working Group has taken the initiative to spur legislative action.
On St. Patrick's Day, the Working Group released a proposed bill to amend the Act. Although it has not yet been introduced in the legislature, the draft provides an early indication of how the state might ease the Act's complex requirements. If enacted, the bill would significantly reduce compliance burdens for employers, although certain provisions would be more demanding than those in the existing statute.
The proposed bill would eliminate many of the Act's most onerous employer obligations while preserving key transparency requirements. Specifically, the Act would remove the following mandates currently imposed on employers that use artificial intelligence as a substantial factor in employment decisions:
* Reporting findings of discriminatory outcomes to the Colorado attorney general;
* Conducting impact assessments;
* Implementing a risk management policy and program;
* Conducting annual reviews of AI tools;
* Posting or updating privacy policies to describe the use of AI tools;
* Providing notice when interacting with an AI system;
* Complying with correction requests; and
* Affirmatively avoiding algorithmic discrimination (instead relying on a prohibition on violating existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws).
The proposal would retain the requirement that employers give notice before, or at the time, a covered tool is used. It would also continue to require post-adverse action notices. Deployers would also need to provide detailed information about AI tools they develop. Employers would still be required to offer an appeals process for adverse decisions, but only to the extent that the appeals process is commercially reasonable.
The proposed bill would introduce these new obligations:
* First, employers would be required to retain records of their use of covered tools for three years.
* Second, the bill would substantially expand the definition of covered technology. Under the existing Act, only artificial intelligence systems--computing systems that use an inferential step and are used as a substantial factor in employment and other consequential decisions--are regulated. Under the proposal, any computational process that uses personal information and produces output materially influencing employment or other consequential decisions would fall within the law's scope. Although the bill includes carveouts for clerical uses of technology, the broadened definition would capture a wide range of automated processes that would not constitute "artificial intelligence" under the prior standard.
* Third, the proposal raises uncertainty about whether it would extend Colorado Privacy Act obligations--currently limited to consumer data--to applicant and employee data.
If introduced, the bill will likely undergo substantial revision before and during the legislative process. Lawmakers may also propose competing bills, as occurred during the August 2025 special legislative session. If the Act were to be replaced by the Working Group's proposal, the revised law would not take effect until January 1, 2027, giving employers some breathing room to address compliance.
* * *
Authors
Zoe M. Argento
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Philip L. Gordon
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/colorados-artificial-intelligence-law-could-be-chopping-block
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fry to Speak on Gross Receipts Taxes at COST Spring Conference
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fry to Speak on Gross Receipts Taxes at COST Spring Conference
*
Taft Cleveland partner Rich Fry is speaking on the panel "Gross Receipts Taxes: Trends, Challenges, and What's Next" at the Council on State Taxation (COST) Spring Conference on April 22 in Coral Gables, FL.
During the session, Fry will discuss recent case developments and tax saving opportunities related to Ohio commercial activity tax. He will also explore factors impacting multistate tax trends, constitutional considerations,
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Fry to Speak on Gross Receipts Taxes at COST Spring Conference
*
Taft Cleveland partner Rich Fry is speaking on the panel "Gross Receipts Taxes: Trends, Challenges, and What's Next" at the Council on State Taxation (COST) Spring Conference on April 22 in Coral Gables, FL.
During the session, Fry will discuss recent case developments and tax saving opportunities related to Ohio commercial activity tax. He will also explore factors impacting multistate tax trends, constitutional considerations,and compliance challenges businesses may face.
For more information, click here.
Fry focuses his practice on solving complex state and local tax problems for businesses and individuals. He guides clients through multistate sales and use tax, commercial activity tax, and personal income tax compliance and controversies, including high-stakes disputes before the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, and the Internal Revenue Service.
***
Original text here: https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/fry-to-speak-on-gross-receipts-taxes-at-cost-spring-conference/
Five Kirkland Partners Named Dealmakers of the Year by The American Lawyer
CHICAGO, Illinois, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Kirkland and Ellis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Five Kirkland Partners Named Dealmakers of the Year by The American Lawyer
*
The American Lawyer recognized Kirkland partners Andrew Calder, Maggie Flores, Sarkis Jebejian, John Kaercher and Melissa Kalka as 2026 "Dealmakers of the Year," a list celebrating those who led some of the year's most challenging, marketing-shifting and unprecedented deals.
