Tag Archives: Paul D. Rubin

National Association of Attorneys General’s 2023 Consumer Protection Spring Conference

by Courtney M. Dankworth, Avi Gesser, Paul D. Rubin, Jehan A. Patterson, Sam Allaman, and Melissa Muse

Photos of the authors

From top left to right: Courtney M. Dankworth, Avi Gesser, and Paul D. Rubin.
From bottom left to right: Jehan A. Patterson, Sam Allaman, and Melissa Muse.
(Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton)

On May 10−12, 2023, the National Association of Attorneys General (the “NAAG”) held its Spring 2023 Consumer Protection Conference to discuss the intersection of consumer protection issues and technology. During the portion of the conference that was open to the public, panels featuring federal and state regulators, private legal practitioners, and industry experts discussed potential legal liabilities and consumer risks related to artificial intelligence (“AI”), online lending, and targeted advertising.

In this Debevoise Update, we recap some of the panels and remarks, which emphasized regulators’ increased scrutiny of the intersection of consumer protection and emerging technologies, focusing on the leading themes from the conference: transparency, fairness, and privacy.

Continue reading →

Legal Dispute Surrounding Abortion Pill Has Significant Implications for Broader Healthcare Industry

by Andrew L. Bab, Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Paul D. Rubin, Shannon Rose Selden, Kim T. Le, Jacob W. Stahl, Adam Aukland-Peck, Prakriti Luthra, Melissa Runsten, and Charlotte Blatt

From top left to right: Andrew L. Bab, Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Paul D. Rubin, Shannon Rose Selden, and Kim T. Le.
From bottom left to right: Jacob W. Stahl, Adam Aukland-Peck, Prakriti Luthra, Melissa Runsten, and Charlotte Blatt. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On November 18, 2022, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and several other plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit in federal court against the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), seeking to overturn the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a drug commonly used for medication abortions, as well as in the management of miscarriage and in the treatment of certain diseases (the “AHM Litigation”). After expedited briefing and a hearing, Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary order that would effectively remove mifepristone from the market nationwide for use in the termination of pregnancy. The court signaled its belief that both the FDA’s initial approval and its subsequent decision to eliminate certain restrictions on its use were arbitrary and capricious because the FDA had allegedly failed to consider relevant safety data.

While the merits of this case have yet to be fully litigated—and the Supreme Court has temporarily preserved the status quo—this case may have significant implications for the broader healthcare industry, including FDA-regulated entities as well as providers, insurers, and even companies that subsidize healthcare for their employees.

Continue reading →

CFPB Advisory on Placement Practices May Have Broader Market Implications

by Courtney M. Dankworth, Avi Gesser, Alexandra N. Mogul, Paul D. Rubin, and Jehan A. Patterson

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Courtney M. Dankworth, Avi Gesser, Paul D. Rubin, Alexandra N. Mogul, and Jehan A. Patterson (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On February 7, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) issued an advisory opinion (the “Advisory Opinion”)[1] on certain digital placement practices, which may have broader market implications. The Advisory Opinion provides that the prohibition on referral fees under section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) in real estate transactions that involve federally related mortgage loans extends to operators of websites that allow consumers to compare mortgages and other real estate settlement services.[2] Specifically, if a comparison-shopping website ranks lenders or settlement service providers (or utilizes certain design choices intended to steer consumers’ choices of providers) based on compensation received by the website operator rather than on neutral criteria, that compensation may be considered an unlawful referral fee in the CFPB’s view.

Continue reading →

Model Destruction – The FTC’s Powerful New AI and Privacy Enforcement Tool

by Avi Gesser, Paul D. Rubin, and Anna R. Gressel

A recent FTC settlement is the latest example of a regulator imposing very significant costs on a company for artificial intelligence (“AI”) or privacy violations by requiring them to destroy algorithms or models. As companies invest millions of dollars in big data and AI projects, and regulators become increasingly concerned about the risks associated with automated decision-making (e.g., privacy, bias, transparency, explainability, etc.), it is important for companies to carefully consider the regulatory risks that are associated with certain data practices. In this Debevoise Data Blog post, we discuss the circumstances in which regulators may require “algorithmic disgorgement” and some best practices for avoiding that outcome.

Continue reading →

A New Era of Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Privacy and Cybersecurity Oversight: Top Ten Things Companies Should Know When Assessing FTC Compliance and Exposure

by Luke Dembosky, Avi Gesser, Ted Hassi, Paul D. Rubin, Jim Pastore, Johanna Skrzypczyk, Leah Martin, Melissa Runsten, and Christopher S. Ford

Companies developing FTC compliance programs, or under investigation by the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, should be aware of significant developments impacting the Commission’s regulatory authority and enforcement priorities.

Despite a number of recent judicial defeats that have significantly hampered the FTC’s ability to obtain: (1) injunctive relief when purported violative behavior is not ongoing; and (2) monetary remedies in federal court under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTCA”), new FTC Chair Lina Khan has indicated that the FTC intends to aggressively enforce existing FTC consumer protection laws—and in particular alleged privacy and cybersecurity violations.

Continue reading →

Destruction Emerges as a Powerful Enforcement Measure for AI: FTC Requires Company to Delete Models Trained with Improperly Utilized Consumer Data

by Jeremy Feigelson, Avi Gesser, Jim Pastore, Justin C. Ferrone, Anna R. Gressel, Paul D. Rubin, and Melissa Runsten

For those following emerging artificial intelligence (“AI”) regulations and enforcement closely, one issue of great interest is remedies. In particular: in what circumstances, if any, would regulators or courts find that a flawed machine learning or AI model must be scrapped entirely? A hot-off-the-press decision from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) suggests regulators will not shy away from saying “scrap it.”

Continue reading →