Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Japanese Cabinet Approves APPI Amendments - 7 Steps for Businesses in AI and Data-Driven Sectors
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
Japanese Cabinet Approves APPI Amendments: 7 Steps for Businesses in AI and Data-Driven Sectors
Japan may soon allow broader use of personal data for AI training, marking a pivotal shift in the country's data protection framework. The Japanese Cabinet approved a bill on April 6 to significantly amend the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI), and the proposed amendments have been submitted to the national legislature of Japan. For businesses, these developments represent
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
Japanese Cabinet Approves APPI Amendments: 7 Steps for Businesses in AI and Data-Driven Sectors
Japan may soon allow broader use of personal data for AI training, marking a pivotal shift in the country's data protection framework. The Japanese Cabinet approved a bill on April 6 to significantly amend the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI), and the proposed amendments have been submitted to the national legislature of Japan. For businesses, these developments representboth a substantial opportunity and a corresponding recalibration of compliance obligations. Here's what you need to know about the amendments and seven steps you can take now to prepare.
Quick Overview
To promote "Data Free Flow with Trust," the Japanese government has introduced amendments to the APPI, introducing a more flexible, risk-based, utilization-driven framework. The revised regime expands the lawful use of data - particularly for statistical analysis, AI development, and related activities - by introducing broader exceptions to consent requirements, while simultaneously strengthening targeted safeguards, including those related to biometric data and transparency in data sharing.
The amendments significantly expand lawful data use for businesses, particularly in AI and analytics, while maintaining structured accountability and regulatory oversight. The proposed amendments have been approved by the Japanese Cabinet and submitted to the national legislature of Japan (the Diet), Japan's bicameral parliament.
What Happens Next?
The bill will be considered by both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, where it may be debated, amended, and ultimately put to a vote. Once passed, the amendments will be sent to the Emperor for formal promulgation, after which it becomes law. The law may specify an effective date or require additional implementing rules, such as Cabinet orders or guidance from the Personal Information Protection Commission (PPC), before it fully takes effect. Read on to learn about the key changes.
7 APPI Key Amendments for 2026
1. Relaxation of Consent Requirements. Across multiple provisions, the amendments introduce broader exceptions to the consent requirement. Personal data may now be collected, used, or transferred without consent where there is a "reasonable justification," including circumstances where processing is necessary for contractual performance or where the nature of the data use is clearly not contrary to the individual's interests.
2. Introduction of the "Statistical Processing" Exception. A new statutory concept of "statistical processing" has been formalized, permitting the use of large datasets, including potentially sensitive data, for purposes such as statistical analysis, pattern recognition, and AI model training, provided that the risk to individual rights is low. Organizations are required to publicly disclose the purpose and scope of such processing, and use is strictly limited to the stated statistical objectives.
3. Expansion of Regulated Data Categories. The amendments introduce the concept of "contactable personal information," expressly bringing within scope identifiers such as addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and device-related identifiers that enable communication with an individual. This expands regulatory coverage beyond traditional "personal information," ensuring that data that may not directly identify an individual, but can facilitate contact or linkage, is also covered. For businesses, this increases the volume and types of data subject to regulation and requires broader data mapping and classification efforts.
4. Specific Protocols for Biometric Data. A new concept of "specific biometric personal information" has been introduced, covering data derived from physical characteristics that can identify individuals (such as facial features, DNA, voice patterns, gait, and fingerprints or palm prints). Businesses must provide prior notice or ensure public accessibility of key information, such as purpose of use and data content before processing such data, reflecting heightened transparency obligations while acknowledging the growing use of biometric technologies in commercial and public-sector contexts.
5. Relaxation of Breach Notification Requirements. The amendments allow organizations to refrain from notifying affected individuals where a data breach is assessed as posing a low risk to individual rights and interests. While this reduces unnecessary notification burdens, it places greater emphasis on the organization's ability to conduct and document a defensible risk assessment, as the determination of "low risk" may be subject to regulatory scrutiny.
6. Enhanced Accountability in Third-Party Data Transfers. New provisions permit broader data sharing with third parties without consent in certain circumstances, particularly for statistical purposes or where reasonable grounds exist and individual harm is unlikely. However, organizations are required to verify certain information prior to transferring personal data to third parties, including the identity of the recipient and the intended purpose of use. This requirement reinforces accountability across data-sharing arrangements and aims to ensure that downstream processing remains aligned with the original purpose and regulatory expectations.
7. Strengthening of Regulatory Oversight and Enforcement. The amendments restructure supervisory provisions and expand the powers of the PPC, including authority to conduct inspections, issue corrective orders, and impose administrative monetary penalties. Where data is used under the new exceptions (such as for statistical processing), organizations are required to publicly disclose detailed information about their activities, including purpose, scope, and participating entities.