Maggie and Sarkis were selected for leading the investor consortium of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF),
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Kirkland and Ellis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Five Kirkland Partners Named Dealmakers of the Year by The American Lawyer
*
The American Lawyer recognized Kirkland partners Andrew Calder, Maggie Flores, Sarkis Jebejian, John Kaercher and Melissa Kalka as 2026 "Dealmakers of the Year," a list celebrating those who led some of the year's most challenging, marketing-shifting and unprecedented deals.
Maggie and Sarkis were selected for leading the investor consortium of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF),Silver Lake and Affinity Partners on its $55 billion acquisition of Electronic Arts, the largest take-private investment in history. The team's involvement in this historic transaction, believed to be PIF's largest investment in a single company, was the culmination of multijurisdictional and cross-practice collaboration.
Andy, John and Melissa were selected for leading a consortium of AI Infrastructure Partners, MGX and BlackRock's GIP on its $40 billion acquisition of Aligned Data Centers, the largest-ever data center transaction. Over the last 12 months, Kirkland has handled more than $164 billion in data center M&A and $67 billion in data center financings.
"The secret to Kirkland's success in the data center space is collaboration," Andy said.
***
Original text here: https://www.kirkland.com/news/award/2026/03/amlaw-dealmakers-of-the-year
Fisher Phillips Issues Commentary: California Courts Create Confusion in Digital Tracking Cases - How Businesses Can Navigate Conflicting Rulings
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by partner Usama Kahf and associate Xuan Zhou:
* * *
California Courts Create Confusion in Digital Tracking Cases: How Businesses Can Navigate Conflicting Rulings
Several recent California state court decisions have thrown companies into a state of confusion about whether they can face claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) for use of tracking technologies on websites and apps. In two cases, courts dismissed the claims without leave to amend, while a third case -
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, March 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 23, 2026, by partner Usama Kahf and associate Xuan Zhou:
* * *
California Courts Create Confusion in Digital Tracking Cases: How Businesses Can Navigate Conflicting Rulings
Several recent California state court decisions have thrown companies into a state of confusion about whether they can face claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) for use of tracking technologies on websites and apps. In two cases, courts dismissed the claims without leave to amend, while a third case -sitting in the same courthouse as one of the first two - allowed the claim to proceed. The two helpful court decisions concluded that CIPA's "trap and trace" provisions don't extend to website analytics or similar internet tracking technologies. But the other troubling ruling went the opposite way and said that website cookies might qualify as pen registers or trap and trace devices. These rulings create uncertainty for businesses operating in California and raise many questions about best practices. This Insight will dive into the three cases and provide businesses with a game plan to manage this turbulent time.
What Courts Have Decided?
Schallert v. Palo Alto Networks (Los Angeles County Superior Court)
* Facts:
- The plaintiff alleged that software embedded on the defendant's website functioned as a trap-and-trace device under CIPA 637.2(a) by capturing electronic identifiers of website visitors.
* Key Holdings:
- The court focused on statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the CIPA trap-and-trace framework repeatedly refers to telephone lines, including provisions requiring a court order to identify the specific telephone line to which the device will be attached.
Based on this structure, the court concluded that the statute's trap-and-trace provisions were intended to regulate telephone surveillance, not internet communications.
The court also observed that no binding California authority has held that CIPA's trap-and-trace provisions apply to websites, and it found the federal cases cited by the plaintiff unpersuasive.
Blalock v. EquipmentShare.com Inc. (Orange County Superior Court)
* Facts:
The plaintiff similarly alleged that website technology violated California's trap-and-trace law (Penal Code Sec. 638.51).
* Key Holdings:
- The court emphasized that the legislative history indicates the trap-and-trace provisions were enacted primarily to allow law enforcement to obtain emergency orders for telephone surveillance devices, not internet monitoring tools.
- Although the statute broadly defines devices that capture routing or signaling information, the court found that the overall statutory scheme was directed at telephone communications.
- The court further analyzed that the statute was enacted in 2015, when internet communications and communicating through computers was not a new technology. If the Legislature had intended to regulate website tracking technologies or other internet communications, it could have explicitly included them but did not.
Barajas v. La Mesa RV Center, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court)
* Facts:
- The plaintiff alleged that X Corp's tracking software development kit was installed on defendant's website to identify website visitors without user consent, which is a violation of California Trap and Trace Law Penal Code Sec. 638.51.
