Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have redefined the concept of ownership in the digital world. Built on blockchain technology, NFTs represent unique digital assets that can be traded, sold, and verified through decentralized systems. They are commonly associated with digital art, collectibles, music, virtual real estate, and more.

As NFTs have gained mainstream adoption, governments and regulatory bodies around the world have begun addressing the complex legal questions they raise. Issues include intellectual property rights, taxation, securities regulation, consumer protection, and data privacy. This article provides a comprehensive overview of NFT technology and its evolving legal context across state, federal, and international jurisdictions.

What Are NFTs?

Introduction

In the digital age, the way we perceive, transfer, and assign value to assets is undergoing a dramatic transformation. One of the most significant innovations driving this shift is the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) — a type of cryptographic asset that represents ownership of a unique item or piece of content on a blockchain. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are fungible (interchangeable and uniform in value), NFTs are non-fungible, meaning each token is unique and cannot be exchanged on a one-to-one basis with another NFT. While NFTs initially gained attention for digital art and collectibles, their potential are more expansive. This article explores the underlying technology behind NFTs and how they can enhance various types of transactions.

What is an NFT?

The convergence of blockchain technology and real estate is reshaping how properties are bought, sold, and managed. Traditionally, real estate transactions are lengthy, paperwork-intensive, and costly, involving multiple intermediaries like brokers, escrow agents, title companies, and banks. Blockchain offers a way to streamline and secure these transactions, while Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) introduce a novel method of representing property ownership. This article delves into the evolving role of blockchain and NFTs in real estate, the legal and regulatory framework, potential use cases, benefits, challenges, and what the future holds.


What Is Blockchain and How Does It Apply to Real Estate?

Blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger that records transactions across a network of computers in a tamper-proof and transparent manner. So, each “block” contains a time-stamped batch of transactions, cryptographically linked to the previous one, forming a “chain.”

Business Email Compromise (BEC) is a sophisticated cybercrime that targets businesses and individuals performing legitimate transfer-of-funds requests. Attackers employ tactics such as email spoofing, phishing, and social engineering to impersonate trusted entities—like executives, vendors, or legal representatives—to deceive victims into transferring money or sensitive information.

Common BEC Techniques

  • Email Spoofing: Crafting emails that appear to originate from trusted sources

There has been a significant amount of litigation related to biometric privacy in recent years. The following cases reflect the evolving landscape of biometric privacy litigation in California, highlighting the challenges and considerations in applying biometric privacy laws across different jurisdictions.

1. Clark v. Yodlee, Inc. (2024)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Boone, et al. v. Snap, Inc. is a significant case concerning biometric privacy and the application of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to social media platforms. The lawsuit alleges that Snap, Inc., which is the parent company of Snapchat, unlawfully collected, stored, and used biometric data without obtaining user consent, violating BIPA. This case is part of a broader trend of increasing litigation against tech companies over biometric data privacy concerns. This report provides an in-depth case analysis such as its background, legal arguments, court proceedings, and potential legal implications.


Case Background

Plaintiffs’ Claims

The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is a landmark Illinois law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric data. Enacted in 2008, BIPA provides some of the most stringent protections for biometric privacy in the United States. With the increasing use of biometric technology—such as fingerprint scanning, facial recognition, and retina scans—lawsuits under BIPA have surged, leading to significant rulings in both state and federal courts. This article explores the key rules and regulations of BIPA, recent court cases, and the broader implications of biometric data privacy enforcement.


Key Rules and Regulations Under BIPA

1. Scope of the Law

An artificial intelligence (AI) company can be sued for product liability, privacy violations, or security failures under various legal theories. However, the viability of a lawsuit depends on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the AI system, how it was used, and whether any damages resulted from its malfunction or deficiencies.

1. Product Liability for AI Malfunctions

Can AI be Considered a “Product”?

ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 603, is a California appellate court decision that clarifies the legal standard a plaintiff must meet to unmask anonymous online defendants. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting free speech rights under the First Amendment and allowing plaintiffs to pursue legitimate legal claims against unknown individuals.

Case Background

– ZL Technologies, Inc. (“ZL”), a software company, filed a lawsuit against anonymous defendants (“Does 1-7”) for defamation and trade libel.

It is a well-known fact that operating an online business necessitates adherence to a complex array of state, federal, and international regulations. Below is an overview of key regulatory areas to consider:

1. State Regulations

California: