Insights

The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) marked the most significant expansion of FDA’s authority over cosmetics in 80 years — and the agency is putting that authority to work. From the launch of a new adverse event reporting tool to forthcoming rules on fragrance allergens and good manufacturing practices (GMP), FDA is reshaping the regulatory landscape for manufacturers, packers, and distributors of cosmetic and personal care products.

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.

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

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.

In Wake Chapel Church, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a $1.1 million jury verdict in favor of a policyholder, reaffirming that under North Carolina law insurers cannot defeat all-risk coverage by pointing to a postulated inherent defect or other excluded cause if a covered peril also contributed to the loss.

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.  

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision.

Because effective Directors & Officers insurance (D&O) is becoming even more important for companies and their leaders, particularly for peace of mind and financial soundness in our highly litigious society, we provide this coverage alert.  

From 1 April 2026, a major new transparency requirement under the Procurement Act 2023 will take effect pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 4) Regulations 2025.

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.

On January 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled favorably for policyholders in a major ongoing cyber-insurance dispute between Southwest Airlines and Liberty Insurance when it accepted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc., Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2218-E, the court reinforced critical legal protections for policyholders facing coverage denials. 

In GuideOne National Insurance Co. v. Systems 2000 Plumbing Service, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether excess insurer GuideOne was required to provide coverage under a “follow form” excess policy based on mutual mistake or illusory coverage principles. The insured, Systems 2000, is a plumbing contractor that worked exclusively in residential apartment buildings. It held a $2 million primary general liability insurance policy with Travelers and a $4 million excess insurance policy with GuideOne, both of which were effective March 15, 2021. Eight days later, there was a fire in a Manhattan apartment building where Systems 2000 had been performing work. Systems 2000 made timely claims under both policies for coverage related to the fire.

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) is celebrating its 10th anniversary.  After many years of consideration, in 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the DTSA.  Patterned on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act adopted in most states, the DTSA creates a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets and thereby gives litigants a direct avenue into federal court.  Since then, the federal courts have been grappling with how to manage DTSA cases.  One issue still to be resolved is the absence of model jury instructions in most jurisdictions.

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.