* Key Holdings:
- The court held that the legislature enacted CIPA to broadly protect privacy, reflecting a strong policy against intrusive surveillance. Nothing in the statute limits this definition to telephones, meaning the statute may potentially apply to internet communications and websites.
- The court rejected the argument that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) replaces or conflicts with CIPA. The CCPA explicitly states that it supplements existing laws, so both statutes can operate concurrently.
- The court distinguished between metadata and content of communication.
= The court concluded that technical identifiers (metadata), such as browser characteristics, installed fonts, screen dimensions, system settings and device specifications and routing data, are not the contents of communication.
= The court contrasted this case with another involving TikTok tracking software, where the technology allegedly collected biographical information (e.g., name, date of birth, and address), which the court found to constitute the content of a communication.
Practical Implications for Businesses
The three recent California state court decisions reflect diverging judicial approaches to whether CIPA's trap-and-trace provisions apply to modern website technologies. While two courts rejected the application of CIPA to website tracking, another court suggested that the statute could potentially reach certain internet-based data collection practices.
Federal courts have sometimes adopted a broader view of privacy statutes, with most federal courts holding that website cookies and pixels can qualify as pen registers or trap and trace devices for purposes of a motion to dismiss. This split between state and federal courts indicates that future courts could adopt either interpretation, leaving continued litigation risk for businesses.
Both Schallert and Blalock emphasized that internet communications were already widespread when the Legislature enacted the relevant provisions in 2015. Those courts reasoned that if lawmakers intended to regulate website tracking technologies, they could have said so explicitly. By contrast, the court in Barajas emphasized CIPA's broad privacy purpose and declined to limit the statute to telephone communications.
The Barajas court further held that the CCPA did not displace or replace CIPA. Instead, the statutes operate in parallel, meaning that businesses that fully comply with CCPA requirements may still face claims under CIPA. For businesses that have been trying to comply with the CCPA since it took effect in 2020, this holding by the Barajas court reflects a lack of understanding of how the CCPA regulates data sharing through website tracking technology. The CCPA expressly permits such disclosure of data, so long as consumers are provided with an effective opt-out mechanism.
Countless resources were spent by the state and private parties in the CCPA rulemaking process, which establishes exactly what businesses have to do to lawfully deploy third-party cookies on their websites. And yet a general law (CIPA) that says nothing about cookies and pixels is being interpreted by plaintiffs' attorneys and some courts to prohibit businesses from doing exactly what the CCPA permits and regulates, finding that CIPA requires opt-in consent before a business can share any data with third parties through website cookies.
The Barajas court seems to posit that an opt-out and an opt-in framework can live concurrently. Perhaps telling is that the Barajas court decided to ignore numerous decisions by state court judges on this issue while finding as "persuasive" the federal district court decisions interpreting California law.
Key Case Alert: Variety Media LLC v. Superior Court is currently pending before the California Court of Appeal and is expected to address whether CIPA Sec. 638.51 extends to commonly used website tracking technologies. This will be the first appellate authority on this issue, but it may take a year for a decision to be issued. Until appellate courts provide clearer guidance, companies should assume that claims related to web analytics, SDKs, pixels, and other tracking tools will continue to be litigated.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
These conflicting decisions create uncertainty for businesses, but you can glean some important guidance to help minimize your risk if you operate websites or use analytics tools.
1. Privacy Compliance Remains Important
Although some courts have effectively abrogated the CCPA's opt-out framework, compliance should remain a priority. Are you audit ready? This should be the question for 2026 and beyond. Even if you decide to turn off all third-party cookies on your website until after a consumer's opt-in consent, there are many CCPA requirements that continue to apply, including ensuring that consumers who do opt-in to cookies have an easy and effective process for changing their mind and opting out. Maintain strong privacy disclosure and consent practices as plaintiffs continue to test alternative privacy theories under CIPA and other statutes. Work with your FP Privacy and Cyber counsel to make sure your policies and practices are in good shape.
2. Implement Consent Mechanisms Where Appropriate
Consider using cookie banners or consent management tools that allow users to understand and control the use of tracking technologies. While not always legally required in every context, such tools can help mitigate risk and demonstrate good-faith privacy practices.
3. Maintain Clear Privacy Disclosures
Ensure that website privacy policies and cookie disclosures accurately describe the categories of data collected through website technologies and the purposes for which the data is used. Transparent disclosures can reduce litigation risk and strengthen defenses if claims arise.
