Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Super Lawyers Honors Seven Hunton Lawyers in Washington, DC
DALLAS, Texas, June 6 -- Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Super Lawyers Honors Seven Hunton Lawyers in Washington, DC
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is proud to announce that seven of its Washington, DC-based lawyers were recognized in the most recent publication of Washington, DC Super Lawyers 2026.
Super Lawyers
Karma B. Brown, Environmental
William Brownell, Environmental Litigation
Andrea Field, Environmental
Charles H. Knauss, Environmental Litigation
Lorelie S. Masters, Insurance Coverage
Koorosh "KT" Talieh, Insurance Coverage
* * *
Rising Star
Alundai
... Show Full Article
DALLAS, Texas, June 6 -- Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Super Lawyers Honors Seven Hunton Lawyers in Washington, DC
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is proud to announce that seven of its Washington, DC-based lawyers were recognized in the most recent publication of Washington, DC Super Lawyers 2026.
Super Lawyers
Karma B. Brown, Environmental
William Brownell, Environmental Litigation
Andrea Field, Environmental
Charles H. Knauss, Environmental Litigation
Lorelie S. Masters, Insurance Coverage
Koorosh "KT" Talieh, Insurance Coverage
* * *
Rising Star
AlundaiJ. Benjamin, Insurance Coverage
* * *
Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hunton.com/news/super-lawyers-honors-seven-hunton-lawyers-in-washington-dc-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
SEC Proposes Less Public Company Compensation Disclosure
NEW YORK, June 6 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
SEC Proposes Less Public Company Compensation Disclosure
Highlights
* The SEC has proposed raising the large accelerated filer threshold to $2 billion, expanding access to scaled executive compensation disclosure.
* Non-accelerated filers could disclose compensation for three rather than five named executive officers and omit several compensation disclosures and advisory vote requirements.
* The proposal may reduce burdens, limit public compensation benchmarking data and require more focused private
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 6 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
SEC Proposes Less Public Company Compensation Disclosure
Highlights
* The SEC has proposed raising the large accelerated filer threshold to $2 billion, expanding access to scaled executive compensation disclosure.
* Non-accelerated filers could disclose compensation for three rather than five named executive officers and omit several compensation disclosures and advisory vote requirements.
* The proposal may reduce burdens, limit public compensation benchmarking data and require more focused privatediligence in M&A transactions.
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed amendments that would substantially expand the availability of scaled executive compensation disclosure and related proxy voting relief for many public companies. The proposal is part of a broader effort to reduce public-company compliance burdens and make the public markets more attractive.
If adopted, the proposal would simplify public-company filer status into two primary categories: large accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers. Companies that are not large accelerated filers generally would be permitted to use scaled executive compensation disclosure currently available to smaller reporting companies as well as certain compensation-related accommodations currently available to emerging growth companies. As a result, many more public companies could prepare shorter executive compensation disclosures and avoid several compensation-related advisory vote requirements.
The Core Compensation Relief
The proposal would make scaled executive compensation disclosure available to a much larger group of public companies. Non-accelerated filers would be permitted to disclose compensation for three rather than five named executive officers and provide two rather than three years of summary compensation table information.
Non-accelerated filers also could omit several compensation disclosures that currently apply to larger filers, including the Compensation Discussion & Analysis; pay ratio disclosure; pay-versus-performance disclosure; golden parachute disclosure; the grants of plan-based awards table, pension benefits table, option exercises and stock vested table; nonqualified deferred compensation table; and compensation risk disclosure. The proposal also would exempt non-accelerated filers from say-on-pay, say-on-pay frequency and golden parachute advisory vote requirements. For many companies, this could materially reduce the length, cost and complexity of annual proxy preparation and transaction-related compensation disclosure.
Who Gets the Relief
The compensation relief would turn on filer status. The proposal would raise the public float threshold for large accelerated filer status from $700 million to $2 billion, calculate public float using the average stock price over the last 10 trading days of the second fiscal quarter, and require a company to be subject to Exchange Act reporting for at least 60 consecutive calendar months before becoming a large accelerated filer. A company would move into or out of large accelerated filer status only after meeting, or failing to meet, the $2 billion public float threshold for two consecutive years.
