The Court's Finding and its Surprising Impact

The case, United States v. Google, which was first filed in 2020, centered on the argument that Google secured and maintained its monopoly through anticompetitive exclusive contracts. While the court rejected the most severe remedies, such as a divestiture of Google’s Chrome or Android businesses, it imposed a significant behavioral remedy: Google must now share a portion of its proprietary search data with qualified competitors.

This data-sharing mandate is unprecedented. It is designed to level the playing field for emerging players in the search and AI space, giving them the insights needed to train their own models and build a more competitive product. As the judge's opinion noted, the rise of generative AI companies like OpenAI and Perplexity fundamentally changes the competitive landscape, creating a new and more formidable threat to Google's traditional search dominance than any rival has posed in decades.

Crucially for Apple, the ruling also permitted Google to continue its multibillion-dollar annual payments to Apple to remain the default search engine on Apple's devices. However, it put an end to the "exclusive" nature of the deal. This subtle but profound shift provides Apple with unprecedented leverage.

The Strategic Pivot: Apple's AI Play

Apple has been under immense pressure to enhance its AI capabilities, with its voice assistant Siri widely seen as having fallen behind competitors. For years, the company's lucrative agreement with Google provided little incentive to develop its own search engine or to seek out alternative partnerships.

The recent court ruling has completely changed that equation. With the door now open to non-exclusive deals, Apple can continue to collect its significant payments from Google while simultaneously exploring other AI integrations. This newfound flexibility has directly led to reports of a major new strategic alliance.

Apple is now reportedly in advanced discussions to integrate Google's powerful Gemini AI models into a revamped Siri. This partnership is a win-win for both tech giants:

• For Apple, it offers a fast and effective way to catch up in the AI race without having to build a complex, foundational model from scratch. It leverages Google’s technology to transform Siri from a basic voice assistant into a sophisticated, AI-powered search tool capable of handling complex, conversational queries.

• For Google, the partnership serves as a strategic counter-move to its antitrust challenges. By embedding its AI technology into millions of iPhones, Google secures a new revenue stream and reinforces its position as a leader in the AI-driven search market, regardless of ongoing legal battles.

The Legal and Business Takeaway

The Google antitrust case and the subsequent partnership with Apple serve as a powerful reminder of how quickly legal and regulatory actions can reshape corporate strategy. For businesses operating in technology and other highly regulated industries, the key takeaways are clear:

• Antitrust enforcement is evolving: Courts are increasingly recognizing that the competitive landscape is shifting. Antitrust remedies are now being tailored to account for new technologies, like generative AI, that challenge traditional market structures.

• Leverage is created in unexpected places: The court's ruling did not directly benefit Apple, yet its consequences created the perfect conditions for Apple to gain significant leverage in its negotiations and pursue a new, more aggressive AI strategy.

• Partnerships can be a response to regulation: In a climate of heightened regulatory scrutiny, companies may find that partnerships with former rivals offer a viable path to growth and innovation, particularly when a court decision removes prior legal or contractual barriers.

As Google prepares to appeal the court’s decision and the Apple-Google AI partnership takes shape, legal experts will be watching closely. This case is not just about a search engine; it is a blueprint for how corporate law will navigate the complexities of a future driven by artificial intelligence.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific AI and regulatory needs.

What is Data Privacy?

Data privacy, also known as information privacy, refers to the relationship between the collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding them. It’s about ensuring that personal data—like names, addresses, financial information, and browsing history—is collected, processed, and stored in a way that respects individual rights and expectations.

Why is Data Privacy Crucial for Startups?

1. Building Customer Trust: Trust is the bedrock of any successful business. When customers feel confident that their personal information is handled with care and respect, they are more likely to engage with your products and services, become loyal advocates, and provide the data you need to improve your offerings. A data breach or a misuse of data can instantly shatter this trust, leading to a loss of customers and a damaged reputation that can be hard to repair.

2. Meeting Legal and Regulatory Requirements: The global landscape of data privacy is becoming increasingly complex. Regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States have set high standards for how companies must handle personal data. Failure to comply can result in severe penalties, including hefty fines that could cripple a young startup. By proactively addressing data privacy, you can avoid these costly mistakes and ensure you are legally compliant from day one.

