Last week, the California Assembly’s Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection held a hearing to discuss the California Consumer Privacy Act. While many panelists from the private sector pointed out problems with the law, a few panelists defended the law, and some suggested that it didn’t go far enough. For example, Stacey Schesser, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General for the Privacy Unit in the Consumer Law Section of the Office of the California Attorney General, stated that the current law presents “unworkable obligations and operational challenges” for the AG’s office and suggested several significant changes. This week, California AG Becerra and state Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson announced a bill that would seek to implement the changes Ms. Schesser described into law.

The bill includes two proposals that could materially affect potential exposure for businesses under the CCPA:

  • Private Right of Action:  The current law allows any consumer whose unencrypted or unredacted personal information is breached “as a result of a violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices” to recover statutory damages of up to $750 per incident. The private right of action is likely to be used in litigation, particularly over what constitutes “reasonable” practices, but at least it is limited to breaches. The new bill, however, would expand the private right of action to cover violations of any other section of the law, as well.
  • Right to Cure:  The current law requires the AG to give businesses notice and 30 days to cure alleged violations before the AG can seek an injunction and civil penalties. This 30-day cure period can provide a warning to businesses that are trying to comply with a confusing law, if their efforts fall short. The proposed bill, however, would remove the right to cure, leaving businesses immediately exposed for any violations.

In addition to these changes, the bill proposes to remove a provision that would allow businesses to seek guidance from the AG on how to comply withCA Flag the law.

If the bill is enacted into law, these changes would be a boon to plaintiffs’ attorneys and privacy litigators. However, to use Ms. Schesser’s words, the changes would result in even more “unworkable obligations and operational challenges” for businesses. We will continue to closely track these developments, and keep you posted.

Privacy Compliance Tech-Tools and StrategiesWith AdTech (tracking individuals and their online or in app behaviors to build a profile of them to better serve and more effectively target them) and MarTech (strategies and technologies to generate demand, attention, and sales for a product) now the most celebrated or perhaps infamous areas in privacy today, being a privacy lawyer has changed dramatically in just a few years. Privacy lawyers are not only counseling and guiding companies along the lines of what they need to do from a legal perspective but there’s an element of what should be done from an ethical or social perspective as well. Finding a coherent thread through all of the requirements and keeping track of all the technological changes in what is now a very tech heavy business is difficult.

Kelley Drye Partner Alysa Hutnik and Robert Cunningham, Head of Legal, at Ketch discuss the state of privacy, tracking, compliance technology and tools, and strategies privacy lawyers and others can use to help do their jobs. As you would expect, there are some practical tips to take away.

Find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Podcasts, SoundCloud, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Alysa Z. Hutnik
(202) 342-8603

Robert Cunningham
(510) 292-0647

For additional information, please visit:

  • Key Developments in CCPA Litigation for Q1 2021– As we move deeper into the second year of CCPA litigation, the substantive issues continue to develop and we remain focused on the patterns and implications of recent filings and rulings.  In this post, we highlight notable developments in three cases that occurred in the first quarter of 2021.  These cases raise significant issues regarding judicial interpretation of the private right of action in the CCPA, the definition of a “data breach,” and CCPA plaintiffs’ ability to access pre-complaint discovery.
  • Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center – Kelley Drye has organized this Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center to help your company navigate the legal landscape. While this  site is not exhaustive, it addresses key legal topics relevant to advertising and marketing, privacy, data security, and consumer product safety and labeling. Feel free to contact us to discuss any specific claims, privacy or data security practices, or for any other questions.
  • Ad Law Access Blog – Updates on consumer protection trends and developments from the Advertising Law and Privacy Law practices
  • Privacy and Information Security Practice Group Page


The Supreme Court in AMG foreclosed the FTC’s ability to pursue monetary remedies under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. That, however, AMG has not stopped the FTC from pursuing monetary relief directly in court, while attempting to bypass the statutory prerequisite of an administrative proceeding. The FTC is continuing to use Section 13(b) of the Act to attempt to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. At the same time, the Commission is coupling its 13(b) requests for injunctive relief with other (sometimes creative) statutory requests for money.

Given the Commission’s newfound interest in exploring non-13(b) statutory avenues to obtain monetary remedies, we have expanded our Post-AMG chart to include a wider swath of ongoing cases in which the FTC is attempting to collect money absent the use of 13(b). The latest version of our expanded chart follows.