As a result, many companies that are currently accelerated filers, and some companies that are currently large accelerated filers, could become non-accelerated filers and become eligible for the expanded executive compensation accommodations. The SEC estimates that approximately 19% of reporting companies would be large accelerated filers and approximately 81% would be non-accelerated filers. Accelerated filer and smaller reporting company status would be eliminated as separate regulatory categories.
For IPO candidates and newly public companies, the proposal would effectively create a five-year non-accelerated filer on-ramp before large accelerated filer status could apply, extending compensation disclosure relief beyond the current emerging growth company (EGC) framework in many cases.
Less Disclosure, Fewer Benchmarks
Companies should not assume that "permitted to omit" means "should omit." Investor expectations, proxy advisor policies, institutional shareholder engagement, compensation committee governance practices, capital markets activity and peer-company disclosure practices may support retaining selected voluntary compensation disclosures.
The same relief that reduces proxy burdens may also reduce public compensation benchmarking data. If many peer companies provide scaled disclosure, compensation committees may have fewer public datapoints on compensation philosophy, performance metrics, equity awards, severance arrangements, change-in-control payments and compensation for executives beyond the top three NEOs. Companies may need to rely more heavily on compensation consultant databases and proprietary surveys.
M&A Compensation Diligence
For companies active in M&A, the proposal could reduce public information relevant to compensation and benefits diligence. Buyers may need more focused private diligence on equity awards, employment agreements, severance arrangements, retention plans, deferred compensation, Section 280G exposure and change-in-control payments. Sellers using scaled disclosure should be prepared for more detailed diligence requests and may consider maintaining selected voluntary compensation disclosures to reduce diligence friction and support valuation.
Administration Change Risk
The proposal has an administration-sensitive dimension. It is deregulatory in orientation and would reduce mandatory executive compensation and related proxy disclosure for a large number of companies. If finalized substantially as proposed, a future SEC under a different administration could revisit the rules through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The SEC states that if finalized as proposed, the action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
A full repeal would not be automatic, but targeted recalibration is plausible. For compensation planning, the most important areas to monitor would be the scaled executive compensation accommodations and the proposed elimination of say-on-pay, say-on-pay frequency and golden parachute advisory vote requirements for non-accelerated filers.
Companies therefore should avoid building disclosure controls and compensation governance practices on the assumption that all relief, if finalized, will be permanent. A prudent approach is to identify which accommodations would produce meaningful burden reduction while preserving the ability to restore fuller compensation disclosure if investor expectations, transaction needs or future rulemaking developments warrant it.
What This Does Not Change
* EGC status would remain. Because EGC status is statutory, the SEC is not proposing to eliminate it, although separate reliance on EGC compensation accommodations may become less important.
* FPIs using FPI forms generally would be excluded. FPIs using Form 20-F or Form 40-F generally would not be able to rely on the proposed non-accelerated filer compensation accommodations.
* Transaction disclosure would still require judgment. Even where golden parachute disclosure or advisory votes are not required for non-accelerated filers, companies should continue to assess compensation-related disclosure in M&A and other transaction documents under applicable materiality and antifraud standards.
What Companies Should Do Now
Companies should assess how they would be classified under the proposed thresholds, whether to submit comments by July 20, 2026, and which executive compensation accommodations they would actually use if the rules are adopted. Companies that may become non-accelerated filers should consider whether to preserve selected voluntary compensation disclosures for investor relations, proxy advisor review, compensation committee governance, peer comparability, capital markets activity, M&A readiness and potential future rule changes.
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Wachsstock, Charles
Charles Wachsstock
Partner
New York
charles.wachsstock@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6047
* * *
DeCecchis, Erin
Erin DeCecchis
Counsel
New York
erin.dececchis@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6450
* * *
Rosett, Alexis
Alexis Rosett
Associate
New York
alexis.rosett@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6125
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/sec-proposes-less-public-company-compensation-disclosure
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ryan Fayhee Calls for Release of Wrongfully Detained American Journalist in Iran on CBS Evening News
WASHINGTON, June 6 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Ryan Fayhee Calls for Release of Wrongfully Detained American Journalist in Iran on CBS Evening News
Akin national security & global investigations partner Ryan Fayhee appeared on CBS Evening News to discuss the case of wrongfully detained Iranian-American journalist Reza Valizadeh. Watch the clip here.
