.

Client Alert

Key Things Employers in China Should Know Regarding Reopening Amid COVID-19 (I)

March 6, 2020

by Ray Liu

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Due to the outbreak and rapid evolvement of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), the central government and its local counterparts in China have taken a series of actions to contain the spread of the virus, including extending the Spring Festival Holiday, ordering enterprises to put off the schedule of business reopening and encouraging employees to work from home.  Now, with the growth of virus infection gradually slowing down, local governments in various locations (including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong) have allowed and even encouraged business entities to resume their operations.  At the time of this article, a large number of companies and factories have already reopened their businesses with more to follow in the coming weeks.

With massive employees swarming into offices and factories, employers in China now face significant challenges in preventing and controlling the spread of coronavirus at workplace.  Several workplace infection cases have been reported recently, under which employers had to suspend their business operations and invest additional funds and resources to cooperate with the disease prevention and control requests from the government.1  Dorsey and Whitney LLP will release a series of articles to help employers in China, including multinational organizations’ Chinese operations, navigate the complex policies and requirements regarding business reopening implemented by the government and provide a practical guide on how to effectively prevent and deal with workplace infections.

As the first episode of the series, this article focuses on the timing and filing requirements for business reopening, actions to be taken to prevent and control spread of virus at workplace, measures required to protect personal information collected during the virus fight, and steps to be taken in the event of suspected infections at workplace.

1. When could companies resume their operations in China?

It depends on the location and business nature of the company.  In Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong, most types of business operators are now allowed to resume their operations.  However, in certain places hit hard by the epidemic, the local governments may have different timetables for business reopening.  For example, in Hubei province (where the first infection case in China was identified), after rounds of re-scheduling, the reopening date for most companies (except certain businesses crucial for disease control and people’s daily needs) is currently set on March 10, 2020, which might be further extended depending on the circumstances.2  Also, governments at various locations have released their own versions of negative list enumerating businesses with high infection risks that are not allowed to reopen.  Among others, movie theatres, Karaoke theatres, indoor training institutes, bars, Spa centers, museums and galleries are regarded by many local governments as high-risk businesses and therefore required to suspend their operations for an extended or indefinite period.4

2. Do companies need to make a filing with the government in order to reopen business?

In order to mitigate the risks of workplace virus transmission, many local governments require companies to make filings before or at the time of business reopening.  For example, in the Chaoyang District of Beijing where many multinational companies are located, the Office Building Epidemic Prevention and Control Working Group formed by the local government issued a notice according to which business entities within Chaoyang District should cooperate with the local authorities to provide necessary information via an official website (http://lyfy.bjchy.gov.cn) designated by the government.5  In Shanghai, companies in Jing’an District, one of the busiest central business districts in Shanghai, must complete an online filing when reopening their business.6  Other places such as Hangzhou, Chengdu, Suzhou Industrial Zone, Ningbo and Shenzhen also require companies to conduct reopening filing in their required methods and formats.7  Notably, to encourage companies to restart their operations or productions, governments in many places have cancelled the pre-approval requirement for reopening, which means that business operators can resume their operations first and proceed with the required filing upon or after reopening.8  Companies planning to resume their operations should carefully check if reopening filing is required at its location and complete any applicable filing procedures to ensure compliance.

3. What actions should an employer take to prevent and control virus spread at workplace?

Under the Employment Contract Law (“ECL”) and the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), an employer is obliged to provide a safe working environment to its employees.9  Under the Law of the PRC on Prevention and Control of Contagious Disease (“Contagious Disease Prevention Law”), an employer must timely report any confirmed or suspected infection of contagious disease to the medical institutions or disease prevention and control organizations (“DPC Organizations”) and cooperate with their requests in preventing and curbing the spread of the contagious disease.10  Based on these national laws, a number of local governments have released detailed guidelines regarding the precautions an employer should take to prevent and control workplace virus infection.  While the requirements in different places may vary and an employer usually only needs to comply with the rules at its own location, it is advisable for employers to take the following actions, which have been recommended or mandated by governments in various locations.

