.

Client Alert

Updated Alert: Governor Brown Signs Amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

October 4, 2018

by Joseph Lynyak

Download as a PDF

Share this page

1. Introduction

On June 28, 2018, the California Legislature unanimously passed, and the Governor immediately signed, a sweeping expansion of data privacy protections for residents of California.1 Assembly Bill No. 375, entitled the “California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018” (the “CCPA”), goes far beyond current U.S. privacy protections, and in many respects emulates elements contained in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), including the ability of a consumer to require that personal information be deleted by a covered business.2 

Because of an unavoidable deadline to adopt the CCPA, discussed below, numerous drafting errors and patent ambiguities were contained in the legislation as finally adopted. In anticipation of this issue, a clean-up bill to address many of these problems was adopted on the last day of the California legislative session for 2018. That clean-up bill—Senate Bill 1121—was signed by Governor Brown on September 23, 2018.3 

This updated alert incorporates many of the significant changes made to the original version of the CCPA, and also contains a separate discussion of many of the changes made by S.B. 1121, as well as compliance concerns businesses should consider as the effective date for the CCPA approaches. 

2. Discussion

The numerous statutory provisions of the CCPA accomplish several stated goals, including: (a) the establishment of the rights of consumers in regard to their data; (b) providing a process whereby consumers can determine whether—and to what extent—a covered business is holding, selling and transferring their personal information; (c) requiring covered businesses to implement specific procedures to maintain consumer data and respond to consumer inquiries; (d) exempting (or partially exempting) certain business data collection and transfer practices  from the coverage of the CCPA; (e) imposing liability for non-compliance by means of enforcement actions authorized to be brought by the California Attorney General and private parties; and (f) authorizing the California Attorney General to issue interpretations and regulations to implement the CCPA.4

A. Background

The genesis of the CCPA was the explosion of data breach incidents in the past few years, as well as a wave of continuing revelations that many social media sites (considered by many to be now functioning as utilities) were monetizing consumer information using methodologies not well understood by consumers despite privacy disclosures, or allegedly being gathered in violation of contractual agreements between parties.

In response to these concerns, in late 2017, privacy advocates commenced qualifying a ballot initiative to adopt consumer privacy protections that business interests believed would have created burdensome privacy requirements, while also making subsequent amendment of any privacy rules adopted via the ballot initiative process extremely difficult to achieve.5 

Because a legislative alternative had to be adopted before the above-referenced privacy ballot initiative was certified, opponents of the ballot initiative hurriedly negotiated a legislative bill (i.e., A.B. 375) that ultimately was agreed to by privacy stakeholders. After the CCPA was adopted by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor, the ballot initiative was withdrawn.

As noted above, because of the deadline to avoid placing a privacy initiative on the ballot for the November 2018 elections, S.B. 1121 was employed as a legislative vehicle to correct many of the drafting flaws in A.B. 375. Further, several industry groups undertook an intensive lobbying effort to: (a) clarify the scope of certain exemptions from coverage; (b) extend the date from which the California Attorney General would be required to issue implementing regulations; and (c) delay the date from which the Attorney General could commence enforcement actions.

The result of these two legislative enactments adds a new Title 1.18.5 to the California Civil Code, whose coverage provisions include not only internet-based companies such as social media sites but practically all businesses that operate in today’s electronic environment using websites and other electronic means to capture consumer data obtained from California consumers.6 Since its adoption in late July, U.S. and international businesses located outside of California—but regularly interacting with California residents—have begun to realize that the CCPA may likely impact their operations with California residents despite not maintaining a physical presence in California.

B. Consumer’s Privacy Rights Under the CCPA

The CCPA establishes several privacy rights for California consumers (i.e., California residents):

  • The right to know what personal information is being collected;
  • The right to know whether personal information is sold or disclosed and to whom;
  • The right to say “no” to the sale of personal information; 
  • The right to access personal information; and 
  • The right to equal service and price, even if any privacy rights created by the CCPA are exercised.7 

These privacy rights are implemented by the provisions of the CCPA, and are summarized as follows:

The Right to Know What Personal Information Is Being Collected—Section 1798.100 of the CCPA allows a “consumer” to require a covered “business” to disclose to the consumer the categories and specific pieces of “personal information” that the business collects, maintains, sells or transfers.  