Ryan is also quoted by CBS News in an article titled, "From inside Iran's Evin Prison, journalist Reza Valizadeh pleads for medical help for him and other American captives." The article examines Valizadeh's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 6 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Ryan Fayhee Calls for Release of Wrongfully Detained American Journalist in Iran on CBS Evening News
Akin national security & global investigations partner Ryan Fayhee appeared on CBS Evening News to discuss the case of wrongfully detained Iranian-American journalist Reza Valizadeh. Watch the clip here.
Ryan is also quoted by CBS News in an article titled, "From inside Iran's Evin Prison, journalist Reza Valizadeh pleads for medical help for him and other American captives." The article examines Valizadeh'srecent plea to the U.S. government to obtain medical help for him and other Americans detained in Iran's Evin Prison.
Ryan emphasizes the need for the U.S. government to acknowledge that Iran is holding U.S. citizens and to ensure their release is being discussed as part of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.
"I'm hopeful that they'll begin to share with the public what steps they're taking to recover Reza," he said.
Ryan has worked pro bono on behalf of Reza, who has been wrongfully detained in Iran since September 2024.
* * *
Original text here:
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Oregon Expands Protections for Immigration Status in the Workplace
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 6 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 5, 2026, by senior counsel Bruce Buchanan and associate Colleen O. Munoz:
* * *
Oregon Expands Protections for Immigration Status in the Workplace
Oregon House Bill 4111, effective June 5, 2026, reflects Oregon's continued shift toward protecting immigrant workers by limiting how a change in immigration status can be used in the workplace and how undocumented status can be used in litigation, while explicitly integrating these protections into the state's existing employment discrimination framework
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 6 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 5, 2026, by senior counsel Bruce Buchanan and associate Colleen O. Munoz:
* * *
Oregon Expands Protections for Immigration Status in the Workplace
Oregon House Bill 4111, effective June 5, 2026, reflects Oregon's continued shift toward protecting immigrant workers by limiting how a change in immigration status can be used in the workplace and how undocumented status can be used in litigation, while explicitly integrating these protections into the state's existing employment discrimination frameworkunder Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 659A. The law creates a clear prohibition on employers' taking adverse action against employees who update--or attempt to update--their "personal information" following a lawful change in work authorization status, effectively recognizing such updates as a protected activity. This measure is designed to ensure that workers are not penalized for maintaining compliance with federal law or for improving their legal status, while still preserving employers' ability to meet federal employment verification requirements.
While the phrase "personal information following a lawful change in work authorization status" is not defined, a similar law in California, which also uses the phrase "personal information," provides insight into the meaning of this phrase. In 2015, the California legislature amended the law to define "personal information" as "name" and "Social Security number." The California amendment is instructive for how Oregon might apply meaning to the phrase.
Legal Effects of New Legislation
At a practical level, the statute places increased emphasis on consistent and neutral administration of onboarding, reverification, and personnel record processes, as routine immigration-related compliance activities may now give rise to discrimination or retaliation claims if not carefully managed. Employers should ensure that policies, documentation practices, and training clearly distinguish between lawful compliance measures and actions that could be perceived as punitive or inconsistent. The change underscores the importance of administering personnel record processes in a neutral and consistent manner, but it also signals a broader legislative intent to encourage employees to engage with compliance processes without fear of reprisal.
An example of a person/employee receiving a lawful change in work authorization status is when an undocumented employee receives an Employment Authorization Document (EAD or work permit) through a U visa. That person was previously undocumented but may have provided their employer with a fraudulent green card to secure employment. As another example, an undocumented employee may receive a green card through marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an adult child petition for their parent's green card. In both examples, the employee has changed their status and has received their own Social Security card and/or has their true name on their EAD or green card.
