Featured Stories
Steptoe Helps Secure Federal Court Injunction Blocking HUD Suspension of LAHSA and Protecting Critical Homelessness Funding for Los Angeles
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- Steptoe, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Steptoe Helps Secure Federal Court Injunction Blocking HUD Suspension of LAHSA and Protecting Critical Homelessness Funding for Los Angeles
(Los Angeles) - Steptoe LLP was part of the legal team that secured a preliminary injunction preventing the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from suspending the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), preserving critical homelessness funding and services across the Los Angeles region. Steptoe represented the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (LA
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 -- Steptoe, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Steptoe Helps Secure Federal Court Injunction Blocking HUD Suspension of LAHSA and Protecting Critical Homelessness Funding for Los Angeles
(Los Angeles) - Steptoe LLP was part of the legal team that secured a preliminary injunction preventing the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from suspending the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), preserving critical homelessness funding and services across the Los Angeles region. Steptoe represented the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (LACoC) alongside Public Counsel and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. Court records identify Steptoe partner Robyn C. Crowther, associate Abigail Nicole Falk Orozco, and attorney Mary-Kate Planchet as counsel for the LA CoC intervenor in the case.
In LAHSA v. Trump et al., US District Judge David O. Carter ruled that HUD's abrupt suspension of LAHSA was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, finding the agency's actions to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." The court concluded that HUD's actions threatened the Los Angeles region's ability to compete for federal homelessness funding and disrupted a framework that Congress established through the HEARTH Act to ensure local communities set homelessness response priorities.
The injunction restores LAHSA as the Collaborative Applicant for the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, requires HUD to execute pending FY 2025 grant agreements, and preserves the region's ability to pursue future federal homelessness funding opportunities. The ruling also protects the continued operation of key homelessness response infrastructure, including the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), Coordinated Entry System (CES), and Point-in-Time Count.
* * *
About Steptoe
In more than 110 years of practice, Steptoe has earned an international reputation for vigorous representation of clients and innovative thinking before governmental agencies, successful advocacy in litigation and arbitration, and creative and practical advice in structuring business transactions. Steptoe has more than 500 lawyers and other professional staff across offices in Beijing, Brussels, Chicago, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. For more information, visit www.steptoe.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/steptoe-helps-secure-federal-court-injunction-blocking-hud-suspension-of-lahsa-and-protecting-critical-homelessness-funding-for-los-angeles.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ropes & Gray Represented TSG Consumer in Acquisition of Majority Stake in Saltair
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 21 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Represented TSG Consumer in Acquisition of Majority Stake in Saltair
Ropes & Gray represented TSG Consumer in its definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Saltair, a Los Angeles-based body care brand.
The transaction was announced on July 30.
Founded in 1986, TSG Consumer is a leading consumer-focused private equity firm with approximately $14 billion in assets under management.
Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
The Ropes & Gray team included private
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 21 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Represented TSG Consumer in Acquisition of Majority Stake in Saltair
Ropes & Gray represented TSG Consumer in its definitive agreement to acquire a majority stake in Saltair, a Los Angeles-based body care brand.
The transaction was announced on July 30.
Founded in 1986, TSG Consumer is a leading consumer-focused private equity firm with approximately $14 billion in assets under management.
Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
The Ropes & Gray team included privateequity partner Elizabeth Gallucci, tax partners Pamela Glazier and Alyssa Kollmeyer, and executive compensation & employee benefits partner Kyle Higley.
* * *
URL: TSG Consumer
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/08/ropes-gray-represented-tsg-consumer-in-acquisition-of-majority-stake-in-saltair
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital on Acquisition of Oncourse Home Solutions
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 21 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital on Acquisition of Oncourse Home Solutions
Ropes & Gray represented Genstar Capital in its agreement to acquire Oncourse Home Solutions, a provider of home infrastructure warranties, from Apax Partners. The transaction was announced on Aug. 19. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Founded in 1992, Oncourse protects the critical home infrastructure that homeowners rely on, including water, sewer, gas, and electric lines, in-home plumbing, and home systems and appliances.