The Right to Know Whether Personal Information Is Being Sold or Disclosed and to Whom—Section 1798.110 of the CCPA requires that, when responding to a “verifiable consumer request,”8 a covered business provide the following: (i) the categories of personal information it has collected; (ii) the categories of sources from which the personal information is collected; (iii) the business or commercial purpose for collecting or selling personal information; (iv) the categories of third parties with whom the business shares personal information; and (v) specific items of personal information the covered business has collected about that consumer.9 

The Right to Prohibit the Sale of Personal Information and to Delete Information—Sections 1798.105 and 1798.120 of the CCPA create rights similar in kind to the EU’s GDPR to direct a covered business to cease selling personal information (i.e., the ability to “opt-out”) and to delete personal information in the possession of the business and its service providers.10 (The specific mandate to order a covered business holding personal information to delete the personal information is a radical departure from current U.S. privacy norms, and has been described in the EU as the “right to be forgotten.”)11  Certain exceptions to this right are included in the CCPA.

The Right to Non-Discrimination in Access, Equal Service and Price—Section 1798.125 of the CCPA contains antidiscrimination provisions that prevent a covered business from discriminating against a consumer who exercises his/her privacy rights under the CCPA. These provisions prohibit a covered business from: (a) refusing to conduct business with the consumer; (b) charging different prices or imposing penalties; or (c) providing a different level of products or services. However, a covered business may offer a different price, rate, level of service or quality of product of service if the differences are “related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.”12 

C. Coverage and Definitions

There are three principal defined terms that are used to establish possible coverage under the CCPA (subject to exceptions and clarifications contained throughout the CCPA): (a) the term “consumer”; (b) the term “business”; and (c) the term “personal information.” For purposes of an inquiry by a business whether the CCPA might apply, the following analysis must be undertaken: If a covered business collects personal information of a consumer, the business should determine whether it must comply with the CCPA or whether an exception or partial exception applies. 

A consumer is a natural person who is a California resident however the individual is identified, including a unique identifier.13 It includes household information pertaining to the consumer, and hence can relate to areas such as utility bills for a family.14  

A business is a sole proprietorship or corporate entity of any type operating for a profit for its owners (including affiliated entities based upon a 50% ownership or control factor)15 that: (i) collects consumers’ personal information, whether alone or jointly with others; (ii) does business in the State of California,16 and (iii) satisfies one or more of the following thresholds:

  • The business has annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000;17
  • Alone or in combination with others, the business annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices;18 or 
  • The business derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.19

Finally, the concept of personal information is defined in an extraordinarily broad manner, and means “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.”20 For purposes of clarity, the CCPA includes a list of non-inclusive examples of what constitutes personal information.21 

D. Compliance Procedures Required by Covered Businesses

To implement the new consumer privacy rights, the CCPA imposes several complex compliance and implementation requirements on covered businesses, and include:

Modification of Disclosures and Websites—Sections 1798.120(b) and 1798.135(a) of the CCPA require that informational disclosures be provided to consumers, including the functionality of websites to allow for the exercise of a consumer’s privacy rights. Among other things, businesses will need to revise and regularly update online privacy policies and/or California-specific consumers’ privacy rights to include the CCPA’s consumer rights.22 

Delivery of Information Requested by a Consumer—Within 45 days of the receipt of a verifiable consumer request from a consumer, a covered  business will be required to disclose and deliver the requested information, free of charge to the consumer.23 Businesses will be obliged to deliver the requested personal information twice a year (and impliedly may charge a fee if a request is made more than twice within that time frame).24 

Training and Creation of a Response Team—In order to accomplish the foregoing, a covered business will have to train staff to receive verifiable consumer  requests, including accessing compliance systems, retrieving information and complying with any directives made by a consumer. 

Systems Design—While beyond the scope of this Alert, an implementation program might include the following components, many of which are essential elements of robust information governance policies and procedures: (a) mapping current data collection processes, data repositories and transfer protocols; (b) updating privacy policies; (c) developing and adopting policies, procedures and technologies to comply with the CCPA’s covered business obligations; (d) testing and verification;  (e) training and monitoring; and (f) modifying contractual arrangements with affiliates, vendors and third parties.

