Ron Lanton 11/4/20 Ron Lanton 11/4/20

California Passed Proposition 22 in a Win for Uber & Lyft

Proposition 22’s passage in California on November 3, 2020 will have a major impact on the future of the gig economy not just in California but potentially the rest of the country.

Proposition 22 involved the issue of whether transportation drivers for app-based entities such Uber and Lyft should be classified as independent contractors. This now means that these companies would be exempt from a California law enacted last year that made it harder for these app-based companies to not classify their workers as employees.

If you have questions about what this means for you contact Lanton Law. We are experts in the technology and fintech industries and can help stakeholders navigate these evolving markets.

Ron Lanton 10/26/20 Ron Lanton 10/26/20

Lanton Law & Private Equity

With increasing mergers and acquisitions in both the technology and healthcare sectors, investment opportunities abound for funds and interested stakeholders. In order for these stakeholders to be successful it is essential to know the limits and opportunities within a complex regulatory landscape.

At Lanton Law not only do we understand the issues, but we provide you with timely solutions to help you make informed decisions about either an acquisition target or ways to maximize value.

We counsel clients by performing corporate due diligence, provide strategic advice for growth and business strategies as well as structuring and executing M&A transactions.

If you are a financial stakeholder including a private equity firm, hedge fund, bank, etc. we have a suite of strategic services that can help. Contact us today to learn more.

Ron Lanton 9/27/20 Ron Lanton 9/27/20

Where Do Biden & Trump Stand On The Issues?

With election season underway many are wondering where the two Presidential candidates stand on the issues of importance to voters.

Reuters did a great summary found here that explains the major differences from the economy, trade, healthcare, etc.

With election season underway many are wondering where the two Presidential candidates stand on the issues of importance to voters.

Reuters did a great summary found here that explains the major differences from the economy, trade, healthcare, etc.

The winner of this election will certainly have policies affecting your interests. Whether you are in technology, healthcare/lifesciences or finance, it is important to know what your organization’s priorities are and to have a plan for either candidate should they win.

Lanton Strategies; a division of Lanton Law is a is a full service federal and state lobbying and government affairs firm that has a menu of services to help you achieve your goals.

Ron Lanton 9/27/20 Ron Lanton 9/27/20

The Department of Justice Releases Proposed Section 230 Legislation

Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

For some time now we have been forecasting that technology stakeholders had to be aware of looming regulatory oversight, especially around the issues of antitrust and Section 230.

Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The draft legislative text implements reforms that the Department of Justice deemed necessary in its June Recommendations.

The Justice Department’s proposals available here focus on two issues: addressing illicit activity online and promoting transparency and open discourse.

Regardless of whether this or other legislation gets enacted this year, Section 230 comes under increasing scrutiny by policymakers. It’s a question of when for technology regulation, so if you are a technology stakeholder it is better to be prepared.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on technology and healthcare. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Ron Lanton 8/6/20 Ron Lanton 8/6/20

New Congressional Bill Aimed at Tech ISPs

The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act has been introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and John Thune (R-South Dakota), which targets Internet Service Providers and attempts to limit their protections under 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act has been introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and John Thune (R-South Dakota), which targets Internet Service Providers and attempts to limit their protections under 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The proposed Act points out two critical facts:

“Online consumers are not adequately protected in the United States because, with the exception of Federal criminal statutes, providers of interactive computer services are immune from the enforcement of most Federal statutes and regulations.
The bill among a list of proposed policies also seeks to preserve the internet and other interactive computer services as forums for diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual and commercial activity.”

Specifically, the interactive computer service provider shall provide the following elements:

reasonably inform users about the types of content that are allowed on the interactive computer service;
explain the steps the provider takes to
ensure content complies with the acceptable use policy;
explain the means by which users can notify the provider of potentially policy-violating content, illegal content, or illegal activity
include publication of a quarterly transparency report outlining actions taken to enforce the policy

While there are some First Amendment concerns with this legislation, this demonstrates how Section 230 comes under increasing scrutiny by policymakers. It’s a question of when for technology regulation so if you are a technology stakeholder, it is better to be prepared.

Ron Lanton 8/6/20 Ron Lanton 8/6/20

Senator Hawley Proposes New Congressional Legislation Targeting Behavioral Ads

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has recently announced his new legislation titled the Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act. This bill proposes to remove Section 230 immunity from Big Tech companies that display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them. Behavioral ads are defined in the legislation.

