.

Dustin structures privacy and cybersecurity programs — and defends clients when incidents strike — so that technology risk becomes a business asset rather than a liability.

Dustin brings something rare to data privacy and cybersecurity work: he has held the operational roles his clients are trying to protect. That grounding shapes every engagement, from building a proactive privacy program from the ground up to guiding a client through the aftermath of a ransomware attack or a social engineering breach.

On the advisory side, Dustin counsels companies on compliance with the EU and U.K. General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and a growing field of U.S. state comprehensive privacy laws. He also advises on the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), CAN-SPAM, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) — giving clients a single point of contact for the full landscape of U.S. sectoral and state privacy obligations.

Dustin's technology commerce practice runs alongside his privacy work. He negotiates and structures agreements between financial institutions and their core information systems vendors, advises on data protection provisions in cloud infrastructure contracts, and helps clients manage the data-related dimensions of corporate acquisitions. As artificial intelligence tools move from experiment to infrastructure, Dustin helps clients deploy them responsibly — whether that means advising a bank on vendor oversight for generative AI, helping a software-as-a-service provider develop a framework for negotiating AI terms with customers, or building agreements for an AI company selling services into global healthcare markets.

When incidents occur, Dustin has guided clients across industries through the response: a major healthcare provider facing ransomware, an aerospace business whose employee data was compromised, a professional employer organization targeted by social engineering, and a global IT services firm managing simultaneous incidents across its vendor and client network. He has also provided counsel in a matter where a company's top executive was personally targeted by regulators over security oversight.

Dustin is a frequent speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity topics, and his writing on privacy law has appeared in national legal publications. Clients in banking, healthcare, retail, technology, and aerospace rely on his counsel to address both immediate risks and long-term program development.

Select Experience

  • Developed a comprehensive written information security program and suite of cybersecurity policies for a major diversified enterprise with substantial operations across the United States.
  • Counseled a major healthcare provider through response to a serious ransomware incident, providing strategic guidance on containment, notification obligations, and regulatory compliance.
  • Represented a startup bank in negotiating agreements with its financial software vendors to establish a comprehensive cloud-based technology infrastructure.
  • Assisted a wide variety of clients in responding to complaints and demand letters alleging claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Education

  • Columbia University (LL.M., 2011)
    • Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar
  • University of Denver, Sturm College of Law (J.D., 2009)
    • Faculty Prize (valedictorian award)
    • Order of St. Ives
    • Denver University Law Review
  • University of Denver (M.B.A., 2003)
    • Daniels Scholar
  • University of Wyoming (B.S., Computer Science, 2001)
    • University Honors Program

Charitable & Civic Involvement

  • Colorado LGBT Bar Association

Clerkships

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Honorable Terrence O'Brien, 2011-2014
  • Colorado Court of Appeals, Honorable Alan Loeb, 2009-2010

Bar Admissions

  • Colorado
  • Washington
  • Wyoming

Accolades

  • Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) through ISC2
  • International Association of Privacy Professionals, Fellow of Information Privacy
  • Certified Information Privacy Professional for the United States, Europe, and Canada (CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPP/C)
  • Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM)
  • Certified Information Privacy Technologist (CIPT)
  • Holds the Security+ designation from CompTIA
  • Consistently providing pro bono legal assistance to those in need through Dorsey’s Pro Bono program

Select Presentations

  • Cybersecurity: A Practical Guide to Risk Assessment, State Bar of South Dakota (June 2017)
  • Cybersecurity Issues in the Workplace, National Association of Professional Employer Organizations, Capitol Summit, Washington, D.C. (May 2018)
  • Data Wars: How the California Consumer Privacy Act Affects California Employers, Salt Lake City, UT (May 2019)
  • Corporate Contracting Conundrum: Dealing with Data Security & Privacy Issues, Assoc. of Corporate Counsel Institute, St. Louis, MO (May 2022)

Insights

Articles

When AI Finds the Flaws Humans Missed: The Coming Upheaval in Cybersecurity

September 14, 2026

Dustin Berger authored an article in Corporate Counsel detailing how advances in AI could accelerate vulnerability discovery and exploitation, and what that may mean for organizations trying to keep pace. Dustin writes: "The organizations best positioned for the future will not necessarily be those that buy the newest technology first. They will be the ones that know where their greatest risks are, can find and fix weaknesses quickly, and have a functioning security program when prevention fails. The defender’s window may be narrowing, but it has not yet closed." Read the full article via Law.com (subscription required).

