Photo of Abby Hylton

Abby is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement practice. She previously served as a summer associate at the firm in 2021.

The New York Voting Rights Act‘s (NYVRA) preclearance section takes effect on September 22, 2024. The new rule requires covered jurisdictions to seek “preclearance” of certain covered policy changes to their election and redistricting procedures from the New York Office of the Attorney General (AG) or an appropriate court. The public comment period on the AG’s proposed preclearance rule is closed and resulted in the AG adopting the proposed rule as final without substantive changes. The final rule further clarifies the standards and processes for obtaining preclearance and will be published in the State Register on September 11, 2024.

State attorneys general (AGs) have increased their scrutiny of the use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in relation to data privacy laws, consumer protection statutes, and anti-discrimination laws. Our state AG team has issued a new white paper examining this trend, including a detailed look at the recent advisory opinion issued by the Massachusetts AG’s office, which provides guidance on how existing laws apply to AI. Understanding the potential legal implications of AI use is important to any consumer-facing business, include private equity firms and other investors.

The Virginia General Assembly recently passed — in both chambers — a bill to regulate delta-8 THC products in the commonwealth. The bill now awaits the governor’s signature. Governor Youngkin and the Republican-controlled House of Delegates have prioritized the control of these novel hemp-derived products over legislation to legalize the retail sale of adult-use marijuana, which will no longer begin in 2024.

Yesterday, 14 Republican attorneys general (AGs) filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other co-plaintiffs against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau), alleging that the Bureau exceeded its statutory authority by amending its examination manual to include discrimination, and in particular disparate