Why does the legislature want to provide this protection to employees? Without such legislation, an employer that has and enforces an "Honesty" policy, may lawfully discharge the employee for previously being dishonest in providing a fraudulent document(s), false name, or false Social Security number. Although many employers refrain from enforcing any "Honesty" policy against anyone presenting papers that appear genuine, there are still some employers that want to enforce their "Honesty" policy. This statute effectively prevents enforcement in circumstances such as those described here.
Legislation's Effect on Litigation
HB 4111 also has significant implications for employment litigation by sharply limiting the admissibility of immigration status evidence in civil proceedings. The law generally bars such evidence unless it is essential to proving a claim or defense, and requires advance confidential motions and in camera judicial review before such evidence may be introduced. Additionally, because these protections are incorporated into ORS Chapter 659A, claims arising from the statute are litigated within Oregon's established employment discrimination framework, including access to compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and jury trials. Together, these changes are likely to reduce the role of immigration status in discovery and trial strategy while increasing employer exposure under traditional retaliation and discrimination theories, placing a premium on well-documented, compliance-driven employment decisions and careful consideration in advance of evidentiary issues related to immigration status in litigation.
Employers are encouraged to consult with employment and immigration counsel if these issues arise at work or in litigation.
* * *
Authors
Colleen O. Munoz
Associate
Portland
* * *
Bruce Buchanan
Senior Counsel
Nashville
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/oregon-expands-protections-immigration-status-workplace
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: New York Poised to Require Employee Access to Personnel Files - 7 Things Employers Need to Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 6 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 5, 2026:
* * *
New York Poised to Require Employee Access to Personnel Files: 7 Things Employers Need to Know
New York employers should prepare for significant new obligations concerning employee access to personnel files. The New York Legislature just passed a bill that could soon grant current and former employees broad rights to obtain copies of personnel records, require employers to notify employees when certain negative information is placed in their files, impose personnel-record retention obligations,
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 6 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 5, 2026:
* * *
New York Poised to Require Employee Access to Personnel Files: 7 Things Employers Need to Know
New York employers should prepare for significant new obligations concerning employee access to personnel files. The New York Legislature just passed a bill that could soon grant current and former employees broad rights to obtain copies of personnel records, require employers to notify employees when certain negative information is placed in their files, impose personnel-record retention obligations,and prohibit retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under the law. The bill would also apply to certain personnel records maintained by third-party vendors, creating additional compliance challenges for employers that rely on outsourced HR, payroll, or personnel-management functions. If signed by Governor Hochul, the law would take effect 60 days later. Here are the seven key takeaways for employers and seven steps you should consider taking now to prepare.
7 Key Takeaways for Employers
1. Current and Former Employees Are Covered
Both current and former employees would be covered under the law. As a result, if the law is enacted, employers should expect that personnel-file requests may come not only from active employees, but also from former employees, including those involved in separation negotiations, agency charges, litigation, or post-employment disputes.
2. "Personnel Record" Includes a Wide Range of Employment Documents
The bill defines "personnel record" broadly. It includes records kept by an employer that identify an employee and are used or may be used with respect to the employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action. The bill identifies job applications, resumes, job titles and descriptions, pay and compensation information, start dates, performance evaluations, written warnings, probationary-period lists, waivers signed by the employee, termination notices, and other disciplinary records, as falling within the definition of personnel records. Certain personal information about individuals other than the employee - where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy - is excluded.
The bill expressly extends to personnel records maintained by third parties that have contractual agreements with the employer to keep or supply such records. Employers should therefore inventory records maintained by HR vendors, payroll providers, professional employer organizations, benefits administrators, or other service providers to determine whether those records may be subject to employee requests.
3. Employers Will Have Short Deadlines to Produce Records
Unlike the laws in some states that permit only inspection, the bill would require employers to provide employees with a copy of their personnel records upon request. Upon receiving a written request, employers would have just five business days to provide the copy, at no cost to the employee.
Employers would not need to allow an employee to review personnel records more than twice per calendar year, although a review prompted by the placement of negative information would not count against that annual limit.
4. Employers Will Need to Notify Employees of Negative Personnel File Entries
The bill would require an employer to notify an employee within 10 days of placing in the employee's personnel record any information that may be used to negatively affect the employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility of disciplinary action.