How the 2026 APPI Amendments Affect Businesses
The 2026 amendments significantly reshape the compliance landscape for businesses operating in Japan, particularly those engaged in data-driven and AI-related activities.
* Lower Barriers to Data Utilization. The amendments expand the circumstances in which personal data may be used without prior consent, creating meaningful opportunities for companies to access and leverage larger datasets for analytics, product development, and AI training.
* New Risk-Based Framework. Businesses are now expected to assess whether their data processing activities pose a low risk to individuals and to justify their decisions accordingly.
* Broader Use of Sensitive Data. The framework permits broader use of sensitive data, including health and biometric information, under certain conditions. This heightens exposure to reputational and ethical risks, particularly where public expectations exceed legal requirements.
* Increased Internal Controls and Compliance Obligations. While certain procedural requirements are relaxed, businesses are required to implement more sophisticated internal controls, including risk classification, transparency measures, and ongoing monitoring of data use.
Don't Worry, Be APPI: 7 Action Steps for Businesses
In light of these changes, businesses should consider taking the following seven practical steps:
1. Adopt a Risk-Based Compliance Framework. Establish a structured system to evaluate data processing risks. Define low, medium, and high risks as they relate to your operations.
2. Maintain Robust Documentation. Keep comprehensive internal records demonstrating why specific data uses fall within permitted exceptions. Well-documented reasoning will be critical in the event of regulatory review.
3. Enhance Data Transparency Mechanisms. Where required, publicly disclose key information about data processing activities, including purposes, scope, and involved entities. Ensure disclosures are clear, accessible, and regularly updated.
4. Strengthen AI Data Governance. Implement controls over training data sources, including source verification, anonymization where appropriate, and restrictions on secondary use. Ensure that AI systems are aligned with disclosed purposes.
5. Reassess Use of Sensitive and Biometric Data. Conduct internal impact assessments before deploying use cases involving health or biometric data, taking into account both legal and reputational risks.
6. Conduct Risk Assessments Regularly. Periodically evaluate data processing activities to ensure continued alignment with stated purposes and permissible scope under applicable law.
7. Consult with Counsel. Your attorney can help you prepare for significant changes and build your compliance plan.
Conclusion
We'll continue to monitor developments and provide the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Tokyo office or International Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Kile E. Marks, FIP, CIPP/US, CIPM, CIPT
Associate
kmarks@fisherphillips.com
858.964.1582
* * *
Nan Sato, CIPP/E, CIPP/C
Partner
nsato@fisherphillips.com
+81-3-6892-5595
* * *
Xuan Zhou, CIPP/US, CIPM, CIPP/E
Associate
xzhou@fisherphillips.com
858.597.9632
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/japanese-cabinet-approves-appi-amendments
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: DOL to Scale Back Joint Employer Liability for Businesses - What You Need to Know About the New Proposal
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
DOL to Scale Back Joint Employer Liability for Businesses: What You Need to Know About the New Proposal
Businesses that utilize contractors or franchise out their brand may soon get some clarity about when those arrangements make them "joint employers" under federal minimum wage, family medical leave, and migrant worker laws. The US Department of Labor just released a proposal today outlining its approach to joint employer liability under a trio of laws, setting up a test that will
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
DOL to Scale Back Joint Employer Liability for Businesses: What You Need to Know About the New Proposal
Businesses that utilize contractors or franchise out their brand may soon get some clarity about when those arrangements make them "joint employers" under federal minimum wage, family medical leave, and migrant worker laws. The US Department of Labor just released a proposal today outlining its approach to joint employer liability under a trio of laws, setting up a test that willgive companies greater flexibility and less risk when entering into business relationships. The proposed four-factor analysis focuses on the amount of control a business exercises over its contractors, franchisees, and other entities. Here's everything you need to know about joint employer status from the DOL and how you can prepare for the potential new rule.
What Does the DOL Want to Do?
The Wage and Hour Division's proposed rule will revisit the standard for determining whether multiple businesses are legally responsible for compliance with minimum wage and overtime pay, child labor limits, and other requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It also would apply to enforcement actions brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA).
The proposal largely mirrors the Trump administration's 2020 rule, which was subsequently blocked by a court. It recognizes two forms of joint employment: vertical and horizontal.
* Vertical joint employment, which is far more common, exists where the worker has an employment relationship with one employer (such as a staffing agency, subcontractor, or labor provider) and an intermediary business contracting with that employer receives the benefit of the employee's labor.
* Horizontal joint employment occurs when related entities employ the same worker such that their hours worked must be aggregated.
