By Camila A. Connolly

On February 12, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) released its Fintech Industry Advisory Panel Recommendations.  CSBS is a national organization of financial regulators from around the United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands.  The recommendations are designed to improve the use of regulatory technology and harmonize regulatory standards throughout the United States.  The recommendations include a plan to develop a model state law for MSBs and to standardize licensing requirements.  The panel also recommended a pilot program for building a uniform state licensing examination.  Overall, the recommendations seek to create uniformity in state FinTech licensing and regulation.  To aid in the harmonizing process, the panel recommends creating repositories of the different state laws and licensing requirements so that financial companies can access all necessary regulations at once.  CSBS includes these recommendations as part of a broader effort to streamline state FinTech regulation called Vision 2020.  Read the full list of recommendations here.

In a recent Corporate Counsel article, Jenner & Block Partner Jeffrey A. Atteberry examines the current federal privacy legislative proposals and the impact potential data privacy and cybersecurity legislation could have on businesses.  Mr. Atteberry explains that several recent high-profile data breaches and questions about how social media platforms share consumers’ personal data are contributing to increasing demand for passage of federal data privacy legislation.  He explains that the bills and proposals that have circulated in the last year are the best indicator of what lies ahead in terms of any potential federal privacy regime.  To help corporate counsel anticipate changes that may arise, Mr. Atteberry breaks down the current congressional proposals and provides key takeaways for in-house counsel.

To read the full article, please click here.

For the third consecutive year, Jenner & Block’s Food and Beverage Practice is recognized as a Law360 Practice Group of the Year for successfully leading a diverse array of matters for the titans of the food and beverage industry.  Law360 notes that the firm fended off claims against our clients that include household names such as Hain Celestial, Kraft and Mondelēz and led Snyder’s-Lance in its $6 billion sale to Campbell Soup.  In addition, Partner Dean N. Panos highlights that the group is handling cases in many areas, including commercial litigation, supplier, distributor, joint venture disputes, M&A, insurance coverage, antitrust and investigations and enforcement.  He adds that the practice is not “totally a litigation practice: it is transactional, litigation, and…a counseling practice.”  He explains that because of the group’s experience and knowledge, “we understand, as best as an outside counsel can, the business pressures our clients face and how these businesses are run so that we are being a net positive to their work environments.”

To read Law360’s profile, please click here.

In an article published by the Daily Journal, Jenner & Block Partner Jeffrey A. Atteberry discusses the recent public forum that was hosted by the California attorney general’s office regarding the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).  The forum was held in order to seek public comment on the CCPA as the attorney general moves forward with the initial phase of the rulemaking process.  Mr. Atteberry summarizes the concerns that businesses expressed at the forum, including a request to clarify the scope and meaning of the word “sell” as it relates to the sale of personal information, the need for guidance relating to the calculation of the revenue threshold in the CCPA, and the data security risks associated with the CCPA’s verification requirements, among others.

To read the full article, please click here.

By Gabriel K. Gillett

Last week the en banc Ninth Circuit unanimously struck down San Francisco’s ordinance requiring warnings on ads for certain sugary beverages as a violation of the First Amendment.  In American Beverage Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 16-16072, the court held that the Ordinance is an “unjustified or unduly burdensome disclosure requirement[] [that] might offend the First Amendment by chilling protected commercial speech.”  Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985).  (Jenner & Block filed an amicus brief in the case, on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center.) 

Four of the eleven judges who participated joined three special concurrences, however, explaining why they believed the majority had erred even though it reached the right result.  Those three concurrences highlight a number of issues related to commercial speech for courts to address in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018).   
 

San Francisco’s “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage” Ordinance

The American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco centers on a 2015 ordinance that required ads for certain “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages” to include the following:  “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”  Slip op. 8.