Photo of Ashley L. Taylor, Jr.

Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.

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.

“Today’s consumer protection challenges require an all-hands-on-deck response, and our report details how the FTC is working closely with state enforcers to share information, stop fraud, and ensure fairness in the marketplace[.]”[1]

On April 10, the FTC released a long-awaited report on its cooperation with state attorneys general (AGs). The theme of the report is clear: the FTC intends to continue its existing collaboration with AGs and enhance that collaboration through information-sharing and legislative changes.

In an era where privacy, security, and artificial intelligence are at the forefront of many business operations, staying informed about the latest developments is crucial. Our 2023 Privacy Year in Review is an in-depth analysis of the past year’s significant advancements and challenges in these areas.

In the latest episode of Regulatory Oversight, Ashley Taylor is joined by his colleagues Kim Phan and Kristen Eastman to discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) 1033 proposed rule, also known as the Personal Financial Digital Rights rule. This rule, part of the Dodd-Frank Act, aims to place limits on the ability to access consumer data as well as any subsequent uses of such data. It focuses on entities subject to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, such as depository institutions, credit card companies, and payment processors. The proposed rule requires these entities to make financial records available both to consumers and their authorized third parties.

In the latest episode of Regulatory Oversight, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Executive Director Brian Kane joins co-host Ashley Taylor to discuss the role that NAAG plays among attorneys general. NAAG provides a community for attorneys general and their staff to collaboratively address issues important to their work, as well as training and resources to support attorneys general. From Supreme Court training to a multistate settlement database, NAAG offers a variety of resources to the attorneys general offices.

On June 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a request for information (RFI) to gain additional insight into how it can optimize joint enforcement with state attorneys general (state AGs) to protect consumers from fraud. The announcement signals a growing trend of cooperation between the FTC and state AGs, which we have also seen between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the state regulators.

In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, Ashley Taylor welcomes Professor Paul Nolette from Marquette University to discuss the evolution of state attorneys general and how their roles in government have shifted over the years. Professor Nolette serves as the chair of Marquette’s Political Science Department and focuses his teaching and research on the dynamics of contemporary American federalism and the interplay between law and politics. Professor Nolette wrote the book Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policy Making in Contemporary America, which examines how state litigators have used lawsuits against large corporations and the federal government as a way to influence national policy.