E.    Effective Date of the CCPA and Delayed Enforcement

As a result of a strong objection from the California Attorney General to a provision in A.B. 375 that would have required the Attorney General to issue implementing and interpretive regulations by January 1, 2020—which the Attorney deemed to be practically impossible—a somewhat complicated set of compliance and effective dates were adopted by S.B. 1121. 

Although the technical effective date of the CCPA remains January 1, 2020, because the Attorney General was given until July 1, 2020, to adopt regulations implementing the CCPA, no enforcement actions may be taken by the Attorney General until the earlier of six months after final regulations are adopted or July 1, 2020.25  

F.  Exemptions for Certain Business Data Collection and Data Transfer Activities

The CCPA contains numerous exemptions and partial exemptions of data use and functionality that will require close scrutiny by covered businesses. Each exemption is defined by the CCPA (and in many cases, was micro-managed in the legislative drafting process), and may assist (or hinder) a business in retaining the data or limiting its use on a go-forward basis if a consumer directs the business to cease using the data or to delete the same. Several of these categories include: (i) data used for purposes of a transaction with a consumer; (ii) sanitized data in a form not useable to identify a consumer; (iii) data used for public or peer-reviewed, historical or statistical research; (iv) publicly available personal information; (v) data used to comply with a consumer’s data inquiry and instructions; (vi) data used for security purposes; and (vii) data used for free speech purposes.26 

In addition, Section 1798.145 of the CCPA clarifies that the obligations imposed by the CCPA on a covered business do not restrict the ability of the business to: (1) comply with state or federal laws; (2) respond to civil, criminal and administrative actions, investigations and proceedings; (3) use “deidentified” consumer data (which can be collected, used and sold to third parties); and  (4) collect data “if every aspect of the commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California.”27 

For health care providers and banking institutions, S.B. 1121 clarified that the CCPA does not apply to health care information subject to HIPPA and personal information that is subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), as well as corresponding California statutes.28 Further, the CCPA does not apply to the use of personal information obtained from or transferred to a credit reporting agency pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.29 

G.  Enforcement by the California Attorney General and Private Parties

For actions commenced by the Attorney General, Section 1798.155 of the CCPA allows imposition of penalties for intentional violations of any provision of the CCPA of up to $7,500 per violation, or $2,500 for unintentional violations if a business fails to cure unintentional violations within 30 days of notice of alleged non-compliance.30  

For enforcement actions brought by private plaintiffs for data theft or data security breaches, Section 1798.150 of the CCPA allows statutory damages from $100 to $750 per incident (or actual damages, whichever is greater).31 While a notice must be provided to a covered business providing a covered business the opportunity to cure the alleged violation, S.B. 1121 removed the authority of the Attorney General to intervene in a case brought by a private party. 

H. Interpretative and Rule-Making Authority Given to the Attorney General

Perhaps in light of the complexity of the CCPA (and the haste in which it was drafted and adopted), Section 1798.155 of the CCPA specifically authorizes any business or third party to request guidance from the California Attorney General “on how to comply with” the CCPA. Further, Section 1789.185 directs the California Attorney General to issue regulations clarifying the requirements of the CCPA, as well as updating the nomenclature as technology advances beyond the scope of the technology in existence as of the date that the CCPA was adopted. As noted above, the Attorney General now has until July 1, 2020 to issue implementing regulations.32

I. Impact of S.B. 1121 on the CCPA 

Although the adoption of S.B. 1121 was helpful in correcting obvious drafting errors, S.B. 1121 did not alter the expanded scope of privacy rights as originally envisioned by A.B. 375. Compliance will be burdensome and complicated—it is a virtual certainty that in the coming year industry groups will lobby the California Legislature for expanded flexibility and exemptions from coverage.

Besides extending the effective date of the CCPA, S.B. 1121 modified the health care exemption as set forth in Section 1798.145(c), as well as the exemption for financial institutions as set forth in Section 1798.145(e). 

However, it is important to note that the exemptions do not technically exempt health care in regard to companies or financial institutions, but rather, personal information that is subject to existing federal and California laws and regulations. This means, for example, that a financial intermediary would be subject to the obligations under Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the California Financial Information Privacy Act in regards to the capture, sale or transfer of consumer data. However, if data is transferred, it is not clear whether the business receiving the personal information is entitled to rely upon these partial exemptions.

