Tag Archives: Anne Cortina Perry

SCOTUS Overrules Roe v. Wade – Part IV: The Impact of Dobbs on Data Privacy – FTC v. Kochava

by Shoba Pillay, Madeleine V. Findley, Ann M. O’Leary, Anne Cortina Perry, Dawn L. Smalls, Alison Stein, and Philip B. Sailer

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed a complaint against a data broker alleging that the collection and sale of precise location data significantly harms consumers, especially if the data contains information regarding travel to and from specific sensitive locations, such as reproductive healthcare clinics. The outcome of the case could have a substantial impact on the FTC’s authority to enforce consumer protection laws and will likely inform how companies handle consumer data to which they have access. The FTC’s complaint follows guidance the Biden administration issued to federal agencies, including the FTC, to take actions to protect consumers’ privacy in connection with reproductive healthcare services  after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (“Dobbs”)[1]. The outcome of the case could have a substantial impact on the sale and collection of consumer location data and the FTC’s authority to enforce consumer privacy protections.

Continue reading →

Do Your ESG Disclosures Need Leveling Up? Leading Video Game Company Faces SEC Investigation into Its Harassment and Discrimination Disclosures as It Reaches $18 Million Settlement with EEOC

by Anne Cortina Perry, Anthony S. Barkow, Charles D. Riely, Lori B. Day, Tali R. Leinwand, and Anna Windemuth

Recent activity by two federal regulators underscores an increasingly obvious reality: when a company is confronted with harassment and discrimination complaints, government agencies will scrutinize its response and may bring enforcement actions. For months, video game maker Activision Blizzard (“Activision”) has been dealing with negative publicity and litigation relating to allegations that it allowed pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination to occur and failed to appropriately respond. Just three weeks ago, Activision confirmed that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was investigating the sufficiency of its disclosures.[1] In the latest news concerning the company, Activision publicly disclosed two weeks ago that it was resolving a case with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) by making an $18 million payment to establish a victim fund.[2] This client alert analyzes these developments, the other civil and regulatory issues faced by Activision, and discusses steps companies can take when confronted with harassment or other work conduct allegations.

Continue reading →

What’s in a Name? That Which We Now Call the Justice Manual Has a Familiar, But Distinctive, Scent

by Katya Jestin, David Bitkower, Matthew D. Cipolla, Anne Cortina Perry, and Jessica A. Martinez

On September 25, 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the rollout of the “Justice Manual” – a revised and renamed version of the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, a long-used reference for Department of Justice (DOJ) policies and procedures.[1] The most significant changes appear to be confined to anticipated codifications of well-publicized new policies (although one such policy was, puzzlingly, omitted). But some other changes have not been previously addressed by Department leadership, and may provide insight into the Department’s mindset in light of recent events.

The recent rollout was the culmination of a yearlong review and overhaul of the Manual, the first in more than 20 years.[2] This initiative to streamline DOJ policies and revamp the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual was announced by Deputy AG Rosenstein last October in a speech at NYU. Rosenstein explained in his initial announcement that the project would work to identify redundancies, clarify ambiguities, eliminate surplus language, and update the Manual to reflect current law and DOJ practice, including through the incorporation of outstanding policy memoranda.[3] According to DOJ’s recent announcement, the name change from “U.S. Attorneys’ Manual” to “Justice Manual” not only reflects this significant undertaking by DOJ employees, but also emphasizes the applicability of the Manual to the entire Department, beyond the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.[4] Continue reading →