5. Employees Will Have a Right to Respond to Disputed Information
If an employee disagrees with information contained in a personnel record, the employer and employee may agree to remove or correct the information. If no agreement is reached, the employee would be allowed to submit a written statement explaining the employee's position. That statement would then become part of the personnel record and included if the disputed information is transmitted to a third party, so long as the original information remains part of the file.
If an employer places information in a personnel record that the employer knew or should have known to be false, the employee would be able to seek expungement through a collective bargaining agreement, other personnel procedures, or judicial process.
6. Retention and Policy-Maintenance Obligations
Employers would be required to retain the complete personnel record of each employee from the date of employment until three years after termination, without deletions or expungement of information. Employers that maintain written personnel policies would also be required to continuously maintain those policies at the office where personnel matters are administered.
7. Violations Could Trigger Fines and Attorney General Enforcement
Violation of the law could result in fines ranging from $500 to $2,500, with enforcement by the New York Attorney General. The bill would also prohibit employers from discharging, threatening, penalizing, discriminating against, or otherwise retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under law.
7 Employer Action Items to Prepare
Governor Hochul must still decide whether to sign or veto the legislation. If enacted, New York would join a growing number of states that provide employees with statutory rights to access personnel records. Although the bill has not yet been signed into law, employers may want to begin assessing their readiness now given the proposed five-business-day production deadline and other operational requirements. Employers should start preparing for the reality that personnel files may soon be an open book in New York. Here are seven steps to consider taking now:
1. Review Personnel-File Practices and Record Locations: Identify what documents are maintained as part of employee personnel files, where those documents are stored, who has access to them, and whether any responsive records are maintained outside the employer's primary HR system. This review should include records maintained by managers, legal, payroll, benefits, third-party vendors, and any entities acting as agents of the employer.
2. Create a Written Request and Response Process: Because the bill would require production within five business days after a written request, you should consider establishing a standardized intake and response process. This may include a designated email address or form for requests, an internal escalation protocol, a checklist for identifying responsive records, and a quality-control review before production.
3. Prepare a Negative-Information Notice Protocol: Develop a process for identifying when information placed in a personnel file could negatively affect employment, promotion, transfer, compensation, or disciplinary outcomes. Managers and HR staff should be trained to provide timely notice within the proposed 10-day period and document when notice was provided.
4. Update Record-Retention Policies: Confirm that personnel records are retained for at least three years after employment ends. Avoid informal deletion, expungement, or alteration.
5. Audit Third-Party Vendor Agreements: Because records maintained by certain third parties may be deemed personnel records under the bill, you should evaluate whether vendors possess covered records and whether contractual arrangements permit timely retrieval of those records. Contracts with HR providers, payroll companies, PEOs, staffing agencies, benefits administrators, and document-management vendors should be reviewed to ensure that records can be retrieved quickly enough to meet the five-business-day production deadline.
6. Train HR, Managers, and Employee Relations Teams: Train staff who create, maintain, or transmit employee records on the bill's requirements, including the definition of personnel records, the notice obligation for negative information, employee response rights, retention requirements, and anti-retaliation protections. You may also wish to review manager training regarding performance documentation, as records used in connection with promotion, compensation, performance management, or discipline may ultimately be subject to employee review.
7. Coordinate with Counsel Before Producing Sensitive Records: Personnel files may contain privileged communications, confidential business information, medical information, or information relating to other employees. You should consider developing a review protocol to assess whether any information should be withheld or redacted, including information of a personal nature about someone other than the employee where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this bill and any further developments in this area as they occur, so you should ensure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to gather the most up-to-date information. If you have any questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our New York City office.