Importantly, the exemption for financial institutions does not exempt a financial institution from a private party lawsuit or class action for a data breach that is authorized by Section 1798.150.33  

3. Observations and Recommendations

We note the following:

First, while the California Legislature will convene between now and the effective date of the legislation—and is expected to provide additional clarification on several confusing and sometimes internally contradictory provisions—few industry participants anticipate significant substantive changes to the increased privacy protections contained in the CCPA, due to the fact that there may remain an overhanging threat by privacy adherents to restart the ballot referendum that was abandoned as a result the compromise that has become the CCPA.

Second, the scope of the CCPA potentially encompasses all retail and commercial activity that includes the collection of data relating to a resident of California and retained, sold or transferred by a covered business. At the earliest possible date, businesses, including non-California businesses, must immediately commence the process of evaluating coverage under the CCPA, as well as designing and implementing an effective compliance program. 

Third, because of the compromise nature of the provisions of the CCPA, data breaches may immediately result in the filing of private party litigation demanding statutory damages from the business whose data was the subject of the breach. Because the only defense to statutory damages is a showing that the business maintained adequate security measures, security policies and procedures will have to be constantly updated and verified. 

Finally, the adoption of the CCPA has created a call for a national policy on privacy that would preempt state laws such as the CCPA. Considering that the GDPR required several years to negotiate (and several additional years to implement), adopting a national privacy standard may at best be a long term strategy. (Whether a national privacy policy ultimately resembles the new EU privacy protections of the GDPR, which are already experiencing significant growing pains, remains to be seen.) In any event, while a national privacy law is now under active consideration, preemption of state laws favored by businesses may be difficult due to the extremely narrow GOP majority. This might mean, for example, the adoption of a national privacy standard that reflects some or all of the provisions of the CCPA or the EU’s GDPR. 

*       *       *

This Alert is intended to be a high-level summary of several significant provisions of the CCPA, and is not intended to be a comprehensive recitation of all of the CCPA’s requirements applicable to individual industries and businesses. Our Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Social Media Practice Group will be closely following developments in the following months, and we would welcome discussion of questions and comments from clients and friends of the firm.


1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375.
2 See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.119.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:119:TOC.
3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1121. 

4 The CCPA is an extension (or elaboration) on a Californian’s constitutional right to privacy, as set forth at Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution.
5 See https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0027%20%28Consumer%20Privacy%29_1.pdf. 
6 The CCPA is set forth at Sections 1798.100 through 1798.198 of the California Civil Code.
7 Section 2 of A.B 375. 
8 Section 1798.140(y) of the CCPA.
9 Section 1798.110 of the CCPA. It appears that a business collecting personal information that is sold or transferred to a third party, in the absence of a contractual right, may not be able to restrict the use of any data transferred to the receiving party.
10 While adult consumers must opt-out of the sale of their personal information, a covered business must obtain the affirmative authorization for the sale of personal information for minors under the age of sixteen. Section 1798.120(d) of the CCPA.
11 Section 1798.120 of the CCPA, which references the definition set forth at Section 17014 of Title 18 of the California Code of Regulations.
12 Section 1798.125(b)(1) of the CCPA also authorizes a covered business to provide financial incentives, including payments to a consumer, for the collection, sale or deletion of personal information. 
13 Section 1798.140(g) of the CCPA.

14
 Importantly, unlike virtually all “consumer” protection statutes, the use of the term “consumer” should be viewed as data information pertaining to a resident of California that may also include non-consumer purposes such as a resident’s business operations that can be associated to an individual. (Whether this definitional approach includes individuals operating as a sole proprietorship or in a broader context as an employee of a corporate entity is unclear.)

15
 Section 1798.140(c)(2) of the CPPA.

16
 California takes a very expansive view of the concept of what constitutes “doing business” in California, and merely engaging in an internet transaction with a California resident is clearly intended to include non-California businesses within coverage of the CCPA.

17
 Section 1798.140(c)(1)(A) of the CCPA. It is unclear whether this threshold is to be computed on a global basis or solely in regard to business associated with California residents.