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 21 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital on Acquisition of Oncourse Home Solutions
Ropes & Gray represented Genstar Capital in its agreement to acquire Oncourse Home Solutions, a provider of home infrastructure warranties, from Apax Partners. The transaction was announced on Aug. 19. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Founded in 1992, Oncourse protects the critical home infrastructure that homeowners rely on, including water, sewer, gas, and electric lines, in-home plumbing, and home systems and appliances.The company serves more than two million customers across 48 states, reaching homeowners through exclusive affinity partnerships and a growing direct-to-consumer channel.
Genstar is a leading private equity firm that has been actively investing in high-quality companies for over 35 years. Based in San Francisco, Genstar works in partnership with its management teams and its network of strategic advisors to transform its portfolio companies into industry-leading businesses.
Genstar currently has approximately $51 billion of assets under management and targets investments focused on targeted segments of the financial services, industrials, healthcare, and software industries.
The team was led by private equity partner Elizabeth Gallucci and associate Anna Park, and included finance partners Patricia Lynch and Chris Poggi, private equity counsel Amy Olson, tax partner Brandon Dunn, executive compensation & employee benefits partner Kyle Higley, employment partner Richard Kidd, litigation & enforcement partner Jackie Grise, and IP transactions partner Emily Karlberg.
* * *
URL: Genstar Capital
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/08/ropes-gray-advised-genstar-capital-on-acquisition-of-oncourse-home-solutions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Shareholder Bradford J. Kelley Nominated to Serve as Federal District Judge in Louisiana
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 21 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Shareholder Bradford J. Kelley Nominated to Serve as Federal District Judge in Louisiana
Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, congratulates Bradford J. Kelley on his nomination by President Donald J. Trump to serve as a judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
"Brad's nomination is a testament to his impressive legal career and longstanding commitment to public service," said Erin Webber, Littler's managing
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 21 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Shareholder Bradford J. Kelley Nominated to Serve as Federal District Judge in Louisiana
Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, congratulates Bradford J. Kelley on his nomination by President Donald J. Trump to serve as a judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
"Brad's nomination is a testament to his impressive legal career and longstanding commitment to public service," said Erin Webber, Littler's managingdirector and president. "Throughout his time at Littler, Brad has distinguished himself through his deep legal knowledge, thoughtful counsel and unwavering dedication to the profession. His extensive experience in both private practice and at government agencies will undoubtedly serve him well on the federal bench, and we congratulate him on this honor."
Kelley is a shareholder in Littler's Washington, D.C., office and co-chair of the firm's AI and Technology Practice Group. His practice spans a range of employment discrimination and wage and hour matters, with a particular focus on emerging technologies and AI in the workplace. Kelley also advises employers on matters involving the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
Before joining Littler in 2023, Kelley was chief counsel to then-U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Keith Sonderling, who now serves as Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor. In that role, Kelley provided legal and policy advice on federal employment anti-discrimination laws and worked on cases, policies and regulations involving statutes enforced by the EEOC. He also acted as a key advisor on the Commission's Initiative on Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness and received the EEOC Chair's Circle of Excellence Award for his service.
Prior to his time at the EEOC, Kelley served as a senior policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, where he counseled agency leadership on the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and federal wage laws affecting government contractors.
Kelley began his legal career as a law clerk to a federal district judge. He is also a former U.S. Army infantry and intelligence officer and an Iraq War veteran.
Deeply rooted in the state of Louisiana, Kelley earned his J.D., Order of the Coif and magna cum laude, from Louisiana State University Law Center, and his undergraduate degree, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Louisiana State University.