  • Obtain guidance from the local government regarding virus prevention and control in advance.  Many places have released systematic guidelines to business operators with requirements and tips for virus prevention and control at workplace.11  It is important for employers to carefully review such guidelines from the local government beforehand and ensure compliance with the requirements thereunder.  Where the local government has not published any systematic guidelines, the employer should consult with the local authorities and obtain certain basic information regarding business reopening and virus control (including what procedures need to be completed for reopening and which institution or department it should contact when there is an emergency) in advance.
  • Form an anti-virus working group (or at least designate several responsible persons).  Employers should form a working group or at least designate several responsible persons to handle relevant disease control and prevention matters.  It is advisable to include HR specialists and mid-level managers into the working group, because these staff usually have the most interactions with lower-level employees and may be the first person employees will reach out to where there is an emergency.
  • Formulate plans and policies for workplace disease prevention and control.  Detailed rules and regulations for disease prevention and control should be prepared in advance.  It is important for employees to comply with such policies because any virus infection resulting from non-compliance may cause unmeasurable losses to a company, and disciplinary rules should be included into these policies to provide basis for companies to take HR actions against an employee who violates relevant anti-virus policies. Given the urgency and importance of the anti-virus measures, employers may consider using simplified methods to satisfy the consultation and announcement requirements for policy-making under the ECL12, for example, by sending the policies (or their web links) to and seeking comments from employees via email or online working applications.
  • Collect travel information from employees and comply with the local requirements for medical observation.  In almost all large cities and industrial zones (including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hangzhou and Suzhou Industrial Zone), employers are required to collect travel information of their employees and arrange for those who return to work from other locations (especially places hit hard by COVID-19 such as Hubei Province or Wenzhou City in Zhejiang Province) to first accept medical observation for a designated period of time (typically 14 days).13  To ensure compliance, companies should identify the scope of employees for which medical observation is required under local rules and have them complete the medical observation before they may return to work.
  • Have necessary supplies for disease prevention and control in place.  While there is no law expressly requiring employers to provide face masks to every employee during the virus fight, an official from the National Development and Reform Commission stated during a media conference that enterprises must equip their employees with face masks and have sanitizers and electrical thermometers in place.14  Therefore, we recommend that employers procure sufficient face masks, sanitizers, thermometers and other supplies for disease prevention and control before resuming operations to avoid potential non-compliance risks.
  • Educate employees on the precautions to be taken.  Employers should ensure that their employees are aware of the requirements and recommended practices for virus prevention and control at workplace (such as wearing face masks and frequently washing their hands), which can be done through appropriate training and publicity.  Please note, however, to minimize the risks of workplace virus spread, companies should avoid in-person trainings involving large numbers of employees.  Instead, trainings may be conducted via pre-recorded videos, online courses or telephone conference.
  • Closely monitor health conditions of employees and visitors.  Companies should establish a temperature monitoring mechanism.  For example, employees should measure their body temperatures on a regular basis, and every visitor should be required to measure their temperature before they may be permitted to enter the working area.  Also, companies should require employees to immediately report any health issues to their anti-virus working group or the designated responsible persons.
  • Appropriately ventilate, clean and sanitize the working space and dormitories on a regular basis.  Companies should review and adjust their cleaning practices as necessary by following the advice from the local government and disease prevention professionals.  For example, knobs on doors and elevator buttons should be cleaned and sanitized on a regular basis.  Also, certain chemicals (such as ethanol) used for disinfection should be handled with care to minimize fire hazards.  The cleaners should be trained so that they can properly carry out the cleaning and sanitizing duties at this special moment.
  • Reduce employees’ in-person interaction with colleagues and business partners to the extent possible. At this special time, less in-person contact would mean less exposure to virus transmission.  Therefore, enterprises are encouraged to reduce employees’ in-person interaction with colleagues, vendors and customers to the extent possible.  For example, for those whose work can be performed at home, employers may consider implementing a work-from-home policy. Employees should be encouraged to have meetings and work-related discussions via telephones or working applications. Business travels should be avoided to the extent possible.  In certain places, companies with large crowds of employees are required to limit the staff number at workplace and ensure the working space per person is not smaller than the threshold designated by the government (for example, no less than 2.5 m² per person in office buildings in Beijing).15  Companies should take appropriate measures to comply with such requirements (if applicable), for example, by having employees come to office in shifts.
  • Immediately report any confirmed or suspected infection and provide other necessary information to medical institutions or DPC Organizations. This is an obligation expressly provided under the Contagious Disease Prevention Law and the failure of which may result in serious legal liabilities. Companies should make the reporting obligation and the legal consequences of non-compliance adequately clear to their employees, and ensure that such requirement is strictly followed.

The above-listed measures are not exhaustive and the requirements may vary from place to place.  Employers should carefully review the applicable local rules and comply with the requirements thereunder.  Also, employers are recommended to keep a close eye on the evolvement of the COVID-19 situation and adjust its practices based on any updated policies and orders from the government.