Continue Reading Post-AMG Scorecard: The FTC Pivots to Other Statutory Bases for Monetary Relief

As we previously reported, “Phase I” of class action filings relating to the COVID-19 pandemic has become a significant contagion of its own with more than 500 cases being filed since March challenging refund policies, school closures, event cancellations, and marketing and pricing practices.  As the economy gradually reopens, “Phase II”—how companies respond to these cases—is just beginning.  Not surprisingly, defendants are fighting hard and early to defeat these claims, with many opting to file motions to dismiss rather than answering the complaint and entering into lengthy and expensive discovery.

Early Action in Cases Against Public-Facing Businesses

Public-facing businesses—such those in the retail, travel and hospitality industries—have been the first to re-open and are currently navigating a patchwork of state guidelines on how to do so safely.  Compounding this burden, these same companies are facing a wave of lawsuits by customers and employees alleging negligence, breach of contract, and unfair business practices during the pandemic.

These industries are not new to class action litigation and many companies have included arbitration clauses and class arbitration waivers in their consumer contracts.  These defendants have, not surprisingly, moved to compel arbitration, and plaintiffs have responded with unique (but likely ineffective) allegations of unconscionability, fraud and duress to try to stay in court.  For example, in a case against Amazon, the plaintiffs alleged that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because they were under duress during the pandemic and were forced to purchase products from Amazon.  Amazon’s response was based on the black-letter principle that unconscionability is measured at the time of contracting, and not at the time of the challenged conduct.

Other companies have focused on substance, arguing that they complied with their contractual obligations and that their customers have not suffered damages.  For example, in the case of recurring monthly payments for fitness club memberships, defendants have argued that their membership agreements do not mandate refunds for temporary closures, and therefore plaintiffs who filed suit within days or weeks of the initial closure did so too quickly. Continue Reading What will “Phase II” of COVID-19 Class Actions Look Like?

Kelley Drye Advertising Law Summer Webinar Series This Wednesday, July 22
Selling Online: How to Avoid Flattening the Curve of an Uptick in Website Traffic
Register Here

COVID-19 has increased the already dizzying amount of online sales, making the applicable marketing requirements increasingly important. These rules affect not just how companies advertise and promote products and services online, but also how they bill and otherwise interact with consumers before, during, and after a transaction.

This webinar will include practical tips to help companies minimize risk of enforcement and litigation and provide practical guidance. Topics include:

  • Endorsers and Influencers
  • Promotions and Pricing
  • Subscription Plans and “Free” Trials
  • Shipping and Delivery
  • Consumer Reviews and the Consumer Review Fairness Act
  • Customer Service Considerations – how timely refunds and responsiveness can help reduce legal risks

Register Here

Kelley Drye Advertising Law Summer Webinar SeriesJuly 29
Cleaning Up From 2020: Guidance for Disinfectant, Germ and Virus Killing Claims
Register Here

COVID-19 has brought a proliferation of products claiming to kill or otherwise inhibit viruses, bacteria and other germs. These products, before they can be legally sold, are heavily regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and sometimes both. Major enforcement actions are pending against companies making illegal claims or selling unregistered products. Meanwhile, the FTC regulates advertising of many sanitizing products and the agency has pursued enforcement on companies that overstate their products’ germ-killing performance.

Please join us for a webinar covering the basics of germ killing and related product claims.

Discussion topics include:

  • The regulatory landscape: Who regulates what – EPA, FDA and FTC jurisdiction and requirements
  • What can you say and when can you say it
  • Potential liability and enforcement considerations
  • What to do if you receive a warning letter or other enforcement action

Anyone who is currently making or planning to make pesticide products, microbiology laboratory personnel with efficacy testing responsibilities, manufacturers of sanitizing products including lights, retailers of sanitizing products, anyone new to claims or in need of a refresher should join us for this webinar.

Register Here

July 30
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) for Procrastinators: What You Need To Do Now If You Haven’t Done Anything Yet
Register Here

The coronavirus pandemic has put many things on hold, but CCPA enforcement is not one of them. The California Attorney General’s enforcement authority kicked in on July 1, 2020, and companies reportedly have begun to receive notices of alleged violation. In addition, several class actions have brought CCPA claims. Although final regulations to implement the CCPA have yet to be approved, compliance cannot wait.

