Published on: | by

The internet has made it easier than ever for private images, videos, and personal information to be copied, posted, shared, and republished across multiple online platforms within minutes. Artificial intelligence has made the problem even more dangerous. Today, a person can be targeted not only by the unlawful posting of real intimate images, but also by AI-generated “deepfake” images or videos that falsely appear to depict that person in an intimate or sexually explicit manner.

This is no longer a fringe problem. Victims of nonconsensual intimate images, revenge porn, sextortion, cyber harassment, and AI-generated deepfakes often face immediate reputational damage, emotional distress, financial harm, employment consequences, family disruption, and personal safety concerns. In many cases, victims also struggle to determine where the content was posted, who posted it, whether copies have been made, and which platform has the legal responsibility to remove it.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act is designed to address this problem by creating a clearer legal framework for removing nonconsensual intimate images from covered online platforms. The statute was enacted on May 19, 2025 as Public Law 119-12, and the Federal Trade Commission began enforcing the Act’s platform notice-and-removal obligations on May 19, 2026.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a software, automation, or innovation issue. It is now a cybersecurity, privacy, governance, and legal compliance issue. As businesses deploy AI tools into customer service, hiring, healthcare, finance, marketing, legal operations, cybersecurity, and enterprise decision-making, California lawmakers are moving toward a more formal regulatory framework for artificial intelligence systems.

One of the most important developments is California Senate Bill 53, also known as the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 53 on September 29, 2025, and the law establishes new transparency, safety, reporting, and whistleblower-related obligations for certain developers of frontier artificial intelligence models.

For businesses in California, especially technology companies, AI vendors, cybersecurity providers, software developers, and companies integrating AI into regulated workflows, SB 53 signals a major shift. AI risk is no longer limited to intellectual property ownership, hallucinations, biased outputs, or data privacy. It now includes critical safety incidents, model security, catastrophic risk, cybersecurity controls, internal reporting, and government enforcement.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

California’s Digital Financial Assets Law (“DFAL”) is about to become a much bigger issue for the crypto industry. Beginning July 1, 2026, certain companies serving California residents may not engage in covered digital financial asset business activity unless they are licensed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”), exempt, or have submitted a completed application on or before July 1, 2026 and are awaiting approval or denial. The law is not limited to large exchanges. Depending on the business model, it can affect crypto trading platforms, custodians, transfer services, stablecoin-related businesses, and digital asset transaction kiosk operators, including so-called crypto ATMs.

For California businesses, the message is straightforward: July 1, 2026 is not a soft milestone. It is the date on which the state’s licensure framework becomes operational for many digital asset businesses. For consumers, the law is also significant because it creates disclosure, custody, and conduct rules aimed at a market that has too often been defined by opacity, operational failures, and fraud.

What is California’s Digital Financial Assets Law?

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

California businesses that use artificial intelligence, automated scoring, profiling tools, or large-scale consumer data practices cannot afford to treat the California Privacy Protection Agency’s 2026 regulations as a future problem. The rules governing Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT), privacy risk assessments, and cybersecurity audits are already reshaping compliance expectations. Businesses that wait until regulators come knocking may discover that they are missing the documentation, internal controls, and governance structure needed to defend their data practices.

This article was drafted to serve as practical guidance for businesses, executives, compliance teams, privacy professionals, and technology counsel trying to understand what California’s 2026 privacy regulations require. While many organizations focus on consumer-facing privacy notices, the more consequential issue in 2026 is operational readiness. Companies need to know when a risk assessment is required, when an automated decisionmaking workflow may trigger opt-out or access obligations, and when an annual cybersecurity audit becomes mandatory.

The reality is that many businesses already use tools that can fall within California’s automated decisionmaking framework. Hiring software, lead-scoring systems, fraud tools, underwriting models, identity verification services, recommendation engines, and internal profiling tools may all create compliance exposure depending on how they are used. In other words, a company does not need to market itself as an “AI business” to face AI-related privacy obligations.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

This article was drafted to serve as legal guidance for artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming nearly every industry, from healthcare and finance to marketing, employment, cybersecurity, and consumer services. As organizations increasingly rely on automated decision-making systems, predictive analytics, and generative AI tools, the legal and regulatory risks associated with these technologies have grown just as rapidly.