Kelley's nomination is subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
* * *
About Littler
With more than 1,800 labor and employment attorneys in offices around the world, Littler provides workplace solutions that are local, everywhere. Our global team and proprietary technology foster a culture that celebrates original thinking, delivering groundbreaking innovation that prepares employers for what's happening today, and what's likely to happen tomorrow.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/press/press-release/littler-shareholder-bradford-j-kelley-nominated-serve-federal-district-judge
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Spoiler Alert - How To Manage NDA Breaches In The Entertainment Industry
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on on Aug. 20, 2026:
* * *
Spoiler Alert: How To Manage NDA Breaches In The Entertainment Industry
Nothing is more frustrating than when a member of a project leaks key details about an upcoming film, game release, album, talent decision, or other major production. And if those moves violate a non-disclosure agreement, they create an actionable situation for your legal team. What should you do when talent or employees violate an NDA and how can you mitigate the damage? This Insight will cover practical steps
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on on Aug. 20, 2026:
* * *
Spoiler Alert: How To Manage NDA Breaches In The Entertainment Industry
Nothing is more frustrating than when a member of a project leaks key details about an upcoming film, game release, album, talent decision, or other major production. And if those moves violate a non-disclosure agreement, they create an actionable situation for your legal team. What should you do when talent or employees violate an NDA and how can you mitigate the damage? This Insight will cover practical stepsfor entertainment employers to respond when an NDA is broken.
Setting the Stage
In general terms, an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) is a contract that prohibits a party from disclosing specific confidential information shared during a business or employment relationship.
Non-disclosure pacts in general industry typically seek to protect confidential information and trade secrets: operations, pricing, margins, customer relationships, or inventions. And just like any other company, entertainment employers also have confidential business information to protect. This may include release dates, marketing budgets, and which actors or musical artists are connected to which projects. That information is often top secret until it's ready to be released, because the timing of disclosure is part of the marketing strategy.
"What we focus on is protecting not just specific data, but the reputations and privacy of the talent and clients that entertainment companies represent, manage, or work with on projects," said FP's Bob Yonowitz, a partner in the Irvine office. "But, there is also business confidential information to consider, just like any other business."
But NDAs in the entertainment industry also cover certain information unique to the entertainment context. For example, they are often tailored to address privacy protections and intimate information that an assistant or other employees may learn.
And while NDAs place legal limits on what entertainment workers can share, they are not across-the-board gag orders. What information is protected typically varies by employee and their role in the production. For example, restrictions for talent or an actor may be different than the restrictions for their assistants, the latter of which may have access to sensitive information (like the talent's address or phone number).
The real challenge is controlling the release of that information and preventing leaks. The first step is identifying what information is actually protectable: artist-related information, internal business information, or both.
Key Components of a Strong NDA
Regardless of industry, there are some common traits shared by all strong NDAs.
* Clear definitions of what is confidential (and often what is not, like publicly available information). For example, talent's personal cell numbers, assistants, children's contacts, and similar information are confidential. Part of the drafting approach is to describe the realm and the need for confidentiality, then define categories of information that capture it.
* Setting permitted uses of the information.
* Establishing the duration of the confidentiality obligation.
* Providing remedies for breach, typically injunctive relief and/or damages if someone discloses improperly.
Want to learn more about NDA's? Check out FP's Primer For Deploying Legally Sound Non-Disclosure Agreements
Practical Tips For Crafting an Entertainment Industry NDA
Putting together an NDA, especially involving talent, requires a careful balance. The key is to define very clearly what information is being protected and for how long, without disclosing the actual protected information in the agreement itself.
For example, the agreement may say not to disclose contact information, family information, activities, appointments, and similar information about company talent. Entertainment companies are entrusted with protecting the image, likeness, and activities of the talent they work with, and that information has tremendous value.
While it's important to be specific about what information is protected in the agreement, keep in mind that some states have also enacted laws restricting what can be included in NDAs, or require certain limitations. "A big mistake employers make is assuming one version works everywhere. It doesn't," said Chris Stief, Regional Managing Partner of the FP's Portland office and a partner in the Philadelphia office. "Some states require a durational limit on confidentiality provisions. Most states don't, but some do."
Some court decisions have invalidated agreements for being too restrictive in their state even if they would be enforceable elsewhere. In other states, taking a broader approach to how you describe confidential information would not necessarily be fatal for the NDA. If you've made a good-faith effort to describe the covered information, some courts will typically enforce it or narrow its application rather than throw it out altogether.
