Artificial intelligence is everywhere now: in your contracts, your research workflows, your customer service queue. And if your company is using it without thinking carefully about trade secret exposure, you may be quietly dismantling critical protections your company has spent years building.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has alleged an AI company’s chatbot engaged in the unauthorized practice of medicine. This lawsuit not only signals how state regulators are potentially evaluating AI-driven health interactions, but it could also have sweeping implications for health IT companies and their operational risk.
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Ashley Taylor continues the multipart series on artificial intelligence with colleagues Ghillaine Reid, David Stauss, and Matt Berns for a practical look at how states are actually regulating AI in 2025-26. Framed through a consumer protection lens, the discussion moves beyond theoretical federal proposals to real bills and regulations moving through state legislatures today.
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Ashley Taylor continues his multipart series on artificial intelligence (AI) with returning guests Gurkan Ay and Andrew Coles of Resolution Economics. Together, they move beyond headlines and hypotheticals to focus on how AI is being regulated today — and what companies should be doing now to manage risk.
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, co-host Ashley Taylor, co-leader of Troutman Pepper Locke’s State Attorneys General team, kicks off a multipart series on artificial intelligence (AI) with guests Gurkan Ay and Andrew Coles of Resolution Economics. They unpack what people really mean by “AI” today and why it is critical for risk, compliance, and legal exposure to distinguish among the three primary “flavors” of AI: predictive, generative, and agentic. In practical terms, they explain how predictive tools that score, rank, and classify individuals rely on historical data, how generative AI enables natural-language interaction but introduces risks like hallucinations, and how emerging agentic AI can autonomously plan and execute complex, multistep workflows, creating new governance challenges.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued a decision strengthening the “sealed container” defense available to non‑manufacturing sellers in products liability cases. In Weaver v. AMV Holdings LLC, the court found in favor of a vape retailer and distributor after a lithium‑ion battery malfunctioned in a customer’s pocket, causing serious burns. For retailers and distributors — particularly those dealing with lithium‑ion batteries — this decision underscores the continued viability of sealed container defenses.
As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent in day-to-day life and in the legal field, in particular, thorny questions arise regarding the implications of that use. One such question is whether exchanges with a publicly available generative AI platform in connection with pending litigation are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In a matter of first impression nationwide, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York answered that question in the negative and required a defendant to provide the prosecution documents memorializing litigation-related communications with a generative AI platform.[1] Applying traditional principles governing the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, the court reasoned that the communications did not involve an attorney-client relationship, were not confidential, were not made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and did not reflect an attorney’s trial strategy.[2] The ruling will likely impact whether legal protections are afforded to AI communications, prompts, and output in both litigation and regulatory inquiries, including state attorneys general (AG) investigations.
On February 24, the New Jersey State Senate unanimously confirmed the appointment of Jennifer Davenport to serve as New Jersey’s attorney general (AG). Davenport (whose nomination we covered here) has been serving in an acting capacity since Governor Mikie Sherrill took office in January.
In this special crossover episode of Regulatory Oversight and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Matthew Berns to discuss New Jersey’s sweeping new disparate impact regulations under the Law Against Discrimination. They break down one of the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact rules in the U.S., the contrasts with traditional federal standards, and implications for enforcement in financial services. The discussion dives into credit scores, underwriting models, AI and automated decision-making tools, and the difference between New Jersey’s approach and the Trump administration’s effort to scale back disparate impact at the federal level, offering practical takeaways for lenders and other covered entities navigating this shifting landscape.
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida stayed discovery in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action while the court considers whether text messages qualify as “calls” under the statute’s do-not-call (DNC) provisions. In McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., the court granted the defendant’s motion to stay, finding that the key issues can be resolved as questions of law without discovery. 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).