18
 Section 1798.140(c)(1)(B) of the CCPA. It should be noted that even modestly successful websites may exceed this threshold. (Further, if a business is hosted on another website through connectivity or a hosting arrangement the transmission of data through a sharing arrangement may implicate coverage under the CCPA.)

19
 Section 1798.140(c)(1)(C) of the CCPA.
20 Section 1798.140(o)(1) of the CCPA.
21 Sections 1798.140(o)(1)(A) through (o)(1)(K) of the CCPA. The non-inclusive list includes data items as: (a) name, address, unique personal identifiers, social security number, driver’s license, passport number, biometric information, etc.; (b) categories of personal information specifically identified under California law, including protected classifications; (c) commercial or consumer consuming histories or tendencies; (d) internet usage and browsing history; (e) employment and educational history; and (f) inferences drawn from any of the personal information collected to create a profile about a consumer. Importantly, S.B. 1121 amended the definition of “personal information” to make clear that identifiers such as IP addresses, geolocation data, or purchasing history are “personal information” only if they can be “reasonably linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.”
22 The CCPA imposes heightened obligations on businesses that sell consumers’ personal information.  For example, covered businesses will be required to provide a conspicuous link, titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information,” on their Internet homepages and in their online privacy policy, which consumers can use to opt-out of the sale of their information.   Many companies that specialize in big data, however, do not actually sell consumers’ personal information, meaning they arguably would not be subject to these heightened requirements.  (Google, for example, has advertisers describe their target market to Google, at which point Google uses its data to “place” advertisements accordingly. The same is true of Facebook.)
23 Section 1798.130(a)(2) of the CCPA.
24 Businesses may extend the deadline to comply with a consumer’s request by 90 days for complex or voluminous requests.
25 Because regulations issued by the Attorney General will likely impact violations of the CCPA that would give rise to a private cause of action, private party civil damage actions would appear to be subject to this enforcement delay as well.
26 Sections 1798.105(d) and 1798.140(o)(2) of the CCPA.
27 Section 1798.145(a) of the CCPA.
28 These two significant exemptions apply to personal information that is subject to these alternative privacy requirements, but not the entities themselves. This may mean, for example, that industry groups such as health care companies and financial intermediaries  may be required to separate data bases that are subject to HIPPA or Title V of GLBA from data bases that are subject to the CCPA.
29 These exemptions were clarified by S.B. 1121 and are discussed below.
30 The CCPA creates a new “Consumer Privacy Fund” to fund enforcement, with the proceeds from settlement and the collection of penalties being required to be deposited into that fund.
31 While beyond the scope of this Alert, it should be noted that it is unclear whether measurement of damages would be based upon a single data breach or the number of data breaches measured (and multiplied by) each affected consumer. (If the latter interpretation is correct, this multiplier effect significantly increases the liability for the failure to maintain adequate security for a consumer’s personal information.)
32 Due to the highly technical nature of data capture, use and transfer, the California Attorney General may face a rule-making process that will strain governmental expertise.
33 For purposes of liability for a data security breach brought by a private party, Section 1798.150(a)(1) adopts a narrower definition of “personal information,” which is set forth at Section 1798.81.5 of the California Civil Code.

