<b><i>Part One of a Three-Part Article</i></b>. Since its enactment, with perhaps only three significant exceptions, the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (HIPAA) have not been litigated. In the majority of cases where HIPAA has been the subject of litigation -- less than 50 -- litigants have raised HIPAA provisions as an issue, but only tangentially as part of a "throw away" argument, or in a meaningful manner but where the answer was immediately clear from the case's inception. Three federal cases, however, merit analysis, since they go to the heart of HIPAA, the government's broad attempt to safeguard medical records in the electronic age.
Elliott B. OppenheimPart One of a Three-Part Article
Since its enactment, with perhaps only three significant exceptions, the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (HIPAA) have not been litigated.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges
New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.
State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.
The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