3. Gaining a Competitive Advantage: In an increasingly crowded market, data privacy can be a powerful differentiator. By publicly committing to strong data protection practices, you can signal to customers that you are a responsible and ethical business. This can give you a significant edge over competitors who may be perceived as being lax with data security.

4. Enabling Secure Partnerships: As your startup grows, you will likely form partnerships with other businesses, from marketing agencies to cloud service providers. These partners will want to ensure that your data practices align with their own security and compliance standards. A strong data privacy framework makes you an attractive and trustworthy partner, opening doors to valuable collaborations.

Key Steps to Get Started

For a startup with limited resources, building a data privacy program can seem daunting. Here are some practical steps to get you on the right track:

• Audit Your Data: The first step is to understand what data you collect, where it comes from, how it's stored, and who has access to it. A data audit helps you identify potential risks and prioritize your privacy efforts.

• Create a Privacy Policy: Your privacy policy is a legally binding document that explains how you collect, use, and protect your customers' data. It should be easy to understand and readily accessible on your website. Be transparent about what information you collect and why.

• Implement Data Minimization: Collect only the data you absolutely need to achieve your business goals. The less data you have, the lower the risk of a breach and the easier it is to manage compliance.

• Prioritize Security: Data privacy and data security are two sides of the same coin. Invest in robust security measures like encryption, firewalls, and regular security audits to protect the data you hold.

• Educate Your Team: Data privacy is not just an IT issue; it's a company-wide responsibility. Train your employees on data handling best practices and the importance of protecting customer information.

Conclusion

For a startup, data privacy is not an afterthought—it's a foundational element of your business strategy. By prioritizing data protection, you can build a company that is not only legally compliant and secure but also deeply trusted by its customers. In a world where data breaches make headlines, a commitment to privacy can be your greatest asset, paving the way for sustainable growth and long-term success.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific data privacy needs and obligations.

Last week, the court rejected a challenge to full-day kindergarten fees in the case of Hansen v. Boise School District #1. While many were watching for a ruling on the constitutionality of these fees, the court's decision hinged on a much different set of legal issues: standing and the statute of limitations.

The court did not decide whether the fees themselves were legal or not. Instead, it dismissed the case because:

1. The plaintiffs waited too long to file their lawsuit, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations.

2. The grandchild on whose behalf the claim was partially brought lacked the legal standing to sue, as the grandparents were the ones who paid the fees.

The Business Law Connection

This ruling may seem a world away from corporate boardrooms or contract disputes, but it reinforces a critical lesson we see every day in business law: procedural law is just as important as substantive law.

A brilliant legal argument on the merits of a case—whether it's about a breach of contract, a shareholder dispute, or a liability claim—can be completely nullified if the case is not filed correctly or within the required timeframe. We've seen this happen in many contexts, where a claim is dismissed not because it's wrong, but because it’s procedurally flawed.

The Hansen case is a powerful, public example of this. It highlights why paying meticulous attention to detail from the very beginning of a legal matter is crucial. It also underscores the importance of seeking timely legal counsel to ensure that your rights and claims are protected from a procedural standpoint.

What This Means for Idaho

For the time being, the legality of full-day kindergarten fees remains an open question in Idaho. The Supreme Court's decision does not prevent a future lawsuit from being filed, provided it meets the necessary procedural requirements.

As your legal partner, we remain committed to keeping you informed about legal trends—both inside and outside the business sector—that affect our community and illustrate the fundamental principles of our legal system.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While our firm focuses on business law, we believe it's important to provide our community with insights into significant legal developments such as this. Please contact Roper Legal if you have any questions about this or other legal issues in the Boise, Idaho community.

I recently saw this play out with a client of mine, a general contractor who, for years, had built their business on reputation and verbal agreements. They did fantastic work and had a loyal customer base. But as their business grew, so did the size and complexity of their projects. They landed a major contract with a very sophisticated owner, and for the first time, a formal contract was required.