Firm Highlights

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

The Methane Regulatory Pendulum Swings Again: EPA Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Few environmental regulations better illustrate Washington’s regulatory “ping-pong” than EPA’s methane standards for the oil and natural gas sector. Over the last decade, successive administrations have repeatedly expanded, narrowed, rescinded, reinstated, and revised federal methane requirements, leaving industry to navigate a shifting compliance landscape with each change in administration. EPA’s October 27, 2026 proposal to reconsider significant portions of the 2024 oil and natural gas New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Emission Guidelines (“EG”) under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc represents the latest swing of the regulatory pendulum. If finalized, the proposal would substantially reduce compliance obligations in several areas, particularly with respect to lower-producing wells, associated gas flaring, equipment and control-device standards, and the Super Emitter Program. EPA estimates that the proposal would result in approximately $45 billion in savings, while preserving what the agency considers appropriate methane emission controls. EPA’s proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2026. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2026.  Significantly, EPA is not using this rulemaking to reconsider its general authority to regulate methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. Rather, the agency is addressing specific requirements adopted in the 2024 methane rule, while broader questions concerning greenhouse gas regulation are being addressed in separate proceedings. The present proposal therefore focuses on the appropriate design and scope of particular methane regulations, rather than resolving the threshold question of whether methane may be regulated under the Clean Air Act at all. I.    EPA Proposes to Eliminate the Super Emitter Program Among the proposal’s most consequential changes is the complete elimination of the Super Emitter Program. Adopted in 2024, the program created a regulatory framework under which EPA-certified third parties could identify large methane releases using approved remote-sensing technologies. Upon receiving a qualifying notification from EPA, owners and operators were required to investigate the reported emissions event, report findings to EPA, and take corrective action where necessary. EPA now proposes to repeal the Super Emitter Program in its entirety. The agency questions the program’s legal and policy foundations, including the role of third parties in identifying emissions events and triggering regulatory obligations. EPA also questions whether the program is necessary or effective given other requirements applicable to regulated sources and whether its expected emissions reductions justify its costs and implementation challenges. Because the program was incorporated into both the NSPS applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources and the EG applicable to existing sources, its removal would affect federal requirements as well as the presumptive requirements that States otherwise would be expected to address in Clean Air Act § 111(d) plans. Importantly, EPA’s proposed repeal does not prevent States from developing and implementing their own Super Emitter Program based on the existing requirements, which several states are already doing.  II.    EPA Reconsiders Associated Gas Requirements Another centerpiece of EPA’s proposal is its reconsideration of the 2024 rule’s restrictions on flaring associated gas from oil wells. The 2024 rule determined that the best system of emission reduction (“BSER”) generally required operators to capture and beneficially use associated gas by routing it to a sales line, using it onsite, or reinjecting it, rather than routinely flaring it. Although EPA provided certain transition periods and compliance flexibilities, particularly for wells facing infrastructure constraints, the rule ultimately established a framework strongly favoring capture and utilization over flaring. Since promulgation, EPA has received significant feedback regarding gathering-system limitations, gas quality issues, and other practical barriers operators face in securing outlets for associated gas. In response, EPA proposes to replace the existing capture-focused approach with a substantially more flexible standard. EPA argues that the 2024 rule relied too heavily on the availability of third-party gathering and processing infrastructure that is often beyond an operator’s control, raising questions regarding achievability and cost-effectiveness. Under the proposal, BSER would be based on routing associated gas to a flare or other control device capable of achieving at least a 95 percent reduction in methane and volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions. Operators could continue to capture gas for sale, use it onsite, or reinject it where feasible, but those practices would no longer be required. EPA also proposes that if a portion of associated gas is routed to sales or used for another purpose, the remaining portion must comply with the 95 percent standard. For example, if a company can route 40 percent of its associated gas to a sales line, the company would need to route the other 60 percent to a control device with a 95 percent reduction, or to a flare. EPA is also soliciting comment on less sweeping alternatives that would preserve the basic structure of the 2024 associated-gas program, while providing additional compliance flexibility. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether it should retain the current capture-and-sales framework but expand the circumstances under which temporary flaring is permitted or extend the duration of temporary flaring allowances where operators face infrastructure constraints. EPA appears to recognize that gathering-system availability, processing constraints, and other third-party factors can affect an operator's ability to route gas to sales, even where the operator ultimately intends to comply with the capture requirements. These requests for comment suggest that EPA is considering whether targeted revisions to the existing framework could address implementation concerns without fully abandoning the 2024 rule's underlying preference for gas capture and beneficial use. III.    