On Oct. 27, in a vote split along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) approved a new regulatory regime staking its claim to privacy regulation of both fixed and mobile Internet service providers (“ISPs”) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. The FCC’s rules follow its decision in the Open Internet Order, released last year and analyzed here, to classify broadband Internet access service as a common-carrier telecommunications service. The FCC’s new rules are intended to give consumers control over the ways in which ISPs use and share their customers’ private information. While the FCC has yet to release its Report and Order, the FCC’s Fact Sheet and statements by the commissioners indicate that the new privacy rules in many respects track the proposed rules the FCC put forward earlier this year, which seek to make the FCC the “toughest” privacy regulator in the Internet ecosystem by imposing on ISPs significantly more onerous and restrictive requirements for use and collection of consumer data than the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) imposes on its non-ISP competitors.
- Non-U.S. banks can do business with Iran and continue their relationships with U.S. banks.
- Non-U.S. companies may use proceeds from Iran transactions more freely, including in the United States.
- OFAC draws a clearer line with respect to the use of Iran-related funds.
After the Iran nuclear agreement, as non-U.S. companies entered into newly-permitted business in Iran, they faced the difficult question of where they could put the money from their Iran business. U.S. law still prohibits U.S. persons (including U.S. banks) from conducting most business with Iran. Among other rules, OFAC regulations and guidance provided that “Iran-related” funds could not transit the U.S. financial system. But the guidance did not state clearly what constituted “Iran-related” funds. For that reason, foreign financial institutions (FFIs) hesitated, even feared, to process Iran-related transactions because of the risks of sending Iran-related funds into the U.S. financial system in violation of U.S. sanctions. However, a new clarification in the OFAC guidance could change all of that (and change it in the way we proposed right here in this blog).
The UK people have voted to leave the European Union. Although there is no constitutional duty to leave the Union as a result, politically this is likely going to happen. Change will not be immediate and happen over time.
Companies are well advised to react quickly to assess the impact Brexit might have on their business and current commercial decisions involving the UK if they have not already done so.
On February 29, 2016, the European Commission and United States released the terms of the much-anticipated renewed framework for the transfer, sharing, and processing of European individuals’ data to the United States. The framework replaces the “Safe Harbour” mechanism, which enabled U.S. to transfer data from the EU to the United States by self-certifying that their practices ensured an adequate level of protection for personal data under the EU Data Protection Directive. In October, the “Safe Harbour” framework was declared invalid by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems decision covered earlier in this blog.
After weeks of negotiations and a Putin-backed delay, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2270 on March 2, 2016, imposing new sanctions against North Korea. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the resolution imposes the strongest set of UN sanctions in over two decades. This article provides a summary of the new UN North Korea sanctions followed by an overview of the most recent developments in North Korea sanctions under US law. Continue Reading
Like a needle to a balloon, the Schrems decision has drastically altered the data privacy landscape. Who is affected? Everyone – consumers, corporations, employees. But who needs to take action? Any company with offices in the European Union and the United States, any European company that outsources work to the United States (do you know where your cloud is?), and any company that sends information from the EU to the United States. Continue Reading
미 법무부(Department of Justice)와 연방거래위원회 (Federal Trade Commission)는 한국 공정거래위원회와 9월 8일 워싱턴, D.C.에서 양국의 경쟁당국간 협력 및 교류를 증진하기 위한 업무협약(Memorandum of Understanding on Antitrust Cooperation)을 체결하였다. 동 업무협약은 건전하고 효과적인 양국의 경쟁법 집행이 시장의 효율적인 운영 및 각국 소비자들의 경제적 복지에 매우 중요하다는 점을 확인하고, 양국의 경쟁당국간 경쟁법 집행시의 협력 및 조율을 통해 각 경쟁당국 단독으로 움직일 때보다 각 경쟁당국이 염려하는 바를 보다 효과적으로 해결할 가능성이 있음을 인정하였다. 또한, 동 업무협약은 더 나아가 양국의 경쟁당국간 경쟁법 및 경쟁 정책에 대한 원활한 의사소통이 경쟁당국간의 관계 증진 및 강화에 기여할 수 있음을 확인하였다. Continue Reading
On June 16, 2015, IAP Worldwide Services Inc., a private defense and government contracting company, agreed to pay $7.1 million to settle criminal charges of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) related to bribing Kuwaiti government officials to secure a Kuwaiti government contract. On the same day, James Michael Rama, IAP’s Former Vice President of Special Projects and Programs also pleaded guilty to FCPA charges. For U.S. government contractors, the opportunities to provide services and expertise to foreign governments are lucrative, but this enforcement action also highlights the risks associated with obtaining such contracts. Continue Reading
Section 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the PRC (“AML”) clearly regulates retail price maintenance (“RPM”), and RPM definitely is on the radar of the AML authorities for investigation and penalties. Enforcement against Maotai Liquor in 2013 proved that enforcing compulsory retail prices may cross a redline with the authorities in China. Recent enforcement and civil cases in 2013 and 2014 should also alert all multinational companies to double-check and improve their AML compliance system. Continue Reading
On February 12, 2015, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that three U.S.-based importers had agreed to pay more than $3 million to resolve a lawsuit brought by the United States under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Government alleged that the importers had made false declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and conspired with other domestic companies to make false declarations to CBP in order to avoid paying “antidumping” and “countervailing” duties. No Government contracts were involved. These were “reverse” FCA claims based upon underpayment of duties for private sector import transactions. Continue Reading