Blog Post

FTC Finalizes Click to Cancel and Negative Option Rule

January 13, 2025

On October 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a revision to its negative option rule. The rule, formally entitled the “Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs,” is a robust governmental intervention into the marketing and sales of products or services that involve “negative option features.” A “negative option feature” exists if seller provides a contract “under which the consumer’s silence or failure to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the [ ] seller as acceptance or continuing acceptance of the offer.” 16 C.F.R. 425.2. Although the revised negative option rule does not prohibit negative option programs, it imposes certain requirements on sellers using them. I.     Negative Option Programs The FTC explains that many negative option programs fall into one of four familiar categories: Prenotification plans, such as book-of-the-month clubs, where “sellers provide periodic notices offering goods to participating consumers and then send—and charge for—those goods only if the consumers take no action to decline the offer.” Continuity plans, where “consumers agree in advance to receive periodic shipments of goods or provision of services . . . which they continue to receive until they cancel the agreement.” Automatic renewal plans, common in the magazine subscription context, where sellers “automatically renew consumers’ subscriptions when they expire, unless consumers affirmatively cancel the subscriptions.” Free-to-pay plans, in which “consumers receive goods or services for free . . . for a trial period” but afterward “sellers automatically begin charging a fee (or a higher fee) unless consumers affirmatively cancel or return the goods or services.” II.     Requirements for Negative Option Programs Regardless of the form of the negative option program, the FTC’s new rule, which is set to go into effect in part on January 14, 2025, and in full on May 14, 2025, imposes four principal requirements on all negative option programs, whether offered online or via more traditional channels. The FTC considers any negative option program that fails to meet each of the four requirements to be a per se violation of section five of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the FTC may seek civil penalties for each violation. A.   No Misrepresentations; Information Requirements The first two requirements are closely related. The first requirement prohibits the misrepresentation of any material fact related to the transaction, including facts about the negative option feature and the underlying goods or services. The second requirement is that sellers clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms related to the negative option feature. These material terms include: (1) “[t]hat consumers will be charged for the good or service, or that those charges will increase after any applicable trial period ends, and, if applicable, that the charges will be on a recurring basis, unless the consumer timely takes steps to prevent or stop such charges; (2) [t]he deadline (by date or frequency) by which the consumer must act in order to stop all charges; (3) [t]he amount (or range of costs) the consumer will be charged and, if applicable, the frequency of such charges a consumer will incur unless the consumer takes timely steps to prevent or stop those charges; (4) the date (or dates) each charge will be submitted for payment; and (5) the information necessary for the consumer to cancel the negative option feature.” The prohibition on misrepresentation takes effect on January 14, 2025, while the second requirement relating to the disclosure of material terms (along with the other requirements discussed below) take effect on May 14, 2025. 16 C.F.R. § 425.3 to § 425.4. B.   Consent The third requirement is that a seller promoting or offering goods or services with a negative option feature must “obtain the consumer’s unambiguously affirmative consent to the negative option feature offer separately from any other portion of the transaction,” “not include information that interferes with, detracts from, contradicts, or otherwise undermines the ability of consumers to provide their express informed consent,” and to maintain records regarding that consent for three years, unless consumers cannot complete a transaction without providing such consent. 16 C.F.R. § 425.5. C.   Click to Cancel The final requirement is the so-called “click to cancel” component of the rule. It requires that a seller offering a negative option program provide a “simple mechanism” for cancellation. 16 C.F.R. § 425.6(a). The cancellation mechanism must be “at least as simple” as the sign-up process and must be offered “through the same medium” as the sign-up. 16 C.F.R. § 425.6(b) and (c). For online negative option programs, consumers cannot be required to “interact with a live or virtual representative . . . to cancel if the consumer did not do so” to sign-up. 16 C.F.R. § 425.6(c)(1). And, for in-person programs, the seller must offer both an in-person cancellation option “where practical” as well as a telephonic or online option. 16 C.F.R. § 425.6(c)(3). III.     Challenges The negative option rule has been challenged by a number of industry groups. The litigation challenging the Rule was subsequently consolidated under Custom Communications Inc., v. FTC, 8th Cir, No. 24-3137. The challengers are seeking a stay of the rule prior to certain provisions taking effect on January 14, 2025. Additionally, there has been speculation as to whether the new administration will continue to support the negative option rule. The rule was passed by the FTC on a 3-2 party-line vote, with the recently named FTC Chair, Andrew Ferguson, voting against the rule. Stay tuned for more from the TMCA as the rule progresses through the courts and the Federal Trade Commission under the new administration. IV.     More Information The FTC has made a fact sheet about the revised negative option rule available and provided a plain language description of the rule.

