Category:Regulation
NHTSA’s New Rule Expands Seat Belt Compliance
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently finalized a rule requiring seat belt alarms for drivers and front seat passengers. The new rule became effective on March 4, 2025, with ongoing expansion in years to come. This is an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, or “Occupant crash protection” which required seat belt warnings for drivers seats only. FMVSS No. 208 originally went into effect in 1968 and has had major improvements since its enactment. This particular improvement will require manufacturers to install front seat belt warnings in all new vehicles by September 1, 2026, but manufacturers can begin implementing the new rule before September 1, 2026. FMVSS No. 208 will apply to cars, trucks, multipurpose vehicles and certain kinds of buses. The change comes after the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which required NHTSA to regulate rear seat belt warnings in vehicles.
Power Without Process: Federal Enforcement in Chicago Tests the Rule of Law
The Trump administration’s decision to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and National Guard troops in Chicago has sparked nationwide debate over the boundaries of lawful enforcement. Federal officials describe the move as a necessary step to protect agents and restore order. State and local leaders, however, have accused the federal government of ignoring the legal limits that govern both immigration and military authority. Beneath the political clash lies a deeper legal concern: whether federal agencies are operating within the procedural safeguards and statutory frameworks that legitimize their power.
Everything, Everywhere, All at Once: Data Privacy and Protection in a Post-Pandemic Reality
Today, the exponential growth and mass adoption of information technology tools and the constant exchange of user data presents an ongoing challenge for regulators seeking to protect data and privacy rights. Particularly from the Covid-19 pandemic onward, a dramatic increase in both demand and dependency has caused a tectonic shift across both public and private sectors. As a result of this ongoing IT and data revolution, the legal and regulatory landscape faces new opportunities and challenges, in terms of providing clarity and stability to regulated industries, entities, and individuals. One notable area of concern is data privacy and protection. Unfortunately, the U.S. Federal system currently lacks a centralized regulatory framework for protecting user data and privacy. However, other nations offer clear models, case studies from which the U.S. could greatly benefit. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is an established, globally recognized regulatory framework. If adopted by U.S. regulators, the GDPR could provide clear regulatory guidance for individuals and entities seeking to navigate an increasingly high-risk era of data protection and management.
Who Owns the Airwaves? FCC Compliance and the Fight for Free Expression
The struggle to balance government oversight, corporate power, and free expression has placed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the heart of America’s media debate. The FCC plays a central role in U.S. media regulation, overseeing licensing, national ownership limits, and broadcasters’ statutory “public interest” obligations. The FCC’s national television ownership rule prevents any one company from controlling stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households. This mandate was designed to ensure that no single corporation could dominate the public airwaves. Yet, as recent events surrounding FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc., and the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live reveal, these safeguards are under mounting pressure. What began as a technical question of regulatory compliance has evolved into a broader confrontation over free speech, political influence, and the fragility of democratic guardrails in American broadcasting.
America’s Fractured Approach to AI Regulation
Federal efforts to promote artificial intelligence (“AI”) innovation by avoiding comprehensive regulation has prompted state legislatures to fill the regulatory void, creating a fractured regulatory landscape. This threatens the very innovation AI was meant to create in a global race towards general AI. Today’s AI systems are examples of Artificial Narrow Intelligence, trained to perform specific tasks but are unable to operate outside their defined parameters. In contrast, Artificial General Intelligence, or Strong AI, is a theoretical form of AI capable of apply prior knowledge and skills to new contexts, enabling it to learn and perform any intellectual task a human can without additional human training of the underlying models. This pursuit has driven unprecedented investment, technology corporations have poured billions of dollars into AI capital expenditures with this number only continuing to rise. Compliance teams are left scrambling to manage an increasingly complex regulatory environment that is evolving faster than legal departments and regulators can effectively manage.
Administrative Agencies and the Fight Over Regulatory Control
The regulatory state has expanded from the time of our founding. After the growth of industry and the expansion of interstate trade, the government understandably sought new ways to address increasingly complex problems. New agencies were created, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission (EPA, FDA , and FTC) who were charged with regulating different areas of commerce. This outgrowth was necessary to address changes in American markets. Over recent years, however, this expansion has become overly complex and has given too much authority to administrative agencies. In 2022 the state of West Virginia sought to rein in the regulatory powers of administrative agencies in the landmark Supreme Court case West Virginia v. EPA.
Regulating Artificial Intelligence in the World of Insurance: Illinois’ Stalled Legislative Effort
The rapidly growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) has resulted in corporations having to find the balance between regulation and efficiency, and the world of insurance is no exception. As part of this transformation, insurance companies such as UnitedHealth Group and Humana have integrated AI into their claims evaluation system as a tool to process claims efficiently. UnitedHealth Group states that AI can better analyze data, process claims, detect fraud and provide more effective customer service. However, critics challenge this assessment, citing bias and privacy concerns. During the 2025 legislative session, Illinois pushed to regulate insurance agencies operating in the state through Illinois House Bill 0035. However, the legislation stalled in the Illinois Senate and did not advance during the 2025 legislative session.
Offer, Acceptance, no Consideration: Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and the Battle for Consumer and Worker Protection
Today, the rapid proliferation of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements (MAAs) in modern U.S. commercial and employment transactions represents a clear and concerning trend: a pervasive and increasingly normalized paradigm shift in which big business exercises an unreasonable amount of legal control over consumers and employees alike. Important high profile examples – such as Disney, Kellog’s, and General Mills – spotlight how seamlessly such contractual clauses are used to preempt the rights of consumers and workers. Ultimately, these clauses effectively ban workers and consumers from bringing otherwise legally sound claims to the courtroom. The increasingly ubiquitous use of MAA’s represents a threat to basic principles of justice and fairness, exacerbating an already corporate friendly regulatory dynamic and commercial legal environment. However, this present reality is not predestined. Legislative proposals like the FAIR Act represent important balancing opportunities for federal regulators to empower consumers and workers by protecting them from unknowingly signing away their legal rights, and potential remedies, often with one simple click.
Navigating the Shifting Tides of Regulatory Compliance in Climate Policy
The United States finds itself at a regulatory crossroads when it comes to environmental policy. The current administration’s efforts to block state climate regulations through executive action stand in stark contrast to the growing movement of state governments implementing stringent greenhouse gas reporting requirements. This divergence creates a complex compliance landscape where businesses must simultaneously adapt to federal deregulation while meeting expanding state-level environmental mandates. This tension between federal and state approaches to climate regulation presents both challenges and opportunities for corporate compliance programs. As federal agencies scale back environmental oversight, progressive states are filling the regulatory void with ambitious climate policies that often exceed previous federal standards. This blog examines this emerging dichotomy, explores its implications for business operations, and provides strategic guidance for maintaining compliance in this evolving landscape.
Chicago’s Bold New Vision: Green Social Housing for a Sustainable, Equitable Future
Last week, Chicago City Council committees on Housing and Finance convened for negotiations and discussions on a monumental—and markedly contentious—green social housing plan. This comes nearly two months after Mayor Brandon Johnson and the Chicago Department of Housing introduced an enabling ordinance in the Chicago City Council, allowing the City to establish an independent nonprofit with the authority to serve as the Green Social Housing (GSH) developer. The GSH model tackles both housing insecurity and climate change head-on by developing permanently affordable, energy-efficient homes in every community. Spearheaded by the Chicago Department of Housing and the Illinois Green New Deal coalition, this initiative is poised to reshape how housing is built, owned, and lived in across the city.