If you’re not yet on the road to CCPA compliance (or would like a refresher), this webinar is for you.

We will cover:

  • Latest CCPA developments
  • Compliance strategies
  • Potential changes to the CCPA if the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) ballot initiative passes

Anyone who has not begun their CCPA compliance efforts or thinks they need a refresher should join us for this webinar.

Register Here

Also join our counterparts for:

COVID-19 Response Labor and Employment Labor and Employment Counseling and Compliance Labor and Employment LitigationTuesday, July 21
Not Normal: the Challenges of a Changed Workplace
Register Here

Four months ago, the Dow was close to 30,000, employment rates were at historic highs, the coronavirus was still “novel,” and millions had not yet taken to the streets in global protests against police brutality and racial inequality. The workplace we now return to exists in this supercharged social and political climate, with new rules, laws, risks and social issues creating new and uncharted waters for employers to navigate.  Join Kelley Drye’s Labor and Employment partners Barbara HoeyMark Konkel, and Kimberly Carter as they identify risks and share pragmatic solutions to these new challenges.  Topics will include:

  • Politics, speech and activism in the workplace
  • The changing role of HR
  • What “diversity” means now
  • New employment laws

Register Here

Advertising and Privacy Law Resource CenterFind replays of our webinars and other key resources relevant to advertising and marketing, privacy, data security, and consumer product safety and labeling on the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center.

Companies continue to reel from business disruptions caused by the spread of coronavirus, and in many cases have struggled to navigate the swiftly changing landscape in which they are required to operate (or not operate).  At the end of the first full month of the crisis, as infections appear to plateau in epicenters like New York City, class actions seeking to remedy consumers’ losses during the pandemic are spreading rapidly.

As of April 30, 2020, more than 150 class actions have been filed directly relating to or stemming from the pandemic. Tens of millions of individuals have filed for unemployment, and the plaintiffs’ bar is eager to “help.”   No amount of social distancing, and no impending treatment or vaccine, can insulate companies from the threat of class litigation.

While the specific factual circumstances underlying these claims are novel, the types of claims being asserted – and the jurisdictions where such actions are being filed – are not.  Companies should stay on top of the following pandemic-related class action trends and, wherever possible, get ahead of or try to prevent the additional strain of a class action during these already difficult times.

Pandemic-Related Refunds

Millions of people throughout the United States hope to receive refunds for events and services that have been cancelled or postponed as a result of coronavirus-related bans on large gatherings, stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions.  The strength of these cases will ultimately turn upon the specific cancellation, force majeure and limitation of liability clauses in the relevant contracts, with courts turning to common law doctrines of impossibility and impracticability where the contracts do not address these specific issues.

Rapid and widespread event cancellations have understandably tested companies’ abilities to fulfill their obligations.  For many companies that act as intermediate platforms for transactions—such as tickets to events and rental of vacation properties—handling refunds on such a scale is not manageable or even possible given that money consumers pay is often forwarded to venues, festival promoters and other clients, who often control potential rescheduling.  These circumstances have led to a series of class action lawsuits against ticket sellers, educational institutions, subscription fitness, sport, and health companies, and ski areas and theme parks who offer season ticket memberships.

Getting there can be difficult too.  While air travel has not been suspended entirely, cancellations and postponements, and general advisories against “non-essential” travel, have stretched airlines’ cancellation policies.  There has been a surge of litigation against nearly every major airline concerning refund policies during the pandemic.

Companies not only must navigate how to deal with existing liability, but how to reopen their business and charge their customers who return balancing compliance with written policies, supporting their customers and maintaining a good public image, and remaining financially solvent.  Examination of potential ways to maintain cash-flow, through government incentives, customer credits against future transactions, and other means, is an important first step.

Negligence in Addressing the Threat of Coronavirus

Class actions have also been filed alleging negligence and inaction to respond to and prevent harm arising from the coronavirus pandemic.  Thus far, these actions have largely been focused on cruise lines, alleging that the ships maintained business as usual despite increasing knowledge of the danger posed to passengers and crew, but it is easy to imagine additional lawsuits against companies that continued operations as the coronavirus spread (or were forced to continue throughout the shutdown).  It is also expected that similar allegations will arise as the economy reopens and people resume their normal activities.  Companies must design and implement a careful plan to minimize risk when they resume operations—by not opening too soon, providing adequate protective equipment and training to staff, and effectively warning customers of ongoing risks despite the business reopening.

False Advertising of Health Benefits

With consumers anxiously seeking products that can help them protect themselves during this public health crisis, it is important that companies are mindful of claims that may potentially overstate the effectiveness of a given product in treating or preventing the virus.  A number of companies have already seen warning letters from federal agencies or class action lawsuits concerning the alleged lack of evidence that hand sanitizers can effectively prevent the spread of disease, including coronavirus.  These lawsuits, asserting claims for consumer warranty and unfair competition, will likely spread from hand sanitizers to other products.  It is unclear how courts will evaluate the objective “reasonable consumer” under present circumstances.  Thus, companies should closely examine their existing advertising claims (both express and implied) to ensure they are not misleading in light of the “new normal.”

Price Gouging

Another area where class actions have been slow to file, but are expected to increase, is price gouging.  The pandemic has caused sharp spikes in demand for disinfecting products, basic necessities, and essential food staples and empty shelves—both in brick and mortar stores as well as online shops—have increased consumer’ willingness to pay a premium for these types of products.  While there is no federal law with strict guidelines for price gouging, more than half of the states have laws the prohibit charging excessive prices on certain products after a triggering event, such as a declaration of a state of emergency.  Companies should closely monitor the prices they charge, both during the crisis and after it resolves, to ensure that any increases to their prices comply with applicable law.  And while third party sellers like Amazon may be able to pass liability through to the ultimate seller in certain circumstances, it may be wise to actively monitor the pricing activities of their sellers and try to curb price gouging activity before getting hit with litigation.


To alleviate the pains of social distancing, companies, schools, and families have turned to video conference apps to stay connected.  As usual, with increased popularity comes increased scrutiny and, unfortunately, increased litigation.

Popular videoconferencing apps Zoom and Houseparty have already been hit with several class actions challenging their privacy practices.  Not surprisingly, these actions have been filed in California, where the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) went into effect earlier this year.  While the CCPA only provides for a private right of action under limited circumstances, these actions demonstrate consumers’ ability—or at least attempt—to use other provisions of the CCPA as underlying statutory violations to support other California consumer protection claims, such as California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Technology companies whose platforms have seen a surge in popularity during the pandemic should closely monitor potential vulnerabilities and reexamine privacy protections that may no longer be adequate in this new virtual economy.

Securities Class Actions

Shareholder class actions have also been filed challenging both affirmative representations and omissions relating to the pandemic.  These include actions against cruise lines that allegedly downplayed the risk of coronavirus to investors, pharmaceutical companies that allegedly overstated their ability to develop a treatment or vaccine, and technology companies that allegedly withheld privacy concerns that have come to light with increased use.  These early cases illustrate why publicly traded companies must exercise great care when discussing their products and business both to the public and to their investors.  It remains to be seen how defenses deflecting blame for decreases in stock prices to the pandemic (similar to those asserted in the wake of the mortgage crisis) will play out.


With court closures and delays throughout the country, the evolution of class action litigation relating to the coronavirus may take some time to come into focus.  We expect the above described categories of cases to proliferate, and expand in scope as different issues arise from the reopening of the economy.  We will continue to monitor these cases and provide regular updates as to the types of claims being asserted and any decisions that come out. For a more in-depth treatment of these cases and for a comprehensive collection of case citations, click here.

Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center

California is not the only state focused on privacy.  The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office recently emphasized how the Office is prioritizing its enforcement of such issues. Over its first year, the newly-created Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Section within the New Jersey Division of Law has initiated its own actions and joined several multi-state investigations.  Privacy also plays a prominent role in private actions and draft legislation in the Garden State.  Companies marketing or selling to New Jersey consumers or otherwise operating in the state should take steps to confirm their privacy compliance.

Reported Data Breaches

According to statistics released by the New Jersey Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs on October 31, 2019, there were 906 separate data breaches reported to the New Jersey State Police in 2018, compared to 958 breaches in 2017.  The number of individual residents impacted declined significantly from 2017 to 2018.  While over 4 million residents were impacted by 2017 breaches, that number fell to approximately 358,000 in 2018.  The 2018 total, however, is still nearly three-times the 116,000 residents impacted in 2016.

