Thanks to the continued prominence of social media in people’s daily lives, it is no surprise that more familiar marketing strategies such as celebrity product endorsements would update for the current era. Recently, social media advertising has practically entered the realm of science fiction with the introduction of computer-generated influencers. These avatars are created to sell, but who is responsible if they fail to comply with advertising laws?
On September 30, 2019, California signed into law the biggest change to college athletics in the modern era of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). Senate Bill 206 will allow college athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, and likeness, as well as protect the athletes from sanctions by the NCAA for violations stemming from the profits. One of college athletics’ core tenants has been the amateurism of their athletes and the emphasis on scholarship. This monumental change will have far reaching and lasting impact on college athletics and may disrupt the whole system as we know it.
At first glance, the Fair Housing Act is fairly straightforward: one must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. These classes are protected by federal law and applicable universally in the United States of America. In practice, however, the fine line complying with FHA anti-discrimination laws and complying with internal leasing policies – aimed at protecting the company from high-risk renters — can be difficult to discern for apartment leasing agents.
In this day and age, virtually anything can be shipped anywhere. No matter the destination, an item arrives at our door with only a few clicks. Rarely do we stop to think about how it gets to our door. We often overlook the regulations surrounding each package on its journey. The shipping of simple, everyday items, is fairly straight-forward and regulations more relaxed. However, the shipment of complex items, like hazardous materials, carries additional challenges.
On September 9th, 2019, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued its first enforcement action and settlement under its Right of Access Initiative. This came as a reaction to Bayfront Health St. Petersburg (Bayfront) paying $85,000 in fines to OCR. Bayfront adopted a corrective action plan to settle a potential violation of the right of access provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule after they failed to provide a mother timely access to the records about her unborn child. In response, the OCR Director, Roger Severino, stated “[w]e aim to hold the health care industry accountable for ignoring peoples’ right to access their medical record and those of their kids.”
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) has been the first step away from the sectoral approach that United States’ privacy laws have followed for many years. While it is set to take effect on January 1, 2020—only recently was the first draft guidance published. Set forth by California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, it states how the CCPA will be enforced. As is standard in notice and rulemaking standard in administrative law, a public consultation period is now in effect and will remain open for comments and hearings until December 6, 2019.
On September 5, 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released its final rule with comments on Program Integrity Enhancements to the Provider Enrollment Process (“ The Program Integrity Enhancements”). The final rule gives CMS the power to revoke Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollments of providers or suppliers who have an “affiliation” with previously sanctioned entities, even if those providers and suppliers aren’t directly violating any existing rules themselves. CMS says that this new authority will help to “stop fraud before it happens.”
After two years of deliberation, public comment, and litigation, the Department of Education has released its final regulations for an overhaul of borrower defense to repayment claims. On August 30, 2019, the Department of Education released a press brief outlining new regulations set to take place on July 1, 2020. The new rules maintain that they are in place to create “streamlined and fair procedures that ensure basic due process for both borrowers and institutions.” Touting an anticipated savings of $11.1 billion dollars in savings to taxpayers over a ten-year span, the new regulations will likely make it more difficult for students to have their student loans forgiven. However, because of a missed deadline by the Department of Education, an Obama-era rule that favors borrowers by offering a transparent process for handling their claims, as well as automatic forgiveness of loans for some borrowers, is effective until that time.
Data protection measures have been increasingly crossing news headlines ever since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in 2018. However, data protection measures did not begin with the GDPR. In the United States, where there is a sectoral system in place, there have been regulations in place for years that monitor children’s online privacy (COPPA), health information (HIPAA), spam (CAN-SPAM), and even video rental history (VPPA). Despite these systems being implemented years ago, large companies still fail to properly comply with the requirements set forth. Recently, a settlement between YouTube and the FTC brought to light the importance of compliance with COPPA.