Insights

New York Attorney General Letitia James has issued an industry-wide alert encouraging workers with knowledge of unsafe or illegal conduct at artificial intelligence (AI) companies to file confidential whistleblower complaints through the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) secure portal. This development signals a significant escalation in regulatory scrutiny of the AI sector and should be carefully considered by any company developing or deploying AI technology that has a nexus to New York.

In our previous client alert, we addressed how algorithms and platform features that rely on user generated speech might not receive Section 230 protections because those features may not be considered platform user content.  In these instances, the platform might not carry user generated water through the pipe, but adds its own to the mixture.  At the same time, if it is true that there is less Section 230 protection, these same elements should then imbue the content with First Amendment protections as the expressive content of the platform.

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.

On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.

New York is set to become the first state in the nation to restrict algorithmically-driven “addictive” social media features for users under 18. On July 29, 2026, the State published the final rules implementing the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, which takes effect January 25, 2027.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.

On May 27, 2026, the California State Assembly advanced AB 2564, which would prohibit surveillance pricing by retailers. Assemblymember Christopher Ward originally introduced AB 2564 on February 20, 2026, to “ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics.”

Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton has embarked on an aggressive campaign of regulation through enforcement against some of the world’s largest technology companies.

The landscape of counterfeiting litigation is shifting in ways that place online marketplace operators at the center of disputes from two directions. Brand owners are escalating efforts to hold platforms liable for counterfeit goods sold through their sites, while some marketplace operators have begun joining brand owners as co-plaintiffs to pursue counterfeiters directly. This dual role has significant implications for how platforms manage their legal exposure and their relationships with brand owners.

Meta continues to face lawsuits around the country alleging that its platforms are designed to induce compulsive use by children. In March 2026, a California jury delivered a landmark verdict that Meta and YouTube were liable for allegedly addictive platform features that resulted in a child’s mental health distress.  

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026–2030, setting out the agency’s enforcement priorities and operational objectives for the next five years under Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. The plan reaffirms the FTC’s commitment to vigorously enforcing the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws “without fear or favor.” Critically for businesses, the plan returns the phrase “without unduly burdening legitimate business activity” to the agency’s mission statement, signaling a commitment to ending what the agency characterizes as overregulation of businesses that compete fairly and deal honestly with consumers. Despite this business-friendly framing, the plan signals robust enforcement across consumer protection, antitrust, and emerging technology — areas that will directly affect in-house counsel’s compliance planning over the coming years.

In two recent pathbreaking judgments, juries in California and New Mexico held social media companies civilly liable for harming minors who used their products.

Recent developments present urgent compliance questions for colleges and universities navigating the evolving Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) landscape for collegiate athletes.

On March 12, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took formal steps toward establishing additional regulations for prediction markets. The agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public input on potential new rules, and separately, released staff guidance outlining its views on how existing rules apply to prediction market platforms currently in operation. These developments signal a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for an industry that has grown rapidly over the past year.

The New Jersey Legislature is considering two bills, that if enacted, would prohibit business entities from using either consumers' personal data or “personalized algorithmic pricing” to set prices for merchandise or services, including groceries. If enacted, the new laws would have broad implications for companies across industries that rely on algorithmic or data-informed pricing strategies. In her recent State Budget Address, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill pledged to sign the proposals into law if they reach her desk.

While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs.  For a detailed analysis of the decision, please see our Trade Group’s full alert.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an unprecedented investigative sweep into “surveillance pricing” practices by grocers, hotels, and retailers, marking the first state-level inquiry targeting personalized pricing under data privacy laws.

2026 will be a significant year for retailers and e-commerce companies, with significant changes on the horizon that will affect the entire industry and ecosystem. Potential headwinds and developments in product safety, pricing, artificial intelligence, data privacy, website compliance, and environmental responsibility are expected. But amidst these changes, there are likely significant opportunities that retail and e-commerce businesses can capitalize on.

On December 22, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took its first step in enforcing its August 2024 Consumer Review Rule (“Rule”) that regulates online companies’ moderation and curation of user reviews, by issuing warning letters to 10 unidentified companies alerting them of their potential violations of the Rule, and cautioning that continued noncompliance could lead to enforcement action and substantial civil penalties. The FTC warning letters directed each recipient to immediately cease and desist from any non-compliant practices and required the company to confirm in writing the steps taken to ensure ongoing compliance with the Rule.