AI and ML law is an emerging legal discipline that addresses the complex intersection of technology, data, privacy, intellectual property, consumer protection, and regulatory compliance. Businesses deploying AI systems must navigate evolving legal standards while managing ethical, operational, and reputational risks. Hence, experienced legal counsel is critical to ensuring responsible innovation and regulatory compliance.

What Is AI & Machine Learning Law?

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Cryptocurrency fraud has become one of the fastest-growing forms of consumer financial crime. As digital assets gain mainstream adoption, criminals increasingly exploit confusion around blockchain technology, online anonymity, and cross-border transactions. Many consumers assume that once cryptocurrency is stolen, the perpetrators are impossible to identify or pursue. That assumption is often incorrect.

In reality, there are legal, forensic, and investigative methods available to track down cryptocurrency criminals, including those who target consumers in California and throughout the United States. While not every case results in full recovery, modern blockchain transparency and legal tools make crypto fraud far more traceable than many victims realize.

Understanding the Myth of Cryptocurrency Anonymity

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Drones—also called UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) or UAS (unmanned aircraft systems)—are now standard tools for photography, surveying, inspection, agriculture, public safety, and logistics. But as drone adoption expands, so do regulatory requirements. For anyone flying internationally—whether as a hobbyist or a commercial operator—understanding international drone rules and regulations is essential for safety, legality, and risk management. This article provides a practical, high-level guide to common regulatory themes across jurisdictions, how rules differ by region, and what you should do before flying in another country. It is not legal advice, but it will help you develop an effective compliance checklist.

Why International Drone Regulations Matter

Drone laws are not harmonized globally. A flight that is legal in one country may be unlawful in another due to differences in:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally transformed drone technology, shifting unmanned aerial systems (UAS) from remotely piloted tools into increasingly autonomous, data-driven platforms. What were once simple flying cameras are now capable of real-time decision-making, object recognition, predictive navigation, swarm coordination, and automated data analysis. This technological shift has not only expanded the commercial and governmental use of drones but has also created new legal, regulatory, privacy, and cybersecurity challenges. Understanding how AI has reshaped drone technology is essential for businesses, government agencies, and individuals operating in airspace, data-intensive environments, or regulated industries.

Evolution of Drones: From Manual Control to Intelligent Systems

Early drones relied almost entirely on human operators for navigation, stabilization, and mission execution. While GPS and basic sensors improved flight control, decision-making remained human-centric. Artificial intelligence introduced a new paradigm: autonomy.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Drones—also called unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)—are no longer niche tools limited to hobbyists. Today, drones are used for real estate marketing, construction progress monitoring, private security, agriculture, filmmaking, inspections, and emergency response. As drone usage increases, so do disputes involving privacy, property rights, cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, and personal injury. For individuals and businesses alike, understanding drone laws and how drone litigation works is essential to managing legal risk. This article provides an overview of major U.S. and California drone legal frameworks and highlights the most common litigation scenarios involving drones.

Federal Law: FAA Rules and Airspace Authority

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary regulator of civil drone operations. The FAA’s rules determine where and how drones may fly, and violations can lead to civil penalties, enforcement actions, and operational restrictions. Most commercial drone operations fall under FAA Part 107, which generally requires:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

We can confidently say that artificial intelligence law stopped being “emerging” in 2025. This was the year the courts, regulators, and legislators around the world started drawing real lines in the sand on copyright, data use, AI-washing, and high-risk systems—with obligations that will fully bite in 2026 and beyond. For in-house teams, founders, and boards, this year was less about theoretical risk and more about the following issues: what, exactly, is now illegal, what must we document, and how do we keep launching AI products without stepping on a legal landmine?

  1. Copyright & IP: The “Fair Use Triangle” Takes Shape

This year gave us the first real cluster of U.S. decisions on whether using copyrighted works to train AI is fair use. The answer so far: it depends heavily on how you got the data and what you do with it.

Continue Reading ›