Cyber Spies Stealing Corporate Secrets & Technology
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.14
With cyber heists plundering $1 trillion in global intellectual property (per President Obama) and driving "the greatest transfer of wealth in human history" (per NSA Director Alexander), corporations face bet-the-company threats when cyber attacks and data breaches empty their intellectual property vaults, torpedo their mergers and business deals, and crush their stock prices. In their recent article, "Pillaging the Digital Treasure Troves: The Technology, Economics, and Law of Cyber Espionage," published in the ABA's The SciTech Lawyer (Winter 2014), C&M attorneys David Bodenheimer and Gordon Griffin explore the methods employed by cyber spies to steal corporate IP and trade secrets, discuss the economic impact of cyber theft at the individual corporate level (i.e., the business case for cybersecurity), and the looming litigation, regulatory, and enforcement risks to corporations suffering technology and IP losses as a result of cyber thefts.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
