Journal of Regulatory Compliance
Protected Health Information is seeing a surge of breaches on the cyber security front due to contractor error. It’s also impacting the most consumers in comparison to other data breaches and, in some cases, has the power to cause chaos in national infrastructure. Advances in technology and compliance measures can stem the tide and protect the most valuable information in consumers lives.
In a time when data breaches occur fairly frequently, whether it’s credit card information being stolen from department stores or a credit reporting bureau breach affecting hundreds of millions of customers, keeping personal information private seems to get harder every day. That fact may give patients pause when they are asked to sign up for an electronic health record account. A 2017 survey listed electronic health record management as one of patients top concerns. Changes in recent years have led to changes in compliance measures that make electronic health records security an added benefit to patients and ensure the continued increase of their adoption.
In a world where our reliance on technology and the cloud is increasing exponentially, data security’s growth has stagnated. The European Union (EU) passed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in hopes of ensuring that consumer data is protected and not harbored by businesses. The effects of the GDPR, however, have passed the borders of the European Union. In a world where our actions extend internationally with just the click of a button, the GDPR’s impact circles the globe as well. The GDPR has pushed for a shift in data privacy and regulation for companies within and outside of the EU as it holds to protect European citizens, no matter where they are in the world. This international reach has not only created forces to drive U.S. companies to comply, but states within the U.S. are now creating GDPR-inspired laws to protect their own citizens. The GDPR has started a trend that will soon become the norm and finally push compliance to keep up with the exponential growth of technology.
With less than a week left in the semester, the Journal of Regulatory Compliance editors are hard at work studying for exams, gearing up for summer jobs, or eagerly awaiting graduation. However, before we shutter INSIDE COMPLIANCE for the summer session, I want to take this opportunity to look back over the past year, and how much our members have accomplished.
The Journal of Regulatory Compliance is a young law journal, even for Loyola University Chicago School of Law. It’s only been a few years since our first annual symposium, and the debut of the Center for Compliance Studies here at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. In many ways, this year was an experiment—we debuted a new Board structure, a new editorial process, a new blog format and a new time of year for our Symposia. Despite that uncertainty, the 30-plus members of the Journal of Regulatory Compliance have accomplished extraordinary things.
Despite the United States having one of the safest food supplies in the world, more than 48 million Americans get sick from foodborne illnesses and diseases each year, and more than 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die from similar issues that are largely preventable. On January 04, 2011 President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”) into law. This enactment was called the “most sweeping reform” of U.S. Food Safety laws in more than seventy years. But seven years later, the act is still only partially enforced as the FDA has faced resistance from the government as well as a lack of funding. The FMSA was and is intended to enable the FDA to protect the health of the public by strengthening the food system in the United States. While change and reform in the industry are necessary, what good are new reforms if they will not be enforced for years to come?
Modern business thinking has come to accept that reputation is as important as financials. As investors look for companies that demonstrate this understanding, compliance professionals are in a unique position to make their companies more appealing.
Compliance professionals all over the country are paying close attention to the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign. While deregulation in finance has received the most media attention, the uranium mining industry has been a quiet beneficiary of the President’s new regulatory scheme.
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, found that the government can no longer sensor trademarks on the grounds that they may be offensive. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court Justices found the seventy-one year old rule allowing the government to refuse offensive trademarks to be unconstitutional and to violate free speech and first amendment rights. The justices were unable to agree on exactly what legal standard was to apply to the present case or future cases. The revocation of this seventy-one year old rule that has affected the registration of many marks over the years is bound to have an effect on the future of trademark law and trademark litigation. Immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was inundated with requests to register offensive trademarks.
“What is the Role of a Regulation if it is Not Enforced?”
Friday, February 16
9 a.m.–4 p.m.
Philip H. Corboy Law Center
25 E. Pearson Street
Power Rogers & Smith Ceremonial Courtroom, 10th Floor
The symposium will explore questions of theory and practice related to an administrative state that has such a largesse of regulations (and quasi-regulations in the form of interpretative guidance) that administrative agencies cannot possibly audit or enforce all of their expectations for regulated actors. The size and decentralized control of the administrative state poses questions of legal theory on the role of regulations in society if the state has no intention or lacks resources for enforcing them and practical questions for the regulated actors in how or when to comply with the regulations. But it also sets up a minefield for the regulated actor if enforcement agencies can play “gotcha” on technical strict liability rules which may be buried amid manuals or have been previously enforced. Although focusing on law, the symposium is intended to be multi-disciplinary and seeks to bring together scholars from law, ethics, political science, business, economics, and philosophy.
As the president and the Republican Party inch closer to finalizing their proposed tax overhaul, one major proposed change is the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is a tax on an individual’s right to transfer property upon his or her death, usually to the individual’s surviving relatives or heirs. Currently, estates are taxed at a rate of 40% after the first 5.5 million. While the tax itself only impacts the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans, the inclusion or repeal of the tax in the Republican tax bill will affect Americans of all income brackets.