Legal Writings

  • Law360, Employers Can Prepare For New Colo. Data Privacy Law (2018).
  • Moving Toward Law: Refocusing the Federal Courts’ Plain Error Doctrine in Criminal Cases, 67 U. Miami L. Rev. 521 (2013).
  • The Management of Health Care Costs: Independent Medical Review after 'Obamacare', 42 U. Memphis L. Rev. 255 (2012).
  • Balancing Consumer Privacy with Behavioral Targeting, 27 Santa Clara Comp. & High Tech L.J. 3 (2011).
  • E-Discovery’s Threat to Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 for the Digital Age, 63 Rutgers L. Rev. 521 (2011) (with Robert Hardaway and Andrea Defield).

Firm Highlights

News

Dorsey & Whitney Advises Beijing Xunzhong on Two Consecutive H Share Placings Raising HK$418.5 Million

International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP acted as Hong Kong legal advisors to Beijing Xunzhong Communication Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xunzhong”) as to Hong Kong law in connection with two consecutive placings of new H shares under general mandate (the “First Placing” and the “Second Placing”, respectively, and together, the “Placings”). Xunzhong’s H shares are listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (Stock Code: 2597). Winbull Securities International (Hong Kong) Limited acted as sole overall coordinator and placing agent on both Placings. The First Placing of 11,190,000 new H shares at HK$28.20 each was completed on September 17, 2026, followed by the Second Placing of 3,550,000 new H shares at HK$29.00 each on October 30, 2026. The Placings raised approximately HK$315.56 million and HK$102.95 million in gross proceeds, respectively, or approximately HK$418.51 million in aggregate (approximately HK$415.96 million in aggregate net proceeds). Both Placings were conducted under the same general mandate granted by shareholders at Xunzhong’s 2025 annual general meeting, and each was completed within one week of the signing of its placing agreement. Completing placings in consecutive months is relatively uncommon in the Hong Kong market, and doing so called on the technical depth of Dorsey’s Hong Kong Capital Markets team. Working closely with Xunzhong to understand its business needs and prepare the transaction documents, the team addressed in quick succession the remaining capacity under the general mandate, disclosure of the use of proceeds and the maintenance of Xunzhong’s public float, enabling both Placings to be completed seamlessly. “We are pleased to have advised Xunzhong on both Placings,” said Rachel Han, Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice. “We appreciate the trust placed in our team and the close collaboration among all parties involved. We look forward to supporting Xunzhong as it continues to execute its growth strategy and pursue future capital markets opportunities.” Xunzhong is principally engaged in cloud-based communications services and enterprise digitalization services in the PRC. As disclosed in its announcements, the net proceeds of the First Placing are allocated to developing Xunzhong’s new computing power operation services business, while those of the Second Placing will be used to integrate model-as-a-service (MaaS) and AI agent capabilities into its existing cloud communications platform-as-a-service (PaaS) platform and software-as-a-service (SaaS) products. Approximately 55% of the net proceeds of the Second Placing will be used for computing power equipment upgrades for the MaaS system, approximately 35% for MaaS, PaaS and SaaS platform upgrades, and approximately 10% for working capital and general corporate purposes. With a single MaaS platform and shared computing power supporting its PaaS and SaaS offerings, Xunzhong intends for its MaaS, PaaS and SaaS capabilities to complement and reinforce one another, and to address customer needs from multiple angles, from embedding AI in customer communications and business workflows to maintaining stable performance at scale and keeping customer data within controlled environments. Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice Rachel Han and Of Counsel in the Capital Markets and Corporate Compliance group Carlton Ng, along with Associate Kristy Ting, led the Dorsey Hong Kong Capital Markets & Corporate Compliance group in advising Xunzhong on both Placings.