* * *
Related People
Melissa Camire
Partner
212.899.9965
mcamire@fisherphillips.com
* * *
William O. Doheny
Associate
212.899.9988
wdoheny@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-york-poised-to-require-employee-access-to-personnel-files
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: 3rd Circuit Offers Clarity on Data Privacy and Replay Code - 3 Proactive Steps for Your Business Following Dual Rulings
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 6 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 5, 2026:
* * *
3rd Circuit Offers Clarity on Data Privacy and Replay Code: 3 Proactive Steps for Your Business Following Dual Rulings
Over the last few years, the plaintiffs' bar has frequently cited businesses' use of session replay code (SRC) on websites as one basis for the flood of website tracking litigation against businesses across the country. SRCs allow domain hosts to track nearly every element of a website visitor's activity - from mouse movements to clicks, scrolls, zooms, and keystrokes
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 6 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 5, 2026:
* * *
3rd Circuit Offers Clarity on Data Privacy and Replay Code: 3 Proactive Steps for Your Business Following Dual Rulings
Over the last few years, the plaintiffs' bar has frequently cited businesses' use of session replay code (SRC) on websites as one basis for the flood of website tracking litigation against businesses across the country. SRCs allow domain hosts to track nearly every element of a website visitor's activity - from mouse movements to clicks, scrolls, zooms, and keystrokes- allowing the host to effectively recreate the user's visit to their website. Since SRCs typically operate without a visitor's consent, a wave of class action lawsuits has been filed alleging that SRCs effectively constitute digital wiretapping since they intercept and log behavior in real time. Although there have been mixed decisions across the country on motions to dismiss such claims, a pair of recent decisions from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals provides important guidance that can help businesses to avoid and defeat such claims. This Insight will cover everything you need to know about the rulings and what you can take away for your business.
Data Disclosure Doesn't Always Amount to a Tort
Plaintiffs in both cases before the 3rd Circuit alleged that businesses using SRC on their websites violated the common-law torts of disclosure of private information and intrusion upon seclusion. But the court tossed the cases, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show any injury from the technology and lacked standing to sue.
In one case against a defunct budget airline, the court ruled that the tort of disclosure of private information was not applicable because the information collected by the SRC was not used to embarrass or humiliate the plaintiffs - a necessary element of such claim. The judges also held that the airline did not commit intrusion upon seclusion because (i) the plaintiffs voluntarily provided the information to the SRC, (ii) their information was anonymized, and (iii) there is a limited expectation of privacy on the Internet.
Similarly, in another case involving outdoor retailers, the court determined that "mouse clicks and movements, keystrokes, and search terms" didn't amount to sensitive information and couldn't be linked to the plaintiffs' identities. Thus, the plaintiffs in this case couldn't plausibly allege that disclosing this information caused "embarrassment or humiliation."
In this case, however, the 3rd Circuit went a step further and clarified that the mere collection of sensitive financial information - without subsequent revelation - fails to meet the threshold needed to prove disclosure of private information.
For individuals who merely perused the retailers' websites without inputting any personal information, the court held that their activity on the website generated no greater expectation of privacy than a shopper would have while walking the aisles of a brick-and-mortar store. Nevertheless, once a visitor to the website entered their complete credit or debit card numbers, the recording of that information by the SRC did qualify as an intrusion upon seclusion, since the sensitivity of financial information makes any nonconsensual interception particularly harmful.
What's the Impact of This Ruling?
It's important to keep in mind that the 3rd Circuit's decision is only binding on the states within its jurisdiction, which include Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the US Virgin Islands. But, within this circuit, the Court has shown consistency in ruling against plaintiffs in related wiretapping and privacy disputes. For example, in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., the Court held that simply browsing an online retailer's website without entering sensitive information failed to rise to the level of an injury-in-fact.
And for those outside the jurisdictional purview of the 3rd Circuit, these holdings can be used by other courts as persuasive authorities. The 9th Circuit has already issued a similar ruling in Popa v. Microsoft Corporation, in which it held that the routine use of web-analytics and session-replay tools does not run afoul of wiretapping laws or yield "concrete" harm. Whether other courts borrow of these precedents, and how the Supreme Court ultimately rules if it takes up a case addressing these issues, will be important considerations for how website operators should conduct themselves moving forward.
What This May Mean for Your Business
The 3rd Circuit's rulings that the mere recording of a user's activity on a company's website, absent additional factors, does not automatically constitute digital wiretapping is a major win for domain hosts. It provides hosts with the ability to control the liability they may face from employing SRCs based on what type of information they gather and how that information is used. Following this ruling, you should work with legal counsel and consider reviewing:
* What type of information is your SRC collecting?