Recognizing the need, but wanting to save on legal fees, my client did what many small business owners do: they pieced together a contract using free templates and online resources. Their intentions were good—they wanted to be prepared and professional. But what they didn't realize was that a generic, cobbled-together contract can be just as dangerous as no contract at all.

Here’s where things started to go wrong.

1. Uncertainty About Payments: The contract lacked clear, specific language about the payment schedule. Was it based on project milestones? The calendar? The result was confusion and missed payments, putting a strain on the project and my client's cash flow.

2. Lack of Clarity: The online templates didn't address the specific nuances of a large construction project. There were clauses that didn't apply and, more importantly, crucial clauses that were missing. This led to disagreements over change orders, timelines, and who was responsible for what.

3. Damaged Relationships: What started as a promising partnership quickly turned tense. The lack of a clear, mutually understood agreement created an environment of mistrust. My client and their customer ended up spending more time and energy debating the terms of their agreement than they did on the project itself.

The lesson here is a critical one for any business owner: your contracts are not just legal hurdles to clear; they are the foundation of your business relationships. A well-drafted contract isn't about mistrust; it's about clarity, protection, and setting everyone up for success.

A good contract should:

• Clearly define the scope of work: What will be done, and just as importantly, what won't be done?

• Establish a clear payment schedule: When will you be paid, and what are the terms?

• Address potential issues: What happens if the project is delayed? If there are change orders?

• Protect both parties: A good contract protects you and your client, providing a roadmap for what to do when the unexpected happens.

In the end, my general contractor client was able to navigate the project, but not without significant stress and wasted time. The money they saved by not hiring a legal professional was far outweighed by the costs of the uncertainty and friction caused by a poorly drafted agreement.

As your business grows, your contracts need to grow with it. Don't fall into the contract trap. Invest the time and resources into having solid, well-defined agreements. It's not an expense; it's an investment in your business's stability, professionalism, and long-term success.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific contracting needs. 

The EU AI Act: A Global First in AI Regulation

In March 2024, the European Parliament officially passed the Artificial Intelligence Act, a groundbreaking law that seeks to create a unified legal framework for AI governance across all 27 EU member states. The legislation will be phased in over the next few years and introduces a risk-based approach to regulating AI technologies.

Under the AI Act, systems are categorized into four levels of risk:

• Unacceptable risk AI systems are banned entirely (e.g., social scoring by governments, real-time biometric surveillance in public spaces, and manipulative behavior).

• High-risk systems are allowed but subject to strict compliance measures. This includes AI used in medical devices, hiring tools, law enforcement, education, and critical infrastructure.

• Limited risk applications must meet transparency requirements, such as notifying users they are interacting with AI.

• Minimal risk applications (e.g., AI-powered spam filters) are largely unregulated.

The Act imposes significant legal obligations on developers, deployers, and users of high-risk AI systems, including:

• Conducting risk assessments

• Ensuring human oversight and accountability

• Providing clear information to users about system functionality

AI Regulation in the United States: A Sectoral and Decentralized Approach with a New Emphasis on Innovation

Unlike the European Union, the United States has not adopted a comprehensive federal AI law. Instead, the U.S. is taking a multi-pronged approach, relying on executive orders, agency guidance, and state-level legislation. The direction of federal AI policy has recently seen a significant shift with the introduction of the Trump administration's "Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan" in July 2025.

"Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan" (July 2025)

The Trump administration's new AI Action Plan, released on July 23, 2025, marks a notable departure from previous federal AI policy. This plan, which functionally replaces President Biden's Executive Order 14110 on AI, prioritizes accelerating AI innovation and securing American global leadership in the field, with a strong emphasis on reducing perceived regulatory burdens. The plan outlines over 90 federal policy initiatives across three strategic pillars:

• • Pillar I: Accelerate AI Innovation. This pillar focuses on reducing "red tape" and "onerous" regulations that might hinder AI development and adoption. It calls for federal agencies to review and potentially revise or repeal regulations deemed impediments to AI innovation. A significant aspect is the aim to ensure AI models procured by federal agencies are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias," with directives to revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to eliminate references to "misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change." The plan also proposes potentially withholding federal funding from states that have "burdensome" AI regulations that could impede innovation. Furthermore, it encourages open-source and open-weight AI models, and promotes a "try-first culture" for AI adoption in critical sectors like healthcare.

  • Pillar II: Build American AI Infrastructure. Recognizing the immense computational and energy demands of advanced AI, this pillar focuses on scaling domestic infrastructure. Key measures include streamlining permitting processes for data center construction, potentially through new Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and broadening the use of the FAST-41 process. It also calls for developing a strategy to upgrade the U.S. power grid and making federal lands available for data center and related energy generation projects. The plan emphasizes bolstering cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, including the establishment of an AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC) to promote information sharing on AI-security threats.

  • Pillar III: Lead in International AI Diplomacy and Security. This pillar aims to secure and maintain American AI leadership internationally. It focuses on promoting American AI exports, including "full-stack AI export packages" (hardware, models, software, applications, and standards) to allied nations. The plan also seeks to counter rival nations' influence in global AI governance bodies and strengthen export controls on advanced AI and semiconductor technologies to prevent their acquisition by adversaries.

The "Winning the AI Race" plan underscores the administration's belief that accelerating technological advancement and fostering an environment of minimal regulatory barriers are crucial to maintaining America's competitive edge in the global AI landscape.

Executive Order 14110 on AI (October 30, 2023) - Rescinded

It is important to note that President Trump, shortly after taking office in January 2025, rescinded President Biden's Executive Order 14110 on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. While this order previously directed federal agencies to establish standards for AI safety, privacy, bias mitigation, and intellectual property protection, its provisions are now superseded by the new AI Action Plan. The Biden EO had aimed to require developers of powerful AI models to report safety test results to the Department of Commerce, task the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with creating rigorous testing standards, and provide guidance for the use of AI in critical sectors.

Agency Guidance and Enforcement

Despite the shift in federal AI policy towards deregulation, various federal agencies continue to leverage their existing authorities to address AI-related concerns.

• • Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC has consistently stated it will regulate deceptive or biased uses of AI under existing consumer protection laws. In prior years, the FTC warned businesses about false claims involving “AI-powered” tools and emphasized the need for fairness, transparency, and accuracy in automated decision-making. While the new federal plan de-emphasizes "woke" AI concerns, the FTC's fundamental mandate to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices remains.

  • Other Federal Agencies: Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will likely continue to address how AI intersects with civil rights, employment law, and medical privacy, albeit within the new federal policy framework that prioritizes innovation and efficiency.

State-Level Legislation

In the absence of a comprehensive federal AI law—and potentially facing federal pushback on "burdensome" regulations—several states are moving forward with their own AI-related laws. This creates a diverse and sometimes fragmented regulatory landscape.

• • California: California has been active in AI-related legislation, including laws that update the definition of "personal information" to encompass AI systems, prohibit the commercial use of digital replicas of deceased performers without consent, and require generative AI developers to post documentation about training data. Proposed legislation continues to explore algorithmic transparency and prohibitions on discriminatory AI outcomes.

  • Utah: Utah was the first state to enact an AI-specific regulation, the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, which became effective May 1, 2024. This act primarily requires entities offering consumer-facing generative AI services in regulated professions to disclose when individuals are interacting with AI, particularly during "high-risk" interactions involving health, financial, or biometric data.

  • Colorado: Colorado passed the Colorado AI Act, which will become effective February 1, 2026. This comprehensive legislation requires developers and deployers of "high-risk" AI systems to use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination and disclose certain information to consumers.

  • Other States: Many other states are actively considering or have introduced AI-related bills in 2025. For example, Tennessee adopted the "ELVIS Act" to prohibit unauthorized AI duplication or mimicry of music industry professionals' voices. Arkansas requires public entities to develop AI use policies and establishes ownership rights for AI-generated content. Over 90 bills related to AI have been introduced across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington D.C. in 2025, addressing areas such as deepfakes in elections, AI in healthcare, and the "right to compute."

Global Momentum and the Need for Compliance

Taken together, the EU’s sweeping legislation and the U.S.’s targeted, yet now innovation-focused, approach reflect a growing international understanding: AI must be managed to protect societal interests, promote fairness, and ensure accountability, even as the global "AI Race" intensifies.