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

Materials Symposium Agenda Sessions 8:30 am - 9:30 am CT Session A: The Corporate Compass: Finding True North When Ethical Duties Conflict Philip Kaplan, Senior Legal Counsel, Howden Re Lucia Suljic, Vice President, Corporate Legal, Canon USA Nicole Stanton, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This panel addresses ethical obligations of in-house counsel, including balancing obligations and duties that may conflict with each other. How should a responsible in-house lawyer deal with those challenging situations? Rather than stick to an academic discussion, this panel will revolve around a series of practical scenarios that are designed to be realistic and timely, including situations where counsel is asked to represent both the company and an individual, how and when to disclose uncomfortable facts and inconvenient documents, issues involving changing firms and companies, and multijurisdictional practice. The panel will feature discussion from two experienced in-house lawyers and Dorsey’s Deputy General Counsel. Session B: Managing Rapid Regulatory Change in International Trade and Cross-Border Investment Nathan Brower, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Nature’s Sunshine Greg Ogunsanya, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, H.B. Fuller Kathryn Wood, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, DecoPac, Inc. Dave Townsend and Lawrence Ward, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This program is designed for attorneys advising on cross-border transactions, international trade, regulatory compliance, and corporate governance matters. Panelists will examine recent developments in U.S. trade and investment law and policy, as well as their impact on international collaborations, corporate compliance, and mergers and acquisitions. The discussion will explore how general counsel and in-house legal teams assess and manage evolving trade-related risks within their organizations. Particular focus will be given to developments during the first two years of the second Trump Administration, including changes in tariff policy, tariff refunds, export controls, economic sanctions, and national security reviews of foreign investment. Through a discussion of regulatory trends and practical case studies, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the legal risks and compliance obligations associated with cross-border business activities, and hear about practical strategies for advising clients and managing compliance obligations in a rapidly changing trade and investment environment. 9:45 am - 10:45 am CT Session A: The Elon Musk Cases: What Tesla and Twitter Can Teach Your Board of Directors Loren Unterseher, Managing Partner, Oxbow Industries, LLC Shulamite White, Chief Legal Officer and Head of People, Motive Technologies Kirsten Schubert, Tom Swigert, and Jonathan Van Horn, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Recent cases involving Elon Musk and his businesses have had significant impact on principles governing board of directors’ fiduciary duties and corporate processes. This panel will examine recent litigation involving Elon Musk, Tesla, and Twitter, and its effects on the law governing the duties of directors and executives, including the executive compensation and director compensation processes, conflicts that may arise when a single executive has control over multiple businesses, and the ramifications of tweets or other public statements by an executive. Session B: All Eyes on DEI: Managing Diversity Efforts Amid Regulatory Scrutiny and Potential Litigation Maggie Dalton, Senior Commercial Attorney, Cargill; Board Co-Chair, Twin Cities Diversity in Practice Laura A. Vannelli, Legal Counsel, Mayo Clinic Susan Lorenc and Jack Sullivan, Dorsey & Whitney LLP The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has changed dramatically over the past two years. Law firms and legal departments are continuing to grapple with how to recruit, retain, and develop talent from a wide range of personal backgrounds, in a world where previously accepted recruiting and employment practices are facing increased scrutiny and litigation. This program will provide a practical overview of the current legal regime, including recent federal enforcement actions and litigation trends associated with DEI initiatives. Panelists will discuss practical ways in which organizations can pursue and retain legal talent and increase inclusion while minimizing legal, business, and reputational risk. 11:00 am - 12:00 pm CT Session A: Governance in an Age of Increasing Unpredictability James Chosy, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, U.S. Bancorp Todd Hartman, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Risk Officer, Best Buy Co., Inc. Alan Rosselot, Associate General Counsel & Assistant Secretary, Delta Air Lines, Inc. Cam Hoang and Robert Rosenbaum, Dorsey & Whitney LLP More than ever, ensuring that boards are well-informed and forward-thinking is critical to a company’s success. Join our panel of corporate governance experts as they share their experiences advising boards through crisis and unpredictable events; capitalizing on, but also checking, disruptive technologies; and positioning the company to succeed in an environment of shifting government priorities. Session B: A Day in the Life of a Trademark, Copyright & Advertising Attorney: A Hypothetical Case Study Alexander Kim, Vice President and General Counsel, Binks Nate Whitaker, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel, Crumbl Cathy Dahl and Tiffany Shimada, Dorsey & Whitney LLP What issues are companies facing daily while developing rights in intellectual property, protecting those rights, and staying in compliance with myriad potential issues related to advertising, social media, relationships with influencers, and environmental or governmental claims? This panel will feature two in-house counsel who are navigating these issues, utilizing a hypothetical case study, with the support of two Dorsey attorneys helping to develop a roadmap for meeting business objectives and minimizing the risk of claims. 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm CT Keynote Address Dr. Rebecca Heiss, Stress Physiologist Dr. Rebecca Heiss is a stress physiologist, author, and sought-after speaker who helps audiences transform fear and stress into fuel for greater performance and resilience. Her research has been recognized as “transformative” by the National Science Foundation, and she is the author of two books, Springboard and Instinct. Through her Fear(less) message, Rebecca inspires audiences with practical, science-based strategies to train our brains to work for us – not against us – and navigate change and uncertainty with greater confidence.