For vertical joint employment scenarios, the DOL proposal sets out a multi-part test to weigh how much control one business has over the other entity's employees.
The test considers whether the business:
1. hires or fires the employee;
2. supervises and controls the employee's work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
3. determines the employee's rate and method of payment; and
4. maintains the employee's employment records.
The proposal emphasizes that "no single factor is dispositive" in determining joint employer status and that the determination depends "on all of the facts in a particular case."
While other factors outside of the four factors identified above may provide some relevancy to the analysis, the proposed rule is clear that the four primary factors carry the most relevance and, if joint employer status is clear based upon the four factors, then other factors are unlikely to play a role in determining whether two entities are joint employers.
What's New in The Proposal
One significant difference from the previous Trump administration rule is that the right to control one of these factors is relevant to the joint employment analysis, whether a business exercises that right or not. Historically, the right to control hasn't been indicative either way of a joint employment relationship. However, the proposal expressly provides that actual control is much more relevant to the analysis than the mere reserved right to control.
For example, if an employer contractually has the right to hire or fire an employee, but never exercises this right, this is much less relevant to the joint employer analysis (as compared to an employer that has the right to do so, and in fact does regularly hire and/or fire employees).
In welcome news for franchises, the proposal clarifies that franchisor status is also not necessarily relevant to determining joint employer status, nor is providing form documents to ensure compliance with the law, or requiring that vendors or franchisees follow worker safety and minimum wage laws.
Dave Dorey, a partner in FP's DC office and key member of our Government Relations Practice Group, noted that this language makes clear that "simply providing certain benefits or standards to their franchisees, is not relevant to whether a franchisor is a joint employer of the franchisees' employees."
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
Providing the same standard for joint employment under the FLSA, the FMLA, and MSPA will provide clarity for employers and consistency between various statutes that are all overseen and enforced by the Department of Labor.
"More than anything, employers want clarity on how to comply with the law," said FP's Marty Heller, a partner in the firm's Atlanta office and member of the firm's Wage and Hour Practice Group. "This proposed rule provides employers with a framework to ensure that they do not inadvertently find themselves in a joint employer relationship."
While the proposal would provide bright lines around the federal DOL's enforcement approach, employers will still be navigating a patchwork of joint employer rules at the state level, Dorey cautions. Any permanent national change would require legislation from Congress.
"It's important that entities understand the local rules where they operate," Dorey emphasized, "because whatever enforcement the department is doing under this rule, it doesn't change what states are going to do."
Current Joint Employer Standard
This isn't the first time a Trump-led DOL has regulated on joint employer status. In 2020, the DOL finalized a joint employer rule that was lauded by businesses because it required them to exercise "actual" control. An entity must oversee hiring, firing, supervising, setting pay rates, and maintain employment records to be deemed a joint employer under the standard. The rule also clarified that theoretical control was not enough to establish a joint employment relationship. Together, this approach made it much harder for businesses to be on the hook for alleged minimum wage or overtime violations committed by their contractors or franchisees.
That 2020 rule was struck down by a NY federal judge roughly six months after it took effect and then rescinded altogether by the Biden DOL in 2021. The Biden-led wage division never issued another official joint employer rule, instead taking a "totality of the circumstances" approach and returning to prior case law on the issue. This new rule would give the DOL's Wage and Hour Division a consistent standard to apply when investigating and pursuing enforcement actions.
For now, businesses have had to rely on differing joint employer tests across different legal jurisdictions. Companies in one federal district court may be subject to a certain test, while others are subject to a different analysis. While varying standards may still apply by jurisdiction - even after a new rule is finalized - the DOL's rule will serve as a helpful compliance roadmap for many businesses.
FP's Heller says that while the "proposal is very similar to the rule floated by the first Trump administration that was struck down by a court before being rescinded once Biden took office," there are "key changes to this version that make this one more likely to stick."
Important note: This proposal is not to be confused with the joint employer framework finalized by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in February. While similar in approach, the NLRB rule applies in the context of collective bargaining rights and unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, whereas the DOL's rule applies to wage and hour matters. Generally, the NLRB rule makes it more difficult for businesses to be held jointly liable for alleged labor law violations by staffing companies, contractors, franchisees, and other related organizations.
What's Next?
If finalized, the rule will provide much needed clarity, factors, and examples of when entities can be found to be "joint employers" for purposes of the FLSA, FMLA and MSPA. But, even with more predictability around the DOL's approach, employers should still ensure their contracts, policies, and procedures are reviewed by legal counsel.
The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposal. Then, the DOL will have to review the thousands of comments that are likely to be submitted on the rulemaking docket and prepare responses as part of the final rule. The agency may also make changes to the rule based on public input.
