Insights

An Alabama mother filed suit on April 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Roblox and Fortnite developer Epic Games, alleging that they design their platforms and games to be addictive through random reward tactics, especially targeting minors. The case is Turner et al. v. Epic Games Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02975.

On April 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) outlining a new standard for “joint employment” — under which separate entities will be found jointly liable for the other’s violations — under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MPSA). The Proposed Rule purports to standardize the definition of “joint employment” across all three laws to create “clarity” and “uniformity” for employers and employees alike.

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.  

On Friday, April 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) has agreed to pay just over $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to comply with federal anti-discrimination requirements incorporated into its federal contracts due to allegedly discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) employment practices. This resolution marks the first FCA settlement secured by the DOJ under its Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, created in May 2025, and announced by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as part of the administration’s coordinated efforts to target allegedly unlawful DEI practices. Per the agreement, the settlement is neither an admission of liability by IBM nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded.

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.

Last month, in a ruling that may carry significant implications for the artificial intelligence industry, a California federal court held that state tort and contract claims related to the training of AI models were not preempted by federal law and could proceed in state court. Because many AI models were trained in a similar fashion---by scraping data from online posts and repositories---the decision suggests other plaintiffs may bring such claims in state courts, in addition to federal claims of copyright infringement.

In a development likely to ramp up regulatory pressure on an industry already under significant federal scrutiny, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson recently directed leaders across his agency to launch a team dedicated to cooperatively advancing enforcement and advocacy activities relevant to health care.

Organizations facing cyber incidents increasingly encounter follow-on civil litigation alleging failures to implement reasonable security measures. In response, a growing number of states — the most recent being Oklahoma this year — have enacted safe harbor laws designed to both protect consumers and reward organizations that take a proactive, documented, and structured approach to cyber threats.

On March 25, 2026, in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a $1 billion verdict against Cox. The judgment was the result of a jury trial in which Sony claimed that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement because it knew that its customers were using its service to infringe yet did not respond with sufficient diligence to prevent that infringement.

In about a year’s time, all worker noncompetition and nonacceptance of business provisions in Washington state will become void and unenforceable unless they qualify for one of the limited exceptions to the ban, thanks to a new law signed by Washington’s Governor Bob Ferguson on March 23, 2026. The new law takes effect June 30, 2027.

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

In its latest attempt to establish a national AI regulatory standard and quash “cumbersome” state AI laws, the White House on Friday, March 20, 2026, released legislative recommendations for a National Policy Framework on Artificial Intelligence. 

On March 13, a Massachusetts federal district court temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from requiring higher education institutions to respond to the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (“ACTS”) survey — a new data collection effort mandating that institutions disclose detailed admissions information regarding students’ race and sex to the federal government. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Education, 1:26-cv-11229 (D. Mass.), the court extended the deadline for institutions to respond to the survey from March 18th to March 25th to allow time to consider the case.

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.

On March 3, 2026, a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general and state charity regulators (the “States”) sent a letter[1]to GoFundMe expressing their concerns about GoFundMe's creation of donation web pages for more than 1.4 million charities without their prior knowledge or consent.

On February 12, 2026, a bipartisan group of legislators in Maryland proposed the Maryland Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act. This proposed legislation would amend the Maryland Consumer Protection Act to establish a sweeping regulatory framework for AI-enabled toys sold in the state, covering any device that uses machine learning, conversational AI, behavioral modeling, or similar computational processes and is marketed to or primarily used by children. This proposed legislation adds to a growing trend of increasing efforts, at both the federal and state levels, to regulate the use of AI in products and services used by children.  

On March 3, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (TREAS) — collectively, the “Tri-Agencies” — published their fourth annual report to Congress on enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The 2025 Report demonstrates a shift in approach by the Tri-Agencies in its tone and content and suggests that federal regulators, and the DOL in particular, are not as active as they previously were in MHPAEA enforcement. However, federal enforcement remains ongoing, and state enforcement of mental health parity laws continues to grow. Plans and issuers must continue to maintain comprehensive compliance processes and documentation for MHPAEA compliance.