Limits and Required Carveouts
A key issue that frequently comes up with the enforcement of NDAs is whether exceptions for protected disclosures conflict with labor and anti-retaliation rights.
* An NDA cannot lawfully stop someone from reporting a crime, cooperating with law enforcement, making legally required disclosures, or giving evidence to a court.
* Moreover, overly broad confidentiality language can run afoul of federal labor law if it discourages staff from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment.
* Federal law also limits enforcement of pre-dispute NDAs and non-disparagement clauses tied to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes.
* And federal agencies can impose hefty penalties on employers who fail to include certain whistleblower protection language in their agreements.
It's also important to review state law where you're operating. Some states, like California and New York, have enacted more restrictions narrowing the use of confidentiality and settlement terms in workplace harassment and discrimination matters.
How to Respond to a Breach
When an entertainment NDA is violated, the usual outcome is a civil breach-of-contract dispute that can lead to money damages, or court orders to stop the leak, among other consequences. Remedies depend on the sensitivity of the information and the timing of the breach.
Step 1: Studios, producers, labels, and talent teams generally start by sending a cease-and-desist or demand letter requiring the employee to stop sharing information, delete posts, and sometimes return materials. These steps are less expensive and disruptive than litigation.
Step 2: If the employee ignores the cease-and-desist letter or if the information is so sensitive that you need to move immediately, consider requesting a temporary restraining order. If you go that route, especially with private or talent-related information, also consider sealing the court record to prevent further leaks by the media. There's a balancing act between speed and privacy: how quickly do you need to enforce your rights, and how much do you want to expose in the public record? Otherwise, you end up making public the very information you were trying to keep secret.
Step 3: File a civil lawsuit for breach of contract seeking:
* Compensatory damages for proven losses tied to the leak (lost revenue, added security or reshoot costs, reputational harm).
* Liquidated damages if the NDA specifies a pre-set penalty for disclosure; many entertainment NDAs include these clauses.
* Injunctive relief (a court order) to stop further disclosure and, in some cases, to force removal of already-posted material.
* Attorneys' fees and costs where the NDA includes a fee-shifting clause, which is common in industry form agreements.
Keep in mind: Every matter involving NDAs is different. Before taking any of the suggested steps outlined in this Insight please consult your attorney.
Act Quickly
Normally, if someone has already disclosed the information publicly, you probably won't be able to get it back. Remedies for these breaches are often unsatisfying. If the information is personal and it spreads quickly online, it may be impossible to fully undo the harm.
The best you can often do is stop further disclosure. In these situations, involve crisis communications or strategic communications early to get ahead of the issue and manage the message. For assistance with responding to a leak of sensitive or confidential information, reach out to FP's Reputation and Crisis Management Team.
* * *
Related People
Courtney Leyes
Partner
615.488.2902
cleyes@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Christopher P. Stief
Regional Managing Partner
207.477.7007
cstief@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Robert Yonowitz
Partner
949.798.2113
ryonowitz@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/how-to-manage-nda-breaches-in-the-entertainment-industry
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Massachusetts Employers Have New Notice Obligations for ICE I-9 Inspections - 5 Steps to Take Now
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 20, 2026:
* * *
Massachusetts Employers Have New Notice Obligations for ICE I-9 Inspections: 5 Steps to Take Now
Massachusetts employers must now notify employees within 48 hours after receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection concerning I-9 forms or other employment records. Governor Healey signed the PROTECT Act on August 5, and it took effect immediately. We'll tell you what you need to know about the new requirement, plus five steps to consider taking now.
What Happened?
Employers will need to pay
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 20, 2026:
* * *
Massachusetts Employers Have New Notice Obligations for ICE I-9 Inspections: 5 Steps to Take Now
Massachusetts employers must now notify employees within 48 hours after receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection concerning I-9 forms or other employment records. Governor Healey signed the PROTECT Act on August 5, and it took effect immediately. We'll tell you what you need to know about the new requirement, plus five steps to consider taking now.