Will We See Legal Action to Block or Delay the Rule?
Employers might feel skittish about the prospects of a court delaying or blocking the rule at the eleventh hour, especially after the 2020 rule was sidelined by a court before it could take effect. This is especially concerning given the fact that federal courts no longer must defer to agencies' interpretations of the law following the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. That decision instructed federal judges to "exercise their independent judgment" when determining whether a federal agency has properly interpreted the law. With that precedent, it's much easier for judges to toss out agency rules, creating a potential threat for the future of any federal rule.
However, a separate SCOTUS decision from 2025 significantly limited the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions - now coined "universal" injunctions - that have been used to block actions taken by federal regulatory agencies. Which means that any court that takes issue with this joint employer rule won't necessarily be able to block it from taking effect across the country. We'll track any litigation that emerges to challenge the proposed rule and provide updates as necessary.
3 Steps to Take Now
As we wait for the rulemaking process to unfold, there are a few proactive measures you can take to prepare your business for potential changes:
1. Consider submitting a public comment on the rule. If your business supports the changes proposed by the Trump administration, positive comments can support the DOL's justification for the rulemaking. You may also want to identify provisions that are problematic for your business or will still lead to uncertainty. Reach out to our FP Gov Team for guidance and best practices.
2. Review your contracts, franchise agreements, and vendor agreements for potential joint employer liability if you haven't conducted a review recently. Contact your FP legal counsel for assistance in identifying these potential risks.
3. Familiarize yourself with state and jurisdictional rules. As mentioned above, different district courts apply different joint employer tests. It's unclear how deferential the courts will be towards any DOL joint employer rule following the SCOTUS precedent in Loper Bright. Some states, including California and New York, use their own joint employer tests that are broader than the proposed rule. Consult with legal counsel to better understand these location-specific rules and if they apply to your business.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor the DOL's joint employer rulemaking process. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Wage and Hour Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
David R. Dorey
Partner
drdorey@fisherphillips.com
202.978.9655
* * *
Marty Heller
Partner
mheller@fisherphillips.com
404.231.1400
* * *
Rebecca Rainey
Legal Content Reporter
rarainey@fisherphillips.com
202.908.1142
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/dol-to-scale-back-joint-employer-liability-for-businesses
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: AI Company's Acquisition of Genetic Testing Firm Sparks Landmark Privacy Lawsuit - What Employers and MedTech Should Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
AI Company's Acquisition of Genetic Testing Firm Sparks Landmark Privacy Lawsuit - What Employers and MedTech Should Know
A recent Illinois federal class action lawsuit alleges an AI healthcare company obtained health data during a corporate acquisition and shared that data with biotech and pharmaceutical companies in violation of key privacy laws. MedTech companies and their business customers should pay attention. The April 15 lawsuit targets Tempus AI, a Chicago-based healthcare
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 23 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 22, 2026:
* * *
AI Company's Acquisition of Genetic Testing Firm Sparks Landmark Privacy Lawsuit - What Employers and MedTech Should Know
A recent Illinois federal class action lawsuit alleges an AI healthcare company obtained health data during a corporate acquisition and shared that data with biotech and pharmaceutical companies in violation of key privacy laws. MedTech companies and their business customers should pay attention. The April 15 lawsuit targets Tempus AI, a Chicago-based healthcaretechnology company, and stems from its February 2025 acquisition of a genetic testing firm with a database of more than one million genetic tests. The plaintiffs allege that Tempus AI compelled the acquired firm to hand over its entire cache of genetic testing data shortly after the acquisition and then licensed their data to more than 70 pharmaceutical and biotech partners through agreements totaling more than $1.1 billion, all without providing notice, much less obtaining the written consent of the patients. What do employers and MedTech companies need to know about this new avenue of attack we'll likely be seeing more of in the near future?
What the Lawsuit Alleges
Seven named plaintiffs from states across the country (Illinois, California, New York, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, and West Virginia) claim that they provided their genetic information to Ambry Genetics Corporation for medical testing purposes with the expectation that it would be kept confidential. When Tempus AI completed its $600 million acquisition of Ambry, the suit alleges, their data was swept up and transferred without notice or consent, then commercially exploited as training data for Tempus AI's artificial intelligence tools and as a licensed dataset for third-party life sciences companies.
Important caveat: These are simply allegations in a civil complaint. Tempus AI has not yet had the opportunity to respond, and nothing in this lawsuit has been proven in court. The company may have defenses (legal, factual, or both) that have not yet been presented, so read this summary with a grain of salt.
The complaint alleges Tempus AI's revenue grew more than 83% year-over-year in 2025, and attributes much of that growth to the commercialization of the Ambry genetic data. The plaintiffs further allege that Tempus AI's public statements that it only shares "de-identified" data don't hold up. They argue genetic data is inherently identifiable and cannot be meaningfully anonymized, regardless of what labels are stripped away.