4. Monitor Litigation Trends in Website Privacy Cases
Website privacy litigation under CIPA and related statutes continues to evolve rapidly. Companies should monitor developments in California courts, particularly as appellate courts may eventually address these issues. For a broader view of digital wiretapping litigation trends nationwide, you can consult the Fisher Phillips Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map, which tracks related cases across all 50 states.
5. Consider Early Defense Strategies
If a complaint is filed alleging that website technologies constitute a trap-and-trace device, these recent rulings suggest that early motions, such as demurrers or motions to dismiss, may be an effective strategy before discovery.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Privacy and Cyber Practice Group.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/california-courts-create-confusion-in-digital-tracking-cases
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Candice J. Enders to Present at the Bar Bri Class Action CLE Litigation Ethics: Navigating Gray Areas in Class Communications, Settlement
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Berger Montague, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Candice J. Enders to Present at the Bar Bri Class Action CLE Litigation Ethics: Navigating Gray Areas in Class Communications, Settlement
*
Berger Montague is pleased to announce that Shareholder Candice J. Enders will serve as a panelist for the upcoming BARBRI Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program, Class Action Litigation Ethics: Navigating Gray Areas in Class Actions, taking place on April 9, 2026. A 50% discount is available using the code Enders 04ly1IAAACV2.
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Berger Montague, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Candice J. Enders to Present at the Bar Bri Class Action CLE Litigation Ethics: Navigating Gray Areas in Class Communications, Settlement
*
Berger Montague is pleased to announce that Shareholder Candice J. Enders will serve as a panelist for the upcoming BARBRI Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program, Class Action Litigation Ethics: Navigating Gray Areas in Class Actions, taking place on April 9, 2026. A 50% discount is available using the code Enders 04ly1IAAACV2.Register here.
This program will bring together leading practitioners to explore ethical challenges that arise in class action litigation. The panel will address evolving standards and best practices, including managing potential conflicts, maintaining transparency with class members, and navigating complex decision-making in high-stakes litigation.
Ms. Enders is a shareholder in the Firm's Antitrust Department. She has played a key role in significant antitrust matters involving allegations of price-fixing, market allocation, and other anticompetitive conduct.
For more information or to register, please visit the program page.
Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE.
***
Original text here: https://bergermontague.com/news/candice-j-enders-to-present-at-the-bar-bri-class-action-cle-litigation-ethics-navigating-gray-areas-in-class-communications-settlement/
Cahill Files Answering Brief in Ninth Circuit on Behalf of Leading Social Media Platform
NEW YORK, March 24 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news on March 23, 2026:
* * *
Cahill Files Answering Brief in Ninth Circuit on Behalf of Leading Social Media Platform
On March 11, 2026, Cahill filed an answering brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a leading social media platform challenging AB 2655, a California statute that would force covered social media platforms to remove or label certain AI-generated political speech about elections--so-called "deep fake" content--that the State of California deems false or misleading.
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 24 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news on March 23, 2026:
* * *
Cahill Files Answering Brief in Ninth Circuit on Behalf of Leading Social Media Platform
On March 11, 2026, Cahill filed an answering brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a leading social media platform challenging AB 2655, a California statute that would force covered social media platforms to remove or label certain AI-generated political speech about elections--so-called "deep fake" content--that the State of California deems false or misleading.The answering brief asserts that AB 2655 is preempted by the immunity afforded to interactive computer service providers under Section 230(c)(1) and Section 230(c)(2)(B) of the federal Communications Decency Act.
In August 2025, Cahill prevailed on summary judgment in the Eastern District of California, successfully arguing that AB 2655 treats covered platforms as publishers of third-party content and impermissibly substitutes the State's judgments about what content is permissible on covered platforms for those of the platforms. The district court permanently enjoined AB 2655's enforcement and California appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, Cahill argues that the statute impermissibly encroaches on the quintessential editorial activities of covered platforms, in direct contravention of Section 230. Eleven amicus briefs have been filed in the Ninth Circuit in support of the Appellees' challenge to AB 2655.
To read the full brief, click below.
25-6138 - X Corp. Answering Brief (https://static.cahill.com/docs/25-6138%20-%20Main%20Document%20Brief.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/firm-news/2026-03-23-cahill-files-answering-brief-in-ninth-circuit-on-behalf-of-leading-social-media-platform
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