It's important to audit and frequently review the types of information collected by your SRC. Merely recording a user's "movements" on your platform likely will not give rise to a tortious claim. Even if a consumer is accessing your websites from the confines of their home, the 3rd Circuit is inclined to view their activity on your website like a shopper moving through a physical store. In the same way that the physical shopper has no expectation of privacy vis-a-vis their movements, the website visitor should not, either.
* Would a reasonable person consider the information gathered by your SRC to be highly sensitive?
While mere movement within a web domain is not inherently sensitive, the collection of financial information is. This means that before a user inputs financial data, one of two things must occur: the website (i) must obtain consent to continue utilizing SRCs or (ii) terminate the use of SRCs if the user is not given the choice to opt-in to the collection of this information. The same is likely true of other categories of sensitive personal data, including health-related information.
* How can you design an SRC-compliant website from the outset?
In its decisions, the 3rd Circuit specifically called out the "surreptitious" nature of SRCs, and the fact that websites often do not give users the option to opt-out, nor does the average user even know that SRCs are embedded in the websites they visit. It is this element of secrecy that creates potential legal liability for website operators. As such, in the same way that cookie banners have come to be viewed as a means of limiting exposure for tracking a user's Internet activity, it may be prudent for companies using SRCs on their website to consider deploying similar disclosure notices.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information direct to your inbox. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Data Protection and Cybersecurity Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Risa B. Boerner, CIPP/US, CIPM
Partner
610.230.2132
rboerner@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Logan S. Booth, CIPP/US
Of Counsel
720.644.2889
lbooth@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Catherine M. Contino
Associate
610.230.6109
ccontino@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/3rd-circuit-offers-clarity-on-data-privacy-and-replay-code
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
DC Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Judgment-Recognition Claim Against Guinea
NEW YORK, June 6 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
DC Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Judgment-Recognition Claim Against Guinea
Highlights
* D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Global Voice's judgment-recognition claim, holding that the FSIA does not permit enforcement of foreign judgments confirming arbitral awards.
* Decision preserves Hughes Hubbard's district court victory for Guinea on sovereign immunity grounds, reinforcing limits of the FSIA's arbitration and waiver exceptions.
-
Hughes Hubbard secured an appellate ruling affirming dismissal of a
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 6 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
DC Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Judgment-Recognition Claim Against Guinea
Highlights
* D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Global Voice's judgment-recognition claim, holding that the FSIA does not permit enforcement of foreign judgments confirming arbitral awards.
* Decision preserves Hughes Hubbard's district court victory for Guinea on sovereign immunity grounds, reinforcing limits of the FSIA's arbitration and waiver exceptions.
-
Hughes Hubbard secured an appellate ruling affirming dismissal of ajudgment-recognition claim against the Republic of Guinea arising from a more than $21 million arbitral award.
The dispute stems from a May 2009 agreement between Spanish telecommunications firm Global Voice Group (GVG) and Guinea's telecommunications provider, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Guinea, which led to ICC arbitration in 2016 over unpaid invoices and an award exceeding $21 million. GVG later sought to enforce both the award and a related French court judgment in U.S. court in 2022.
In February 2025, Hughes Hubbard won dismissal of the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with the court holding that Guinea was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and was therefore immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
On May 29, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that dismissal as to the judgment-recognition claim, holding that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction under the FSIA to enforce a foreign judgment confirming an arbitral award, and rejecting arguments under both the arbitration and waiver exceptions. The court separately remanded the award-confirmation claim for further analysis, emphasizing that it was not deciding whether jurisdiction exists over that claim.
"We would also note the court stated in its decision, 'We do not conclude that the district court had jurisdiction of Global Voice's award-confirmation claim. We hold only that the district court should have applied the inquiry set forth in TIG Insurance in ruling on Guinea's motion to dismiss,'" the Hughes Hubbard team told Law360.
Law360 and IAReporter reported on the decision.
The Hughes Hubbard team representing the Republic of Guinea includes Sena Agbayissah, Carter Rosekrans, Winthrop Jordan and Kayahan Cantekin.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/news/dc-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-judgment-recognition-claim-against-guinea
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