The legal claims span a wide range of state statutes: Illinois's Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and consumer protection laws in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, and West Virginia. The complaint also includes common law claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, conversion, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The Genetic Data Angle
What makes this case particularly consequential is the nature of the data involved. Genetic information occupies a uniquely sensitive category under the law. Plaintiffs allege Congress recognized that when it passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in 2008. Unlike a Social Security number that can be changed or a password that can be reset, your DNA is permanent, deeply personal, and predictive of health conditions that extend to your biological relatives. More than a dozen states have enacted additional genetic privacy protections since then.
Illinois's GIPA, the lead statute in this case, is among the most stringent. It requires written authorization before genetic testing results can be disclosed to anyone other than the tested individual. The statute provides for statutory damages of $15,000 per intentional or reckless violation, or $2,500 per negligent violation. With a class potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands, the exposure in a case like this may be staggering.
Why This Case Could Be an Inflection Point
If you've been following AI-related privacy litigation over the past two years, this case might look familiar. The pattern mirrors what we saw with AI call recording and transcription services: lawsuits against the platform developers came first, followed quickly by suits against their enterprise customers: the companies that purchased and deployed those tools.
The Tempus AI complaint is notable because the company serves major healthcare systems, research institutions, and life sciences companies, and it has publicly touted the breadth of its data-sharing partnerships. In prior litigation waves, plaintiffs' attorneys have used vendor websites, press releases, and earnings calls to identify downstream customers, arguing that those customers either knew or should have known that the platforms they were using had legal exposure.
Healthcare and MedTech companies that license AI-powered diagnostic, research, or clinical decision-support tools may be drawn into litigation as a named defendant simply by virtue of being a known customer.
4 Things Employers and MedTech Companies Should Do Now
* First, audit your AI vendor relationships. If your organization uses any AI-powered health, diagnostics, or research tool, find out exactly what data is flowing through it and where it goes, including whether that data is used to train models or licensed to third parties.
* Second, review your vendor contracts. Does your agreement with the platform provider include representations about data consent, de-identification, and downstream use? What data can vendors' employees access? Are there indemnification provisions that would protect your organization if the vendor's practices are later found to be unlawful?
* Third, know your state law obligations. Plaintiffs' counsel deliberately assembled a nationwide class that maps to different state privacy regimes. If you operate in California, Illinois, New York, or other states with robust genetic or health data privacy laws, you are at higher risk and have a greater obligation to stay up to speed on local requirements.
* Fourth, monitor the litigation. If this case proceeds to class certification and survives early motions, expect a wave of similar suits targeting not just platform developers but healthcare employers and MedTech companies that incorporated AI tools trained on patient data without verified consent. The best way to stay up to speed is to ensure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments related to this litigation, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Privacy and Cyber Team, our Life Sciences and Pharma Team, or our Tech Sector Team.
* * *
Related People
James C. Fessenden
Partner
858.597.9600
jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Danielle Kays
Partner
312.260.4751
dkays@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/ai-companys-acquisition-of-genetic-testing-firm-sparks-landmark-privacy-lawsuit
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Promotes Ten to Its Australian Partnership
NEW YORK, April 22 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer promotes ten to its Australian partnership
We have announced the promotion of ten new partners in Australia, our firm's largest promotion round in three years.
*
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has announced the promotion of ten partners in Australia, the firm's largest promotion round in three years.
The firm has appointed 25 new partners globally, including two in New York, following the firm's expansion into the United
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, April 22 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer promotes ten to its Australian partnership
We have announced the promotion of ten new partners in Australia, our firm's largest promotion round in three years.
*
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has announced the promotion of ten partners in Australia, the firm's largest promotion round in three years.
The firm has appointed 25 new partners globally, including two in New York, following the firm's expansion into the UnitedStates last year.
The newly appointed Australia partners bring expertise in disputes, mergers and acquisitions, energy and infrastructure, intellectual property, real estate, and industrial relations, to support HSF Kramer's global growth ambitions and ongoing investment in its leading practices.
Kristin Stammer, Executive partner, Australia and Asia, said: "We are incredibly proud to welcome our ten new partners to partnership.
"Our new partners are outstanding and provide the exceptional client experience that our firm is known for.
"Demand for our first-class litigation advice, including continued growth in securities and consumer class actions, and the increase in employment and cyber related class actions, has also supported the addition of three partners to our disputes practice.
"We have a number of promotions in projects, energy and infrastructure, including energy markets and regulation. This reflects our ongoing strength and depth in Australia and globally."
