In this issue:
…
Illinois is the first state in the nation to impose a controversial transaction-based tax on digital asset activity, inserting the Digital Asset Tax Act, or the “cryptocurrency tax,” into the sweeping fiscal year 2027 budget bill with little public notice or industry input. Effective in 2027, the cryptocurrency tax imposes a 0.2% levy on the…
If a marketplace or payment processor froze your account and funds with little or no explanation, and you have since found a court order or a law firm’s name attached to it, you are likely a defendant in a Schedule A trademark case. This guide explains what that means, what your real exposure is, and…
Google trademark keywords create a fast fight and a simple question: can a competitor use your brand name to pull traffic away from you? In many cases, the answer turns on two separate systems. Google runs its own advertising policy. The Lanham Act governs federal trademark law. Those are related, but they do not ask…
When someone registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name in bad faith to profit from another person’s mark, federal law treats that conduct as unlawful. The key issue is not the domain name by itself. The issue is whether the name targets a trademark, creates confusing similarity, and serves a profit motive tied to…
A class 41 trademark covers services, not products. That distinction matters because the USPTO classifies trademarks by what you sell or do, and Class 41 is situated inside the service side of the system. If your brand supports classes, workshops, entertainment, events, or digital learning, this guide will help you decide whether your services belong here and how to…
Your AI platform may inspect user prompts, generated outputs, or uploaded files to improve safety or enforce your policies. That decision can create legal obligations that many AI companies do not expect.
Federal law does not require AI platforms to monitor everything their users do. But once your platform obtains actual knowledge of apparent child sexual abuse material…
Your AI image model can generate content that no human ever created. That does not necessarily mean the content is legal. Many AI companies assume there is no criminal exposure if an image does not depict a real person. Federal law does not always make that distinction.
One federal statute specifically addresses certain computer-generated images, including AI-generated images, even when no actual minor exists. If your platform can generate this type of content, your compliance analysis should…
Your AI model can create realistic fake images of real people. Your platform can store those images, and your users can share them with others. Those capabilities can trigger federal law, even if you think of your business as a neutral AI infrastructure provider rather than a content platform.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act creates new compliance obligations for many AI companies…
In a recent Law360 article, Baker McKenzie partner David Zaslowsky examines the FDIC’s most recent proposed rule to implement the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The proposed rule represents the financial crime compliance pillar of this emerging regime, following earlier agency proposals addressing application procedures and prudential requirements.Under the proposed…