For businesses developing or deploying AI systems—especially those that operate internationally—it is crucial to:

• • Stay informed about jurisdiction-specific obligations, particularly considering the federal emphasis on deregulation alongside ongoing state-level activity.

  • Conduct regular audits of AI tools and vendors.

  • Document compliance efforts, especially regarding data use, bias mitigation (where applicable by state or existing federal law), and consumer disclosures.

Legal frameworks are still evolving, but enforcement actions and reputational risks are already very real.

Final Thoughts

Whether you are a startup building AI products or a small business integrating AI into your operations, understanding the legal landscape is essential. The EU AI Act will likely serve as a model for other countries, and U.S. regulators are actively shaping new expectations, now with a clear federal mandate to "win the AI race" through accelerating innovation.

Staying ahead of regulatory developments today can help you avoid legal exposure tomorrow.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific artificial intelligence needs and obligations. If you have questions about how AI regulations may affect your business—or need guidance on risk management, disclosures, or compliance planning—contact Roper Legal for a consultation.

What Does Idaho's Lemon Law Cover?

Idaho's Lemon Law applies to new motor vehicles purchased or licensed in Idaho that are subject to an applicable manufacturer's written warranty. This includes cars, trucks, and vans weighing 12,000 pounds or less and primarily used for personal, family, or household purposes.

The law covers "nonconformities," which are defects or conditions that substantially impair the vehicle's use or market value. It's important to note that the law does not cover nonconformities resulting from abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications to the vehicle.

When Does a Vehicle Qualify as a "Lemon"?

A vehicle may be considered a "lemon" under Idaho law if the manufacturer or its authorized dealers are unable to repair a substantial nonconformity after a "reasonable number of attempts." The law sets out specific presumptions for what constitutes a "reasonable number of attempts," which include:

• • Four or more unsuccessful attempts to repair the same defect, and the nonconformity continues to exist.

  • One unsuccessful attempt to repair a defect that causes the complete failure of the steering or braking system, and that failure is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

  • The vehicle has been out of service for 30 or more cumulative business days due to warranty repairs.

These repair attempts or days out of service must generally occur within the term of the express warranty, or within two years or 24,000 miles from the date of original delivery, whichever comes first.

Your Duty to Notify the Manufacturer

Before seeking a refund or replacement, you must notify the manufacturer or its authorized dealer in writing of the problem and give them at least one opportunity to repair the defect. This written notification is crucial for establishing your claim under the Lemon Law. It's highly advisable to send this notification via certified mail with a return receipt requested to create a clear record.

What Remedies Are Available?

If your vehicle qualifies as a "lemon," the manufacturer must either:

• • Replace the vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle; or

  • Refund the vehicle's full purchase price, which can include sales tax, license fees, registration fees, and reimbursement for towing and rental vehicle expenses incurred due to the vehicle being out of service. A reasonable allowance for your use of the vehicle may be deducted from the refund.

Arbitration: A Potential First Step

Idaho law requires manufacturers doing business in the state to offer a consumer arbitration program to address warranty-related disputes. If the manufacturer requires it, consumers must typically go through this arbitration process before filing a lawsuit. Arbitration offers a faster and often less formal way to resolve disputes compared to traditional litigation.

Statute of Limitations

While the primary period for defects to manifest is generally within the first two years or 24,000 miles, it's important to understand the broader timeframe for filing a claim. You can generally file a lawsuit any time within three years of the original delivery date, provided you first reported the defect within the applicable warranty period, two years, or 24,000 miles, whichever came first.

Empowering Yourself as a Consumer

Idaho's Lemon Law serves as a vital safeguard for consumers, providing a pathway to recourse when a new vehicle fails to meet the basic expectations of reliability and quality. Understanding the provisions of this law empowers you to advocate for your rights and protect your significant investment. Remember to meticulously document all repair attempts and communications with the dealership and manufacturer, as thorough record-keeping is fundamental to any potential claim. Ultimately, the Idaho Lemon Law is a testament to the principle that consumers deserve a fair shake when purchasing a new vehicle. By knowing your rights and the steps involved, you can work towards a satisfactory resolution and ensure your new car lives up to its promise.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific lemon law needs.