Kristin added: "Having the very best people in our partnership who deeply understand our clients' businesses and the sectors they operate in is how we remain leading in our markets in Australia and globally."
The promotions come into effect 1 May 2026.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-04/herbert-smith-freehills-kramer-promotes-ten-to-its-partnership
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Promotes 25 to Partnership
NEW YORK, April 22 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news on April 21, 2026:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer promotes 25 to partnership
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer today announced the promotion of 25 new partners, marking the firm's first global partner promotion round since the launch of HSF Kramer in June 2025.
The specialisms of many of the newly appointed partners closely support the firm's key priorities, including energy and infrastructure, private capital, securitisation and class actions. This year's cohort also
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, April 22 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news on April 21, 2026:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer promotes 25 to partnership
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer today announced the promotion of 25 new partners, marking the firm's first global partner promotion round since the launch of HSF Kramer in June 2025.
The specialisms of many of the newly appointed partners closely support the firm's key priorities, including energy and infrastructure, private capital, securitisation and class actions. This year's cohort alsorepresents the firm's enhanced capabilities in areas such as IP and high-tech patent litigation as well as real estate, and its strengths in disputes and transactions.
Covering all regions, these promotions - alongside the firm's 35 lateral partner hires since its combination announcement in November 2024 - fortify the firm's global presence and focus on strengthening key business corridors.
Global CEO Justin D'Agostino commented:
"In this momentous year for our firm, these promotions show the depth of talent across our network, underscore our position as a global legal powerhouse - and reflect our commitment to investing in our people. Each of our talented new partners has demonstrated qualities that reinforce our ability to deliver at the highest levels. And each will play an important role in helping us deliver on our Ambition strategy.
"Their success is richly deserved - and I am delighted to congratulate them on reaching this important professional milestone."
Chair and Senior Partner Rebecca Maslen-Stannage added:
"Our newly promoted partners exemplify our future focus. They will help ensure that we continue to have the depth, breadth and experience to deliver the very best service for our clients. Their promotions reflect their achievements and the confidence we have in their ability to shape our success as a firm. I am proud to welcome them to the partnership and look forward to all they will go on to accomplish."
The promotions take effect on 1 May 2026.
The new partners and their principal areas of specialisms are:
- Nataly Adams, Sydney - Class Actions and Commercial Litigation
- Sara Balice, Milan - Intellectual Property
- Sophie Beaman, Sydney - Industrial Relations
- Christopher Cox, London - Commercial Litigation, Class Actions, Reputation Management
- Sam Cundall, London - Energy
- Tom Dougherty, Sydney - Environment, Planning and Communities
- Matthew Eglezos, Melbourne - Class Actions and Commercial Litigation
- Miguel Garcia-Casas, Madrid - Corporate Crime & Investigations
- Francis Greenway, Singapore - International Arbitration
- Tyler Hendry, New York - Employment
- Skye Kirby, Melbourne - Corporate Projects, Energy & Infrastructure
- Sung-Hyuk Kwon, Paris - M&A
- Camille Lartigue, Paris - M&A
- Danielle MacGillivray, New York - Mining & Energy, M&A, Joint Ventures and Finance
- Ian Mack, London - Planning
- Nic Patmore, London - Financial Services Litigation
- Amy Repse, Melbourne - Corporate Finance, Debt Capital Markets and Securitisation
- Stuart Robertson, Sydney - Commercial Property, Infrastructure and Energy
- Sophie Thompson, London - M&A
- Anna Vandervliet, Sydney - Intellectual Property, Tech and ESG
- Bailee Walker, Sydney - Corporate Projects, Energy & Infrastructure
- Simon Walker, Melbourne - M&A
- Alex Wright, London - Corporate Real Estate
- Richard Wright, London - Private Equity Infrastructure
- Yida Xu, Hong Kong - Energy/*
In addition, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's Indonesian associate firm Hiswara Bunjamin & Tandjung has promoted Paskalia Deviani and Astri Widita Kusumowidagdo to its partnership. Herbert Smith Freehills Kewei Joint Operation has also promoted Sean Ji to partner in Shanghai.
* * *
Notes
*/ Yida Xu's partner title will be confirmed shortly following local regulatory approvals.
The 35 lateral partner hires since combination announcement in November 2024 are:
Asia: Truman Mak (Hong Kong), Ben Thompson (Singapore), Paul Quinn (Hong Kong)
Australia: Anne Beresford (Brisbane), Liza Carver (Sydney), Michael Hogan (Brisbane), Andrew Leadston (Sydney), Cassandra Wee (Sydney)
EMEA: Laurence Bary (Paris), Philipp Cepl (Dusseldorf), Emanuela Da Rin (Milan) Oliver Duys (Dusseldorf), Hannah Eckhoff (Frankfurt), Mohammed Al Eshaikh (Riyadh), Laurent Massinon (Luxembourg), Jean-Dominique Morelli (Luxembourg), Wilhelm Nolting-Hauff (Dusseldorf), Ziyanda Ntshona (Johannesburg), Joanna Pecenik Verges d'Espagne (Luxembourg), Esteban de Santos Smith (Madrid), Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky (Dusseldorf), Marc Tkatcheff (Luxembourg), Nikita Tkatchenko (Dusseldorf)
UK: Stuart Brinkworth (London), Alison Hardy (London)
US: Burr Eckstut (New York), John Elias (Washington DC), Daniel Grossman (New York), Mike Huang (New York), Jilan J. Kamal (New York), Robert Leung (New York), Kyle Ortiz (New York), David Pearl (Washington DC), Damian Petrovic (New York), Brian Shaughnessy (New York)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-04/herbert-smith-freehills-kramer-promotes-25-to-partnership
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Courts Still Divided on Whether California Privacy Law Applies to Website Tracking - 4 Rulings in 10 Days Highlight Business Confusion
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 22 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 21, 2026:
* * *
Courts Still Divided on Whether California Privacy Law Applies to Website Tracking: 4 Rulings in 10 Days Highlight Business Confusion
*
If you were hoping the courts would offer clarity to the wave of California privacy litigation targeting website tracking technology, four decisions issued in just 10 days this April suggest you may be waiting a while. Four judges recently tackled nearly identical questions about whether the California Invasion of Privacy
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 22 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 21, 2026:
* * *
Courts Still Divided on Whether California Privacy Law Applies to Website Tracking: 4 Rulings in 10 Days Highlight Business Confusion
*
If you were hoping the courts would offer clarity to the wave of California privacy litigation targeting website tracking technology, four decisions issued in just 10 days this April suggest you may be waiting a while. Four judges recently tackled nearly identical questions about whether the California Invasion of PrivacyAct (CIPA) applies to the kind of third-party tracking tools that millions of websites use every day - and reached strikingly different conclusions. Here is what employers and businesses need to know about this eye-opening spate of rulings.
The Core Legal Question
At the heart of all four cases is the same statute: CIPA's pen register and trap and trace provisions. Plaintiffs across the country have been filing suit arguing that common website tools like session replay software, third-party advertising trackers, and analytics platforms constitute illegal "pen registers" or "trap and trace devices" under CIPA because they capture information about website visitors without their consent.
The litigation wave has been enormous, and our Digital Wiretapping Map tracks just how broadly these suits have spread across industries and defendants. The four decisions below, all issued between April 6 and April 16, offer the most concentrated snapshot yet of where the law stands and how unsettled it remains.
Federal Court Keeps CIPA Claim Alive Against CNN
In D'Antonio v. Cable News Network, Inc., a Southern District of New York federal judge denied CNN's motion to dismiss a CIPA class action arising from third-party trackers on CNN.com. The plaintiff alleged that CNN caused third-party trackers to be installed on visitors' browsers. Those trackers collected IP addresses, device metadata, and unique identifiers that were then matched against data broker profiles to de-anonymize users and sell targeted advertising, according to the suit.
The court found the plaintiff had adequately pleaded Article III standing, concluding that the aggregation of tracking data into comprehensive, non-anonymous user profiles bears a close enough relationship to traditional privacy torts (particularly intrusion upon seclusion) to survive dismissal. The court also rejected CNN's argument that the trackers collected communication "content" rather than the routing and addressing information covered by CIPA's pen register definition. Ultimately, the court declined to resolve that question at the pleading stage. The case now moves forward.
Federal Court Dismisses Nearly Identical Case Against USA Today
Just three days earlier, a Northern District of California judge reached the opposite conclusion in In re USA Today Co. Internet Tracking Litigation. The plaintiffs there alleged that USA Today embedded third-party trackers on its website that collected IP addresses, device type, browser type, and related metadata without consent, a fact pattern almost indistinguishable from the CNN case.
But this court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, finding that the specific data allegedly collected simply doesn't implicate a legally protected privacy interest under established 9th Circuit precedent. IP addresses, device type, and browser type, the court held, are not the kind of personal information where disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
California State Court Delivers a Split Decision Against Wildflower Brands
Back in state court, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge tackled CIPA claims against online retailer Wildflower Brands and delivered a mixed result. In Balabbo v. Wildflower Brands, the court sustained the defendant's challenge on the CIPA pen register and wiretapping claims. It found that CIPA's trap and trace provisions don't apply to session replay technology and that the CCPA and CPRA (California's comprehensive consumer privacy framework) govern website data collection. The legislature, the court reasoned, couldn't have intended to criminalize under CIPA the very data collection practices it carefully regulated and permitted under the CCPA.