Insights

Minnesota Consumer-Fraud Enforcement: Disclaimers Won’t Cure Deception, and Penalties Can Add Up

Misleading advertising claims can lead to costly consequences. In State of Minnesota ex rel. Ellison v. Wall & Associates, Inc., No. A25-2064, 2026 WL 3118291 (Minn. App. Oct. 19, 2026), the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently affirmed a bench trial verdict against a tax-relief company and two executives for violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (“MCFA”) and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“MDTPA”). The decision, which affirmed a substantial restitution and civil penalty judgment, underscores the broad power of the Minnesota Attorney General to act against deceptive sales practices. The decision also offers practical lessons for businesses seeking to reduce liability risks in consumer-facing communications. Background Wall & Associates (“W&A”), a Virginia-based tax-relief company, marketed assistance to taxpayers seeking relief from outstanding federal and state tax liabilities, often with offers in compromise—agreements to settle tax liabilities for less than the amount owed. In its extensive advertising campaigns, W&A represented that its average client received a 90% reduction in their tax debt, that it was a local company with Minnesota offices, that it provided legal services, and that it would “Solve ALL Tax Problems.” In reality, W&A’s promises bore little resemblance to what many clients received. Most of W&A’s clients saw just a 9.5% reduction in federal tax debt and 1.2% in state tax debt. W&A had no permanent Minnesota offices. And W&A provided neither legal representation nor assistance with filing tax returns—those services required referrals to separate firms for an additional fee. All the while, W&A clients paid upfront and recurring fees, including during periods when W&A did no work on their cases. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued W&A, its founder and owner Ernest Kenneth Wall, and its president and CEO Patrick Mark Yates, alleging violations of, among other laws, the MCFA and the MDTPA. Following a 12-day bench trial, the district court determined that W&A violated the MCFA and MDTPA through its false and embellished advertising. The district court also held Wall and Yates individually liable for those violations because they directed, participated in, and acquiesced in the violations. The district court ordered injunctive relief, $2.7 million in restitution (with Wall and Yates jointly and severally liable for $1.3 million), and civil penalties of $786,517 against W&A, $415,500 against Wall, and $207,750 against Yates. The district court also awarded over $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to the state. W&A, Wall, and Yates appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s decision on October 19, 2026. Although W&A, Wall, and Yates challenged the judgment on numerous grounds, several highlights of the decision provide important takeaways for consumer-facing businesses. Individual Reliance Is Not Required for Statutory Liability W&A argued that Attorney General Ellison had to prove a causal nexus between each violation of the MCFA and MDTPA and the injury to a particular consumer to establish liability. In W&A’s view, this required proof that each injured consumer had personally relied on W&A’s false representation. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument based on the MCFA’s and MDTPA’s plain language, which requires no proof of actual deception or confusion by consumers. The Court of Appeals finally pointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., which held that when a defendant’s misrepresentations are directed at and affected “a broad group of consumers, proof of direct individual reliance is not required to establish a causal nexus between MCFA violations and the harm suffered by consumers.” 935 N.W.2d 124, 135 (Minn. 