Hiring and Onboarding

When bringing on new employees, it's important to follow proper procedures. This includes having clear job descriptions, conducting thorough interviews, and providing offer letters that detail the terms of employment.

• Ensure all hiring practices are non-discriminatory.

• Accurately classify workers as employees or independent contractors.

• Maintain proper records of employment eligibility verification (Form I-9).

Wage and Hour Laws

Small businesses must adhere to federal and state wage and hour laws, including minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements.

• Pay at least the federal or state minimum wage, whichever is higher.

• Provide overtime pay to eligible employees for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

• Keep accurate records of employee hours worked and wages paid.

Workplace Safety

Providing a safe work environment is not just good practice; it's a legal requirement. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets standards for workplace safety, and small businesses must comply.

• Identify and address potential workplace hazards.

• Provide necessary safety training and equipment.

• Maintain records of workplace injuries and illnesses.

Employee Leave and Benefits

Various federal and state laws govern employee leave and benefits, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

• Understand eligibility and requirements for FMLA leave.

• Comply with state-specific leave laws.

• Offer benefits as required or chosen, and ensure non-discrimination.

Terminations and Layoffs

Ending an employment relationship requires careful consideration and adherence to legal guidelines.

• Document reasons for termination to avoid wrongful termination claims.

• Follow proper procedures for layoffs, including WARN Act notifications if applicable.

• Provide final paychecks in a timely manner, as required by state law.

Staying Compliant

Employment law is complex and constantly evolving. Here are some tips for staying compliant:

• Regularly review federal and state employment laws and regulations.

• Consult with an employment law attorney or HR professional.

• Provide ongoing training to managers and supervisors on employment law issues.

• Keep detailed and accurate employment records.

Navigating employment law can be challenging, but by staying informed and proactive, small businesses can create a positive and legally compliant work environment.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific employment law needs.

For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), grants California residents significant rights over their personal information, including the right to know, the right to delete, and the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data. (California Civil Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100). Other states, such as Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut, have also enacted their own comprehensive privacy laws, each with distinct provisions. (Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-571 et seq.; Colorado Privacy Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-1301 et seq.; Utah Consumer Privacy Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-61-101 et seq.; Connecticut Data Privacy Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-515 et seq.) Each passing year more states adopt their own privacy laws.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Enforcement

Even in the absence of a comprehensive federal privacy law, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been actively enforcing against companies that engage in unfair or deceptive practices related to data privacy. The FTC Act grants the agency broad authority to protect consumers from such practices. (15 U.S.C. § 45).

The FTC has brought numerous enforcement actions against companies for failing to protect consumer data, making misleading privacy promises, or violating specific privacy laws, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506). These actions highlight the FTC's focus on holding businesses accountable for their data privacy practices.

International Data Transfers

With the growth of global commerce, many US businesses engage in international data transfers. However, transferring personal data to other countries can raise complex legal and compliance issues. Businesses must ensure that such transfers comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The GDPR imposes strict requirements on the transfer of personal data from the EU to other countries, including the United States. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679). Businesses must have a legal basis for such transfers and may need to implement safeguards to protect the data. Recent developments in international data transfer agreements have further added to the complexity.

Emerging Technologies and Data Privacy

The rapid advancement of technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), facial recognition, and the Internet of Things (IoT), presents new data privacy challenges. These technologies often involve the collection and processing of vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about surveillance, discrimination, and misuse of information.

Businesses deploying these technologies must carefully consider the potential privacy implications and implement appropriate safeguards. Existing laws may need to be interpreted or updated to address the unique privacy challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Key Takeaways

Navigating the complexities of data privacy is essential for US businesses. To stay compliant and maintain consumer trust, businesses should:

• Stay informed about evolving state and federal privacy laws.

• Develop and implement robust data privacy policies and procedures.

• Conduct regular risk assessments and audits of their data practices.

• Provide transparency to consumers about how their data is collected and used.

• Train employees on data privacy best practices.

By prioritizing data privacy, businesses can protect themselves from legal risks and build stronger relationships with their customers.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Roper Legal to discuss your specific data privacy needs and obligations.