State Enforcement Actions

In response to these breach figures, New Jersey actively enforced against lax privacy practices.  Through the first three quarters of 2019, the Attorney General reported $6.4 million in recoveries.  Additionally, New Jersey served a leading role in several large-scale, multi-state recoveries for consumers over the last 9 months.  For example:

  • New Jersey was part of the Leadership Committee pushing the investigation and resolution of claims arising from a 2017 data breach at credit reporting agency Equifax that will result in payment of $575 to $700 million ($6.36 to NJ) as part of a global resolution of claims by the FTC, 50 U.S. states and territories, and individual consumers.
  • New Jersey was also one of 30 states to resolve data breach and consumer privacy claims against health insurer Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield.  Premera’s network had exposed the Social Security and sensitive health information of 10.4 million consumers, including approximately 40,000 NJ residents.  That settlement includes $10 million to the states (including $72,168 to NJ) as well as a $32 million fund for consumers and $42 million in required cybersecurity upgrades at Premera.
  • New Jersey was also part of the multi-state resolution of claims against retailer Neiman Marcus in response to a breach involving shoppers’ credit card numbers and other personal information.  NJ received $57,465 as part of a $1.5 million settlement, which impacted approximately 17,000 individuals with NJ addresses.

Private Consumer Actions

The millions of New Jersey residents impacted by data breaches and cybersecurity threats over the last several years has served as a large pool of potential private litigants.  The New Jersey courts remain an active destination for putative consumer class actions arising from data security and privacy issues.  In addition to recovery for losses, New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act includes provisions that can allow for treble damages as well as awards for all costs and attorney fees.  Such provisions make privacy and data breach issues a ripe target for private consumer claims.

Similarly, the District of New Jersey has handled a number of complex privacy matters, including the recently-formed Multi-District Litigation arising from a data breach at American Medical Collection Agency Inc. that implicates patient data from approximately 20 million people related to Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp.

Legislative Focus on Privacy

Following the national trend, New Jersey’s lawmakers have shown a consistent interest in increased regulation of data privacy and cybersecurity.  There are at least 18 separate bills currently pending in the Legislature that address privacy and cybersecurity.  That includes both Senate and Assembly legislation that would require development and implementation of a “comprehensive information security program” by businesses that handle personal information.  In May, Governor Murphy signed a bill expanding the definition of personal information to include online account information as part of the State’s data breach notification law.

With the increased public awareness of comprehensive privacy and cyber legislation garnered by the EU’s GDPR and California’s CCPA, businesses should be prepared for other states to follow suit.  Given its prior history as a leader on consumer-focused legislation, companies can expect New Jersey legislators to seriously consider additional privacy legislation.

New Jersey is only one example of how consumer privacy issues are being addressed at the state level.  Harmonizing business practices across state lines may prove challenging as these new laws regulating data practices are enacted.  For now, as a best practice, it’s helpful to:

  • Take steps to keep privacy and cybersecurity practices, policies, and procedures in line with each state where your customers reside;
  • Determine if your compliance program takes into account and reasonably addresses foreseeable risks to the personal information in your control, and whether this risk analysis is documented so you can point to it if needed if there’s a future lawsuit or government investigation;
  • Evaluate whether the business has sufficiently invested in adequate privacy and cybersecurity and insurance coverage that takes into account how the business, laws, and potential exposure are evolving; and
  • Consult with experienced practitioners in this area that can help guide and counsel your business on options for making practical updates to your compliance program mindful of the changing legal landscape.

FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Christine S. Wilson recently sat down with Cameron Kerry at the Brookings Institution to discuss the FTC’s role in privacy. Although the Commissioners did not agree on everything, both identified the FTC as the best agency to enforce privacy wrongs. The Commissioners also shared their views on issues such as notice and consent, data ownership, privacy harms, and FTC authority.

Both Commissioners agreed that “notice and consent” is an ineffective model. Instead, Commissioner Slaughter suggested focusing on consumer expectations as to how companies will use their data. Commissioner Wilson agreed, but suggested that any new model provide predictability and certainty for businesses in light of laws such as the CCPA and GDPR. Neither Commissioner thought the data ownership model was a proper alternative to “notice and consent,” and Commissioner Slaughter further noted that paying consumers for their data may actually exacerbate data use issues.