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, that a causal nexus is necessary to support an award of damages under the MCFA and MDTPA. In making that determination, district courts look to various factors, including whether the misrepresentations were “longstanding, pervasive, and widespread in communications directed to consumers,” whether the seller intended and understood that consumers would rely on the misrepresentations, and whether the information was of a kind on which consumers would typically rely. The Court of Appeals’ decision continues Minnesota School of Business’s broad interpretation of liability under the MCFA and the MDTPA. Coordinated marketing campaigns to a “broad group of consumers” may expose businesses to MCFA and MDTPA liability without customer-by-customer proof of injury. That said, a causal nexus remains an element of an MCFA and MDTPA claim, and businesses involved in litigation should build a clear record at trial and on appeal showing how each of the relevant factors bears on the causal-nexus inquiry. Contractual Disclaimers Are Not an Automatic Defense to a Misleading Pitch W&A next argued that disclaimers in its client contracts prevented consumers from claiming they had been misled by its advertising. Reiterating that individual reliance is not required under the MCFA and MDTPA, the Court of Appeals held that a contractual disclaimer does not necessarily defeat a claim based on a conflicting oral representation. And on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that W&A’s contractual disclaimers were insufficient given the extensive misrepresentations by W&A and the unequal bargaining power between it and its customers. This holding confirms that contractual disclaimers are not a cure-all for misleading advertising or sales practices. Businesses should review the entire customer journey, including pre-contract representations, as those representations may survive a contractual disclaimer to the contrary. And if faced with litigation, businesses should build a strong record, both at trial and on appeal, showing why any disclaimer is effective in context. The State Has Broad Authority to Seek Restitution W&A also challenged Attorney General Ellison’s authority to seek restitution under the state’s parens patriae authority to protect residents’ collective interests, arguing that injury to only 228 Minnesotans did not affect a sufficiently substantial segment of the population. The Court of Appeals rejected a simple headcount approach, instead explaining that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting residents’ economic well-being as a whole. In any event, the Court of Appeals held that if restitution was not appropriate under the state’s parens patriae authority, then it would still be appropriate under the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. The decision reinforces that the broader and more sustained the deceptive advertising, the stronger the case for restitution to protect Minnesotans’ economic interests. Civil Penalties Accrue Per Violation, Not Per Defendant The Court of Appeals finally rejected W&A’s claim that the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 permit only civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each defendant. Rather, the Court of Appeals explained that penalties are limited to $25,000 per violation. Multiple violations can therefore produce substantially greater penalties. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that restitution made penalties unnecessary: repaying consumers does not eliminate the need to address gains from deceptive conduct and deter future violations. Final Takeaways Align every consumer-facing communication. Broad and extensive marketing campaigns can expose businesses to stronger enforcement standards under the MCFA and MDTPA, making it critical that consumer communications remain accurate and consistent from the first advertisement through the final sale. Plan for layered enforcement exposure. Penalties under the MCFA and MDTPA can add up quickly: W&A, Wall, and Yates ultimately faced more than $6 million in civil penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. The decision continues a line of Minnesota cases recognizing the Attorney General’s broad consumer-protection authority. Details matter. Although the Attorney General’s enforcement power is broad, it is not boundless. As the Court of Appeals explained, issues of causation, the effectiveness of contractual disclaimers, and the availability of restitution and civil penalties all turn on the specific facts of the case. Effective advocacy at trial and on appeal is critical to developing the facts relevant to liability and damages.