What Happened?
Employers will need to payattention to Section 8 of the PROTECT Act. Specifically, the new Massachusetts law says, except as required by federal law, you must give written notice of the request to each employee in the state no later than 48 hours after you receive a Notice of Inspection from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding Form I-9 employment eligibility verification forms or other employment records.
* The 48-hour period starts when the notice arrives and covers requests for I-9s and "other employment records," potentially giving the notice requirement reach beyond requests limited to I-9 forms. Massachusetts employers now may face two simultaneous deadlines: the traditional three-business-day federal period for responding to an ICE Notice of Inspection, and the new Massachusetts-specific 48-hour period for notifying employees.
* It applies to "each employee," with no exceptions listed for employer size or location, and regardless of whether a particular employee's records are part of the request.
* The new law was categorized as emergency legislation, which means it took effect immediately.
* The legislation is mostly focused on keeping federal immigration enforcement agents out of courthouses, schools, and hospitals. However, all employers with Massachusetts employees are now subject to the new notice obligation.
* Practical Point: An ICE audit usually starts with a Notice of Inspection, and you generally have three business days to produce your I-9s. You'll now have 48 hours after that notice to send written notice to your applicable workforce. Notably, however, the scope and practical effect of "except as required by federal law" remain unclear absent further guidance.
5 Steps to Consider Taking Now
1. Incorporate the new 48-hour employee notice requirement into your existing ICE response plan so that a Notice of Inspection triggers both the federal response process and the new state-law notification process. This is the immediate priority for Massachusetts employers.
2. Designate a staff member or team to handle ICE notices, and draft and send the related employee notice. Implement a corresponding escalation protocol so receptionists, local HR staff, managers, and other staff know that any ICE document must immediately go to the designated legal or HR team. With a 48-hour deadline, the biggest practical risk may be a notice sitting in someone's inbox.
3. Work with counsel to draft the employee notice now, so it's ready if and when you need it.
4. Keep your I-9 records up-to-date and audit-ready. Maintain an ongoing I-9 compliance program, including periodic internal audits, appropriate corrections, standardized onboarding procedures, and training for staff responsible for I-9 compliance.
5. Contact your FP attorney as soon as you receive an ICE Notice of Inspection. Your immigration attorney can help ensure you're in full compliance.
* Further Reading: Federal immigration enforcement has been increasing recently, so you'll want to stay informed on key changes. For example, ICE reclassified a broader range of I-9 errors as "substantive" earlier this year, making more mistakes likely to result in penalties, and Congress just boosted immigration enforcement funding for the next few years, which means we're likely to see even more enforcement activity.
* * *
Related People
Brian J. Coughlin
Partner
617.532.5892
bcoughlin@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/massachusetts-employers-have-new-notice-obligations-for-ice-i-9-inspections
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Clark Hill: Colorado's AI Act -- Attacked, Delayed, and Now Amended--Part II - What You Need to Do
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 21 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
Colorado's AI Act --Attacked, Delayed, and Now Amended--Part II: What You Need to Do
Authors: Jason M. Schwent , Lauren M. Williams
In this series, we are discussing the Colorado AI Act (the "Act") as amended and as set to take effect on January 1, 2027. In the last article, we discussed who and what the Act covered. In this article, we'll dive into what those covered by the Act must do to comply.
The Act regulates the use of so-called "automated decision-making technology (ADMT)" - technology
... Show Full Article
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 21 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
Colorado's AI Act --Attacked, Delayed, and Now Amended--Part II: What You Need to Do
Authors: Jason M. Schwent , Lauren M. Williams
In this series, we are discussing the Colorado AI Act (the "Act") as amended and as set to take effect on January 1, 2027. In the last article, we discussed who and what the Act covered. In this article, we'll dive into what those covered by the Act must do to comply.