But the plaintiff's common law invasion of privacy claim survived. The court found that allegations involving the capture and transmission of credit card information and medical data to third parties were sufficient to proceed to determine whether that conduct constitutes a highly offensive intrusion. Wildflower must answer that remaining claim.
A Second Judge Dismisses Identical Claims Against Same Defendant - Entirely
Just 10 days after the Balabbo ruling, a different Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed a near-identical CIPA case against Wildflower Brands entirely and with prejudice. In Heiting v. Wildflower Brands, the court concluded that CIPA's pen register and trap and trace provisions were designed exclusively for telephone surveillance, not commercial websites.
The court pointed to the telephone-specific language in the portion of the statute that governs how law enforcement obtains authorization to use these devices as proof that the legislature never intended the statute to reach website analytics tools. The fact that the internet was already in widespread use when these provisions were enacted in 2015, and the legislature said nothing about websites, was telling. With no viable path to amendment identified, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
What This Means for Your Business
The takeaway from these four decisions is not reassuring for businesses that were hoping the courts would converge on a clear answer. Whether a CIPA website tracking claim survives may depend heavily on which court is hearing it, which specific data was collected, how precisely the plaintiff pleads the injury, and whether the case lands in state or federal court. If you have a customer-facing website (particularly if it uses third-party analytics, advertising trackers, or session replay tools), you remain squarely in the crosshairs of this litigation.
Legislative reform may eventually bring more predictability. A coalition of businesses and trade groups has been pushing to clarify CIPA's scope and rein in the litigation surge - and you can read more about those efforts and what they could mean for your business here.
In the meantime, the best defense is a proactive one: audit your website's tracking tools, review your privacy disclosures, and make sure your consent mechanisms are up to date. You can read our five-point list of suggestions here.
Conclusion
To stay current on CIPA developments, legislative progress, and other California privacy litigation trends, subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insights. If you have any questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Team.
* * *
Related People
Risa B. Boerner, CIPP/US, CIPM, Partner, rboerner@fisherphillips.com, 610.230.2132
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US, Partner, ukahf@fisherphillips.com, 949.798.2118
***
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/courts-still-divided-on-whether-california-privacy-law-applies-to-website-tracking
Dean Mead Attorneys Recognized in the Legal 500 Inaugural Florida Elite Listing
ORLANDO, Florida, April 22 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dean Mead Attorneys Recognized in the Legal 500 Inaugural Florida Elite Listing
Dean Mead is pleased to announce that three attorneys have been selected for recognition in Legal 500's Inaugural Florida Elite listing. This distinction is recognized for highlighting exceptional legal talent and industry leadership across the globe.
The honorees include:
David P. Barker, Attorney and Shareholder - Selected for his legal contributions to the real estate industry, demonstrating leadership within the profession.
Gregory
... Show Full Article
ORLANDO, Florida, April 22 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dean Mead Attorneys Recognized in the Legal 500 Inaugural Florida Elite Listing
Dean Mead is pleased to announce that three attorneys have been selected for recognition in Legal 500's Inaugural Florida Elite listing. This distinction is recognized for highlighting exceptional legal talent and industry leadership across the globe.
The honorees include:
David P. Barker, Attorney and Shareholder - Selected for his legal contributions to the real estate industry, demonstrating leadership within the profession.
GregoryK. Lawrence, Attorney and Shareholder - Recognized for excellence in Real Estate law, reflecting a strong track record of client service and impactful legal work.
James A. Timko - Recognized for his work in Finance and Restructuring law, delivering strategic, results-driven counsel.
Legal 500 is regarded as one of the world's leading legal directories. evaluating law firms and lawyers based on comprehensive research, client feedback, and peer input. The inaugural Florida Elite listing "aims to highlight key lawyers operating as regional players ... handling work at the top of the legal market in their respective cities."
* * *
About Legal 500: Founded in 1987, Legal 500 is a research platform which connects providers and users of legal services in over 100 countries worldwide. Learn more: https://www.legal500.com/about-us.
* * *
Featured Professionals
David P. Barker
Attorney
O: (407) 428-5118 F: (407) 423-1831
* * *
Gregory K. Lawrence
Attorney
O: (407) 428-5136 F: (407) 423-1831
* * *
James A. Timko
Attorney
O: (407) 613-2588 F: (407) 423-1831
* * *
Original text here: https://www.deanmead.com/dean-mead-announces-attorneys-recognized-in-the-legal-500-inaugural-florida-elite-listing/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