EPA’s Reconsideration of the “No Identifiable Emissions” Standard EPA's proposal would substantially revise the 2024 rule’s “no identifiable emissions” (“NIE”) requirements applicable to certain covers and closed vent systems (“CVS”) associated with storage tanks. Under the existing rule, covered equipment generally must operate without identifiable emissions, creating a compliance framework that focuses heavily on the absence of observable emissions rather than solely on equipment design or overall control effectiveness. Since promulgation, industry has argued that the standard effectively functions as a zero-emissions requirement that may be difficult to satisfy under all operating conditions, even where equipment and vapor control systems are properly designed, maintained, and operated. Moreover, EPA stated in the preamble to the 2024 rule that any identified emissions would constitute a deviation of the emissions limitation, resulting in a framework under which the observation of emissions could itself establish noncompliance. EPA now proposes to separate the requirements into distinct design and operational components and to fundamentally alter how compliance with the operational NIE requirement is evaluated. EPA proposes to distinguish between deviations of the design requirements and deviations of the operational NIE requirements. Under the proposed approach, failure to repair an identified emission or defect within 24 hours would constitute a deviation of the design requirement, although not necessarily an underlying violation. Separately, operators could demonstrate compliance with the operational NIE requirement by making repairs as soon as practicable, with an initial repair attempt within five days and final repair within 30 days, or by qualifying for the existing delay-of-repair provisions. A deviation of the operational requirement would occur if the applicable repair deadlines are not met and the delay-of-repair provisions do not apply. The proposal also establishes a new framework for addressing recurring or “chronic” emissions events. After the third emissions event or defect from the same cover or CVS within a year, the owner or operator would be required to conduct an investigative analysis within 10 days to determine whether the underlying cause relates to equipment design, operation, maintenance, or prior repair efforts. The results of that investigation would have important compliance implications. If recurring emissions are attributable to a design flaw, EPA would treat the issue as a deviation of the design requirements. If the emissions result from inadequate prior repairs, the deviation would be attributed to the repair requirements. If operations, maintenance, or other site practices are responsible, the deviation would be classified under the operational requirements. EPA would also require implementation of corrective measures identified through the analysis, including design modifications within 90 days and operational or maintenance-related corrective actions within 30 days. Taken together, these revisions would shift the NIE standard away from a framework in which the mere presence of emissions may establish noncompliance and toward one that focuses on whether operators identify emissions, complete timely repairs, investigate recurring problems, and address the root causes of repeated emissions events. IV.    Solicitation of Comment on “Legally and Practicably Enforceable” Standard EPA is also soliciting comment on the definition of “legally and practicably enforceable” (“LPE”), which industry has identified as one of the more problematic existing requirements. Under the 2024 rule, EPA adopted an interpretation of LPE that many commenters argued effectively disqualifies numerous state regulatory programs, permits, and other federally enforceable mechanisms from serving as the basis for remaining below applicable Subpart OOOOb storage tank thresholds. In particular, stakeholders have asserted that the current LPE framework makes it difficult for state air permitting programs and other state regulatory requirements to satisfy EPA's criteria, thereby causing more storage tanks and other emission units to remain subject to Subpart OOOOb requirements than would otherwise be the case. EPA now requests comment on whether its current interpretation of LPE is overly restrictive and whether alternative approaches would better account for the manner in which state permitting and regulatory programs are administered and enforced. The request is significant because a broader interpretation of LPE could allow a wider range of federally enforceable state permits and regulatory requirements to satisfy exemption criteria under OOOOb, potentially reducing the number of storage tanks and other sources subject to direct NSPS regulation. As a result, the LPE issue has implications that extend beyond compliance mechanics and could materially affect the scope of sources regulated under the federal methane program. V.    Revised Requirements for Marginal Wells EPA is also proposing significant revisions to the treatment of lower-producing wells under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc. The agency notes that marginal wells constitute a substantial portion of the nation’s producing well inventory but account for a relatively small share of overall production. At the same time, EPA discusses studies estimating that marginal wells contribute a disproportionate share of methane emissions from oil and natural gas production. The agency is evaluating whether the 2024 rule appropriately accounts for the operational characteristics, emissions profiles, and compliance costs associated with these wells. To address those concerns, EPA is proposing two alternative approaches to well-site subcategorization. Under the first option, EPA would distinguish between marginal and non-marginal well sites. EPA proposes to define a marginal well as a well that produced no more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent (“BOE”) per day over the prior 12-month period and a marginal well site as a site consisting exclusively of marginal wells with total site-wide production of no more than 15 BOE per day over the same period. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether marginal wells should be further subdivided based on production levels, including a potential distinction between sites producing 6 BOE per day or less and sites producing more than 6 BOE but no more than 15 BOE per day, which could result in additional regulatory flexibility for the lowest-producing wells. Under the second option, EPA would distinguish between conventional and unconventional well sites and tailor requirements based on that classification, including reduced requirements for conventional wells. The agency is seeking comment on which framework better reflects the operational and emissions characteristics of different well sites, as well as whether additional subcategories should be established within the marginal-well population and the extent to which compliance requirements should differ among categories. VI.    LDAR, Pneumatic Controllers, Control Device Monitoring, and Facility Modifications EPA's proposal also includes several targeted revisions to the 2024 rule's leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) requirements. Most notably, EPA proposes additional flexibility in the use of advanced monitoring technologies and seeks to move away from compliance frameworks that rely heavily on a single detection method. The agency is proposing changes intended to facilitate the use of multiple monitoring technologies, including optical gas imaging and other alternative detection approaches, and is seeking comment on whether technology-neutral compliance options can achieve equivalent emissions reductions at lower cost. EPA also proposes revisions for components and equipment that are particularly difficult to monitor using conventional LDAR methods, reflecting concerns that certain 2024 requirements may not be practical or cost-effective in the field. More broadly, EPA questions whether some of the monitoring frequencies adopted in 2024 appropriately balance compliance burdens and emissions-reduction benefits and seeks comment on additional opportunities to tailor LDAR obligations based on emissions risk and source characteristics. EPA also proposes technical revisions to requirements governing control devices and related equipment. These include changes addressing continuous pilot-flame requirements, flame-monitoring data deviations, control-device alerts, visible-emissions test conditions, temporary or backup control devices, temporary process controllers, and control-device categories. The agency’s stated objective is to provide additional compliance flexibility while maintaining appropriate emissions controls. The practical effect will depend on the final requirements and the equipment and circumstances to which each amendment applies. The proposal also addresses pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks at gas processing plants. For certain high-pressure process controllers at transmission compressor stations, EPA proposes a separate regulatory approach based on its reassessment of technical feasibility and cost. The proposal should not be read as establishing a general exemption for pneumatic controllers across the industry. EPA also proposes changes to other equipment-specific requirements, including requirements applicable to pumps, storage vessels, and equipment leaks at gas plants, in response to concerns raised following promulgation of the 2024 rule. Finally, EPA proposes changes to certain requirements governing liquids unloading and other well-site operations, as well as technical corrections and clarifications to the existing regulatory text. These provisions form part of EPA’s broader effort to address implementation concerns and reassess the costs and expected emissions reductions associated with selected requirements in the 2024 rule. Operators should evaluate the specific proposed amendments applicable to their facilities rather than assume that the proposal would provide across-the-board relief from existing monitoring, equipment, or control-device obligations. VII.    Implications for States and Future Congressional or Administrative Action EPA’s proposal would substantially revise several consequential elements of the 2024 methane rule, but it would not eliminate regulation of existing oil and natural gas sources under Clean Air Act § 111(d). As a result, states remain subject to the existing obligation to develop and submit plans for existing sources. If the proposed revisions are finalized, states currently developing those plans may need to reevaluate key program elements, including requirements relating to associated gas, well-site subcategories, the Super Emitter Program, and other compliance obligations. The proposal does not itself extend the January 22, 2027 deadline for state-plan submissions established under the existing framework. The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) remains a potential source of uncertainty. Depending on when EPA submits a final rule to Congress and the applicable congressional-session timing, a future Congress and President could seek to disapprove the rule under the CRA. A successful disapproval would invalidate the rule and generally restrict the agency from issuing a rule in substantially the same form absent subsequent statutory authorization. The CRA’s lookback provisions can affect the period during which a rule remains subject to congressional review, so the risk cannot be assessed solely by reference to the calendar year in which the rule is finalized. The timing of finalization and submission to Congress, together with the applicable congressional calendar, will determine the extent of that exposure. Finally, unlike the CRA, which can nullify a recently promulgated rule through legislative action, a future administration seeking to unwind this rule would generally need to proceed through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. EPA would need to revisit the underlying BSER determinations, cost analyses, technical feasibility findings, and enforceability conclusions that support the final rule. Because this proposal is grounded heavily in findings regarding achievability, legal and practical enforceability, and cost-effectiveness, a future administration would need to develop a sufficient record supporting different conclusions before reinstating more stringent requirements. Consequently, the final rule may prove more durable than prior pendulum swings, even if it remains politically controversial.

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.

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.