The Act regulates the use of so-called "automated decision-making technology (ADMT)" - technologythat we commonly refer to as AI. As discussed in Part I, the Act applies when ADMT is used to make "consequential decisions." Those who develop, sell, license, or substantially modify the covered ADMT are referred to under the Act as "developers." Entities who use the covered ADMT to materially influence consequential decisions are referred to as "deployers." And those who have their data used in making the ADMT determinations or who have decisions, judgements, or determinations made about them by the ADMT are the "consumers."
Now that we know the players, what does the Act require or provide for each?
What Must Developers Do?
Under the Act, developers of ADMT have certain responsibilities with respect to their ADMT. Beginning on January 1, 2027, developers of ADMT used (or intended to be used) in connection with consequential decisions must make the following available to any deployers using their ADMT:
* A general statement describing the intended uses and known harmful, or inappropriate uses of the ADMT
* A description of the categories of data, including personal data, used to train their ADMT
* Known limitations of the ADMT, including known risks and circumstances where their ADMT should not be used
* Instructions for deployer's appropriate use, monitoring, and meaningful human review where appropriate
* Information reasonably necessary for deployers of their ADMT to meet their disclosure requirements (see below) and, if information is withheld, notice to the deployer of this withholding
In addition, developers of ADMT used or intended to be used in connection with consequential decisions must provide deployers of their ADMT with notices of any material updates, intentional or substantial modifications, and "changes to the intended use of, limitations for, or risk mitigation for their ADMT within a reasonable time." The developer must keep the records related to these notices and disclosures for at least three years.
Of note, the requirements of this section only apply if the developer's ADMT is intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured, or contracted to be used to make consequential decisions or when the developer becomes aware that its ADMT is being used to make consequential decisions (so long as that use is consistent with the intended and contracted-for uses). Put differently, this appears to create an exception to these requirements for developers who sell ADMT but expressly prohibit its use in connection with the making of consequential decisions.
What Must Deployers Do?
Deployers who use ADMT materially influence the making of consequential decisions and must provide consumers with certain disclosures regarding that ADMT and the decisions being made.
The deployer must provide "clear and conspicuous" notice to consumers that the deployer uses or will use ADMT in making consequential decisions affecting the consumer. The deployer must also provide instructions for how the consumer can obtain more information about that use and decisions made. This notice must be prominent and reasonably accessible where the deployer interacts with the consumer. For example, the Act provides that the deployer could meet this requirement by providing a link or posting where the information is collected to make such consequential decision or where the transaction that impacts the consumer occurs.
If the ADMT materially influences a consequential decision that results in an adverse outcome for the consumer, the deployer must provide the following notices within thirty days of making that adverse consequential decision:
* A plain language description of the consequential decision and the role the ADMT played in making that decision
* Instructions and a "simple-to-follow" process to request additional information about the ADMT used, including the name of the ADMT, its version number, the developer's name, and the types, categories, and sources of any personal data that was used to make the decision
* Information regarding the rights consumers are provided under the Act, as described further below
Of note, the deployer's obligation to provide additional information regarding the ADMT use is limited by what information the deployer receives from the developer about the ADMT technology in connection with an adverse decision. It is not clear what obligations a deployer would have where the developer fails to provide any of the information necessary for the deployer to meet this requirement.
Consumers and Their Rights
Under the Act, when ADMT materially influences a consequential decision resulting in an adverse outcome for a consumer, that consumer may request and deployers must provide:
* Instructions for requesting the personal data used in the consequential decision and the ability to correct any factually incorrect or materially inaccurate personal data relied upon
* An opportunity for meaningful human review and reconsideration of the consequential decision
What Comes Next: Proposed Rules
The Act also requires the Colorado Attorney General's Office to promulgate rules to implement these requirements. On August 11, 2026, the Attorney General's Office filed its first set of proposed rules that begin to provide additional detail regarding how developers and deployers are expected to comply with the Act. In Part III of this series, we will take a closer look at the proposed rules and what they may mean for developers and deployers preparing for the Act's January 1, 2027, effective date.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/colorado-ai-act-developer-deployer-compliance/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