The Commissioners also discussed what harms the agency looks for in bringing privacy cases, and what harms any privacy legislation should address. Commissioner Wilson pointed to the FTC’s past enforcement actions, including a recent settlement against app developers who created apps to surreptitiously stalk individuals’ phones. Commissioner Slaughter suggested broadening the legislature’s and agency’s definition of privacy harms to consider new issues, such as data use and targeting that lead to child suicide and self-harm. She noted that harms should not need to be quantifiable to be cognizable.

In terms of how the FTC should use its enforcement authority, the Commissioners agreed that the agency should consider competition in privacy enforcement actions, but they disagreed as to how far to push the limits of the FTC’s authority. For Commissioner Slaughter, the important question is, “What are consumers’ reasonable expectations?” In the Facebook case, for example, Commissioner Slaughter wanted to pursue litigation to push for more transparency and limits on the company’s data collection and use. She noted that litigation is a good tool with which to identify the limits on the agency’s authority. Commissioner Wilson, on the other hand, was concerned about attempting to legislate through a settlement, and viewed the consumer relief in the case as “real and meaningful,” as evidenced by the company having already made changes to its practices as a result of the settlement.

Both Commissioners Slaughter and Wilson agreed that the FTC needs rulemaking and civil penalty authority in the first instance of an enforcement action, although Commissioner Wilson clarified that she thinks rulemaking authority should be limited, similar to COPPA. Both Commissioners also agreed that the FTC needs more resources for enforcement.

The FTC Commissioners also expressed a variety of views on what privacy legislation should look like, but noted that creating the law is ultimately up to Congress. Whether the legislature will pass privacy legislation remains to be seen. In the meantime, businesses will need to stay vigilant monitoring FTC privacy enforcement trends and business guidance, as well as the enactment of new state privacy laws and related state enforcement, private litigation, and relevant industry self-regulatory frameworks, such as the recently proposed IAB CCPA Framework.

Please join us on May 1 in Charlotte for a half-day workshop covering the latest advertising and privacy law developments. This interactive event will provide an update on crucial consumer protection issues, deliver practical guidance and benchmarking, and offer an opportunity to connect with peers across a variety of industries.

This workshop will be open to the public but registration is required. Register here.

Agenda Highlights

Working with Influencers and Paid Partnerships

Marketing with influencers and celebrities can help companies capture consumer attention, but there are enough legal headaches to make you dizzy. Not only do companies need to worry about complying with the law, they need to worry about whether the talent will do anything to harm their brands. Although there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to these issues, we will discuss the key legal requirements and provide practical tips for your campaigns.

FTC Update

Now that the FTC has a full slate of new commissioners, and is nearing conclusion of hearings examining the agency’s past and future policy and enforcement approach, what can businesses expect to see from the FTC in terms of policy and enforcement changes? This session will discuss these updates and the practical ramifications for industry.

Privacy Strategy: Planning for California’s CCPA and Beyond

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) takes effect January 1, 2020. A number of states are following with efforts to enact their own comprehensive privacy laws. Federal legislation that preempts such state laws also remains a possibility. This session will focus on practical steps that companies can take now to address their privacy compliance obligations in the United States, along with best practices for data risk management.

Class Action Update

The plaintiffs’ bar is more active than ever. This session will discuss current issues and trends in consumer protection litigation, with a particular focus on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions.

Advertising Technology: Key Legal and Self-Regulatory Developments

Recently-enacted laws with global impact and high-profile privacy and data security events with associated industry scrutiny have major implications for companies that create and support targeted advertising and those that leverage the resulting insights. This session will provide strategies to carefully navigate the increasingly complex legal, regulatory, and self-regulatory AdTech landscape.

Consumer Protection and Privacy Panel

Update on some of the other significant developments that companies should have on their radar.

Questions, please contact

Kelley Drye’s Advertising and Marketing practice has a national reputation for excellence. No other firm can match our record in advertising litigation and National Advertising Division (NAD) proceedings, our substantive strength in the area of advertising, promotions marketing and privacy law, and our experience at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the offices of state Attorneys General, the NAD, and the broadcast networks.
Continue Reading About Us