On Dec. 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kousisis v. United States, a case that will again review the reach of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. At issue this time is the so-called “fraudulent inducement” theory of property fraud — namely, whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if the infliction of economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Automatic renewals have become a preferred method of goods and service delivery for many businesses, particularly in the context of e-commerce. The patchwork of state and federal laws and regulations makes absolute compliance a difficult proposition for many companies. In a purported effort to provide clarity to companies regarding their compliance obligations in this space, the FTC recently finalized its Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs. While the Final Rule has reached the last stage of the FTC’s rulemaking process, questions remain.
Despite a Supreme Court ruling aimed to curb the prosecutorial overreach of the Aggravated Identity Theft Statute by narrowing its interpretation, the statute remains inherently vague, perpetuating unjust outcomes. Without legislative amendment or more definitive judicial guidance, the statute will continue to serve as a tool for prosecutorial overreach.
While the full scope of AI-related legal risks is still developing, both the SEC and FTC have revealed the kinds of AI-related corporate behaviors they consider problematic. The problematic corporate behavior the agencies emphasized the most is “AI Washing” — the practice of making unfounded claims about AI capabilities.
To gauge the level of risk and uncover potential gaps, compliance and privacy leaders should collaborate to consider how often they are monitoring third parties, what intelligence they are gathering with and about their partners and vendors, and whether their risk management practices have been diminished due to cost and resource constraints.
Federal plea agreements sometimes state explicitly that they are limited to that one office and do not bind other U.S. attorney's offices. In this article, we discuss the circuit courts' competing approaches to interpreting the binding effect of plea agreements and the Department of Justice policy.
he vast amount of cross-border investment in the U.S. securities market and the SEC's ever-evolving reporting structure compels foreign investor compliance teams and U.S. securities counsel to stay informed of potential reporting responsibilities and keep abreast of developments in the law.
Many countries where American companies do business have an array of business practices and customs that might be frowned upon in this country, but whether they cross the sometimes-blurry lines of legality isn't always clear. The club enforcers wield is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Until the U.S. Sentencing Commission closes the unchargeable conduct loophole — or until the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes — criminal defense practitioners would be wise to take prophylactic action to protect their clients during plea negotiations. Setting forth the permissible bounds of "relevant conduct" in plea agreements can help avoid 11th-hour surprises for the defense.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has underscored the critical importance of Marketing Rule compliance through a series of recent enforcement actions and risk alerts. This article delves into the challenges that investment advisers must navigate when marketing their services. It also explores how legal counsel and compliance consultants can effectively support their clients in adhering to both the explicit requirements and nuanced aspects of the Marketing Rule.
