Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Maria Carr Featured in Several DailyDAC Articles Demystifying Chapter 11 Cases
CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 24 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Maria Carr featured in several DailyDAC articles demystifying Chapter 11 cases
Attorney Maria Carr has recently been featured in multiple articles published by Daily DAC, Business Bankruptcy, where she provided insight on key issues shaping today's bankruptcy landscape.
In March, Maria contributed commentary to an article examining a critical question that arises when a company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: how the business continues operating throughout the restructuring process. Her insights highlight
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, March 24 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Maria Carr featured in several DailyDAC articles demystifying Chapter 11 cases
Attorney Maria Carr has recently been featured in multiple articles published by Daily DAC, Business Bankruptcy, where she provided insight on key issues shaping today's bankruptcy landscape.
In March, Maria contributed commentary to an article examining a critical question that arises when a company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: how the business continues operating throughout the restructuring process. Her insights highlightthe practical and strategic considerations companies must navigate to maintain stability during this period. Read the full article here.
At the end of last month, Maria was also featured discussing Chapter 11 plans, often considered the centerpiece of a bankruptcy case. As she explains, a confirmed plan ultimately determines how creditors are treated, the timing and structure of payments, and what the reorganized business will look like moving forward. Read the article here.
Earlier in the month, Maria shared her perspective on lift stay motions, helping demystify one of the most powerful tools in bankruptcy law. She explained how the automatic stay provides immediate relief to debtors, allowing them time to stabilize operations and assess their financial position. Read more here.
Maria's continued contributions reflect her deep knowledge of bankruptcy law and her commitment to helping clients navigate complex financial challenges
* * *
Maria Carr
Member
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/maria-carr-featured-in-several-dailydac-articles-demistifying-chapter-11
[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]
In Law360, Life Sciences Attorneys Examine FDA Draft Guidance on FDA Plausible Mechanism Framework for Individualized Therapies
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Law360, Life Sciences Attorneys Examine FDA Draft Guidance on FDA Plausible Mechanism Framework for Individualized Therapies
In a Law360 article, life sciences regulatory & compliance partner Joshua Oyster, counsel Beth Weinman and associates Austin Laroche and Jessica Bushman analyzed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance that details a new regulatory approach -- the plausible mechanism framework -- for the development of individualized therapies.
The
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Law360, Life Sciences Attorneys Examine FDA Draft Guidance on FDA Plausible Mechanism Framework for Individualized Therapies
In a Law360 article, life sciences regulatory & compliance partner Joshua Oyster, counsel Beth Weinman and associates Austin Laroche and Jessica Bushman analyzed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance that details a new regulatory approach -- the plausible mechanism framework -- for the development of individualized therapies.
Thearticle examines key takeaways from the draft guidance, and identifies significant questions that remain for biopharmaceutical companies and investors interested in the development of personalized therapies.
The authors note that while the draft guidance reflects yet another expression of the FDA's focus on accelerating rare-disease drug development, the numerous important -- yet unresolved -- questions make it difficult to predict how plausible the new framework will prove to be in practice.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/03/in-law360-life-sciences-attorneys-examine-fda-draft-guidance-on-fda-plausible-mechanism-framework
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]
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]
White & Case advises dMY Squared on business combination with Horizon Quantum
NEW YORK, March 23 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- White and Case, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
White & Case advises dMY Squared on business combination with Horizon Quantum
*
Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised dMY Squared Technology Group, Inc. (dMY) (OTC: DMYY, DMYY and DMYYW), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company sponsored by dMY Technology Group, on the completion of its business combination with Horizon Quantum Computing Pte. Ltd. (Horizon Quantum) and the listing of the combined company on Nasdaq.
On March 20, 2026, the combined company's
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 23 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- White and Case, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
White & Case advises dMY Squared on business combination with Horizon Quantum
*
Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised dMY Squared Technology Group, Inc. (dMY) (OTC: DMYY, DMYY and DMYYW), a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company sponsored by dMY Technology Group, on the completion of its business combination with Horizon Quantum Computing Pte. Ltd. (Horizon Quantum) and the listing of the combined company on Nasdaq.
On March 20, 2026, the combined company'sClass A ordinary shares and warrants began trading on Nasdaq under the ticker symbols HQ and HQWWW, respectively.
Horizon Quantum is building software infrastructure that empowers developers to use quantum computing to solve the world's toughest computational problems. The closing of the business combination provides Horizon Quantum with gross proceeds of approximately US$120 million, before transaction expenses, which the company plans to use to accelerate its investments in research and development, strengthen its hardware testbed and further advance its integrated development environment Triple Alpha.
The White & Case team was led by Capital Markets partners Joel Rubinstein and Jonathan Rochwarger, and included partners Scott Levi (all in New York) and Daniel Nussen (Los Angeles), and associates Melissa Curvino and Ryan Sharpstene (both in New York); M&A partners Neeta Sahadev (Silicon Valley) and Tzi Yang Seow (Singapore), and associates Edward Ernst (New York) Nicholas Choo and Victor Lim (both in Singapore); Employment, Compensation & Benefits partners Sasha Belinkie (New York) and Nicholas Greenacre (London), and associate Shehnai Arora (London); and Tax partner Scott Fryman and associate Daniel Park (both in New York). Law clerk Hopper Murray (New York) also advised on the matter.
Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.
***
Original text here: https://www.whitecase.com/news/press-release/white-case-advises-dmy-squared-business-combination-horizon-quantum
Goodwin Guides Pharmakon Advisors on $250 Million Debt Facility With Zenas BioPharma
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 23 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Goodwin Guides Pharmakon Advisors on $250 Million Debt Facility With Zenas BioPharma
*
The Intellectual Property team advised Pharmakon Advisors on entering into a five-year, up to $250 million senior secured debt facility with Zenas BioPharma, who are developing a bifunctional monoclonal antibody drug product for the treatment of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD). The committed capital will be available to Zenas in five tranches with the first $75 million issued at closing,
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 23 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Goodwin Guides Pharmakon Advisors on $250 Million Debt Facility With Zenas BioPharma
*
The Intellectual Property team advised Pharmakon Advisors on entering into a five-year, up to $250 million senior secured debt facility with Zenas BioPharma, who are developing a bifunctional monoclonal antibody drug product for the treatment of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD). The committed capital will be available to Zenas in five tranches with the first $75 million issued at closing,and an additional $175 million available to be drawn and subject to certain obexelimab regulatory and commercial conditions. Investment funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors are entitled to receive mid-single-digit interest payments over the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR).
Pharmakon Advisors, LP is the investment manager of the BioPharma Credit funds. Established in 2009, Pharmakon has raised a total of US$4.9 billion, principally across five private funds and a publicly traded UK Trust. BioPharma Credit PLC was listed on the London Stock Exchange in March 2017 and has raised a total of $1.4 billion in capital. Pharmakon has committed $9.8 billion across 57 investments in companies in the life sciences.
The Goodwin team was led by Carl Morales, Kevin Grumberg, Maria Smith, Tyler Garaffa, and Katherine Beck.
For more information on the deal, please read the press release.
***
Original text here: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/03/announcements-practices-ip-goodwin-guides-pharmakon-advisors