Insights

Observations on the SEC’s 2027 Examination Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) recently announced its examination priorities (“Exam Priorities”) for fiscal year 2027.1 Although many of the Division’s core areas of focus remain consistent with fiscal year 2026, the 2027 Exam Priorities include notable changes and refinements, which we discuss below, along with other key 2027 examination priorities. Dorsey Observations Renewed focus on economic conflicts of interest. After certain economic-incentive topics received less emphasis in the 2026 Exam Priorities2, the Division has again expressly identified economic conflicts as an examination focus. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will prioritize reviewing advisers’ fiduciary obligations relating to economic conflicts of interest raised by fee rebates, fee and expense calculations, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, and deposits and withdrawals. Greater emphasis on private-fund practices. Building on the private-fund items in the 2026 Exam Priorities, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will assess private-fund disclosures and controls relating to investment allocations, leverage, affiliated service providers, and fees and expenses. The Division also identified investments in private companies through special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) and loans provided by private funds and business development companies (“BDCs”) as products the Division will scrutinize. Advisers, particularly private-fund advisers, should evaluate whether their disclosures and compliance programs address these areas. Expanded focus on AI-related cybersecurity risks. While the 2026 Exam Priorities focused on advisers’ use of and representations regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”), the 2027 Exam Priorities specifically highlight AI-enabled cybersecurity threats, including AI-generated phishing and synthetic or “deepfake” voice and video used for social engineering. The shift signals that registrants should consider whether their cybersecurity policies and controls adequately address these evolving threats. New focus on proxy advisory firms. The 2027 Exam Priorities state that the Division will examine advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms, including how those advisers evaluate the firms’ recommendations, assess the bases for those recommendations, identify potential conflicts of interest, and determine whether that reliance satisfies applicable legal obligations. Advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas. Updated focus on Regulation S-P and Regulation S-ID. The 2026 Exam Priorities stated that the Division would engage firms during examinations regarding their progress in preparing incident response programs ahead of the compliance dates for the amendments to Regulation S-P and would examine compliance with the amended rule after those dates. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examinations will focus on whether firms have developed, implemented, and maintained reasonably designed policies and procedures addressing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect customer information and that, in accordance with the amended rule, staff will evaluate response program policies and procedures for unauthorized access to or use of customer information, including customer notification procedures and oversight of service providers. With respect to Regulation S-ID, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examiners will assess whether firms are updating their Identity Theft Prevention Program to address emerging risks, such as those related to AI and stolen credentials. Advisers may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas, as applicable. Summary of Other 2027 Examination Priorities Beyond the developments discussed above, many of the Division’s core examination priorities remain consistent with fiscal year 2026. These include investment adviser fiduciary obligations and compliance programs, examinations of never-examined and recently registered advisers, and cybersecurity and operational resiliency. The Exam Priorities are not exhaustive, and examinations will vary based on each registrant’s business, activities and risks. Advisers should consider the 2027 Exam Priorities in reviewing their compliance programs and preparing for potential examinations, including by: Reviewing risk disclosures and controls. The Division states that, when examining advisers to private funds, it will assess whether investment-related risk disclosures are consistent with fiduciary standards and whether compliance policies, procedures, and controls are designed to address both fund-level and investment-level risks. Reviewing disclosures on allocations, leverage, and affiliated service providers. The 2027 Exam Priorities identify disclosures related to certain investments and allocations, the use of debt and fund-level lines of credit, and the use of affiliated service providers as examples. Confirming the accuracy of fee and expense calculations. The Division states that it will assess the accuracy of fee and expense calculations at both the fund and investment levels, and it identifies fee rebates, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, deposits, and withdrawals as areas in which economic conflicts of interest may affect the impartiality of advice. Reviewing recommendations of illiquid or hard-to-trade products. The Division states that it will prioritize advisers that recommend products that are difficult to trade, have unusual features, or are illiquid, including loans provided by private funds or BDCs and investments in private companies through SPVs. Confirming that the compliance program is implemented and reviewed. The Division states that it will review compliance program components such as marketing, valuation, and custody, as appropriate, and will typically analyze the annual compliance review. It will also focus on compliance practices when advisers have started advising new asset classes or clients or grown through mergers or acquisitions. 1 SEC Division of Examinations 2027 Examination Priorities. 2 See Dorsey’s Client Alert on the SEC’s fiscal year 2026 exam priorities.