4. What measures should be taken by companies to protect personal information collected during the virus fight?

Although PRC law is silent on whether employers may collect personal information from their employees without prior consent for the purposes of disease prevention and control, a national standard on protection of personal information effective on May 1, 2018 regards the collection of personal information for the purposes of “public health” as an exception to the “prior consent” requirement16 and it is widely accepted among legal practitioners in China that employers may collect necessary personal information from employees without their prior consent to contain virus transmission. However, this does not mean employers may freely handle employees’ personal information amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Among others, employers should take the following steps to protect the privacy and safety of the personal data collected for the purposes of virus prevention and control to ensure compliance:

  • Employees should be informed about the scope and types of information to be collected, and the purposes for collecting and using such information.
  • Employers should limit the scope of information collected to the minimum extent necessary.  This means that companies should only collect the information necessary to respond to any reasonable requests from the local governments (such as employees’ travel history before returning to work, body temperature, residence and contact information, and information regarding whether they have any health issues and relevant symptoms, whether they had any contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients and whether they have completed the required medical observation).  Any collection of information beyond the necessary extent must be notified to and expressly consented by employees in advance.
  • Employers should take necessary measures to protect the security of the information collected, for example, to encrypt the documents containing personal data or have the documents (if in physical copies) locked in a safe storage compartment, to limit access to the personal data on a need-to-know basis, to have any e-data stored in a working system of a high security level.
  • Unless permitted by laws or regulations (e.g., where disclosure to government authorities or DPC Organizations are required), employers in China should not disclose or transfer any personal information collected during the virus fight to any third party without the employees’ express consent. For multinational organizations, unless there is a compelling reason for transferring employees’ personal data collected for anti-virus purposes overseas (e.g., where the infected employees might have carried the virus abroad), the headquarters may simply ask the China branch to provide general updates regarding the COVID-19 situation in China on a regular basis with limited or no personal information to keep apprised of any development in China while mitigating the compliance risks for cross-border data transfer.

5. What steps should be taken when suspected infections at workplace are reported?

Among others, the employer should take the following steps under such circumstances:

  • Direct the employee with suspected infection (the “Suspected Patient”) to accept medical advice and treatment from a professional medical institution;
  • Immediately report the situation to the local government authorities or relevant DPC Organization to seek their guidance regarding how to deal with this situation;
  • Cooperate with the local government authorities or the DPC Organization and take necessary measures to contain the spread of virus, for example, by:
    • identifying employees, vendors or customers who had close contact with the Suspected Patient;
    • cooperating with any quarantine or medical observations required by the local authorities;
    • sanitizing and disinfecting the working areas and staff dormitories (if any) based on the requests and instructions from the local authorities;
  • Consult with the local government authorities to determine whether the employer needs to suspend its operations;
  • Cooperate with any other requests from the local government authorities regarding disease prevention and control.

1 See http://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/relnews/cn/2020-02-19/doc-iimxxstf2789161.shtml; also see https://www.sohu.com/a/374806316_162522
2 See http://leaders.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0221/c58278-31597855.html
4 See 《广东省新冠肺炎防控指挥办疫情防控组关于印发广东省商业服务区复工复市新冠肺炎疫情防控工作指引(第二版)的通知》;杭州市《关于完善企业复工“负面清单”管理机制的通知》;山东省《关于统筹抓好服务业疫情防控和有序开业复工的指导意见》
5 See 《朝阳区商务楼宇新冠肺炎疫情防控工作告知书》
6 See http://www.jingan.gov.cn/xwzx/002020/20200213/b2897c7a-a94d-4167-bad8-46a2d5ae2083.html
7 See http://www.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2020/2/10/art_812262_41896700.html; http://cdjx.chengdu.gov.cn/cdsjxw/c132949/2020-02/01/content_ac1742242ad741e2a45243249be60c7a.shtml; http://www.sispark.com.cn/sispark-news-8924.html; http://daily.cnnb.com.cn/nbwb/html/2020-02/18/content_1209562.htm?div=-1; http://sz.people.com.cn/n2/2020/0204/c202846-33761874.html
8 See https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1658921194249222427&wfr=spider&for=pc
9 See 《劳动合同法》第32条;《劳动法》第52、54条
10 See 《传染病防治法》第12、27、31条
11 See http://www.sispark.com.cn/sispark-news-8924.html; http://www.hangzhou.gov.cn/art/2020/2/7/art_1256296_41889631.html; http://www.sz.gov.cn/cn/xxgk/zfxxgj/tzgg/content/post_6725142.html
12 See 《劳动合同法》第4条
13 See http://www.bjft.gov.cn/zfxxgk/ftq11GG36/zxgk/2020-02/17/content_5833aa6610844aa486d7ca7d3d3c5d68.shtml ;  http://sh.sina.com.cn/news/m/2020-02-12/detail-iimxyqvz2137876.shtml; https://www.sohu.com/a/374113276_391251; https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1658067371924548770&wfr=spider&for=pc; http://www.sispark.com.cn/sispark-news-8924.html
14 See https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1658229105357505613&wfr=spider&for=pc
15 See 北京五政府部门联合发布的《关于进一步明确在商务楼宇内办公单位防疫要求的通告》
16 See 《个人信息安全规范 (GB/T 35273-2017)》第5.4条

 

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.