It is unclear as to how this ties directly to Section 230 immunity and is different from other Congressional bills that create a nexus between Section 230 and its protections to content policies on websites. This bill would not apply to contextual ads such as advertising that is directed to a user based on:

‘‘(aa) the content of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to which the user is connected;
‘‘(bb) the location of the user, as of the time at which the advertising is directed to the user; or
‘‘(cc) the search terms that the user applied to arrive at the website, service, or application to which the user is connected

Ron Lanton 7/30/20 Ron Lanton 7/30/20

Big Tech Company Executives Pressed On Capitol Hill On Their Market Influence

On July 29th four of the biggest tech companies, CEOs testified in front of Congress. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Google all took questions from the U.S House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

On July 29th four of the biggest tech companies CEOs testified in front of Congress. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Google all took questions from the U.S House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. The hearing which can be viewed here was titled “Online Platforms and Market power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.”

Sadly, there was a lot of political posturing on both sides of the political aisle and not a lot of policy. The main takeaway is that there is still no clear bipartisan antitrust agenda.

Democrats presented evidence regarding antitrust concerns. It seemed they had pointed questions regarding certain deals such as Amazon's purchase of Ring to control that sector of the market and Facebook's alleged threats against Instagram before its purchase of the company.

Republicans focused on perceived anti-conservative bias in tech instead of addressing company size and market power. Their questions focused on whether the tech companies will participate in "electioneering" for Joe Biden and grilled Facebook about Twitter's shutdown of Trump Jr.'s account.

This has been a year-long investigation by this Subcommittee with this testimony capping the investigation. Subcommittee members are still in the process of sending follow-up questions to the CEOs and finalizing their conclusions over the next few weeks. Once they are done the Subcommittee will file a report of its findings.

This process has been highly politicized, and many tech stakeholders are wondering whether any significant policymaking will get done by the end of the year. While there is reason to be skeptical, there is a highly charged election about to take place, meaning it wouldn’t surprise us if a small step towards technology regulation was accomplished. The bigger question is what happens to tech policy at the start of 2021?

We continue to see an increase in federal and state policymaking when it comes to technology companies. The threat of looming technology legislation will undoubtedly lead to increased regulation. It’s better to be prepared now by knowing the landscape and preparing your strategic options in order to navigate the increased scrutiny.

Ron Lanton 7/29/20 Ron Lanton 7/29/20

House E&C Committee Democrats Press Tech Companies on COVID-19 Information

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee led by Chairman Pallone (D-NJ) along with Congresswoman DeGette (D-CO) Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL) and Congressman Doyle (D-PA) sent a letter to Facebook along with other tech companies requesting more COVID-19 transparency on their platforms. The request seeks monthly reports on this issue which mirrors a similar request from the European Union.

Ron Lanton 7/20/20 Ron Lanton 7/20/20

The Policy Conversations Around Tik-Tok Warrant Monitoring from Technology Stakeholders

With all the news surrounding the Trump Administration and its complex political and economic relationship with China, some may find it surprising that the latest company suspected to be possibly impacted by the two countries would be TikTok.

According to its website, TikTok is an app for short-form mobile videos. The company says it has offices in Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, and Tokyo, but the company does have close ties to China through the company’s owner ByteDance; a Beijing-based technology company. TikTok has become more mainstream in the U.S. due to the pandemic, whereby various users including small business owners have been using the app to expand their economic reach.

The last few months have brought increased scrutiny over the app. Both India and Indonesia have banned the app, while the U.S. Navy and other U.S. armed forces branches have banned the app as well. Most of the concerns have been around the issue of national security and how much user information is shared with the Chinese government.

TikTok responded to this brewing controversy last year with a statement that addressed the company’s viewpoint on data privacy and security as well as content concerns. In response to the Administration threatening that it is considering a ban on TikTok, the company has been increasing its lobbying presence to hedge against a possible ban.

Will a possible ban have a chilling effect on U.S. technology companies? Currently, the answer is no. We don’t want to cause controversy by suggesting this, but with the recent activities in Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice that we have been reporting about, warrants that technology stakeholders keep a close watch on how the industry is receiving a lot of policy interests. It is safe to believe that technology policy is on the verge of changing, as technology stakeholders can no longer sit back and think that this industry is immune from regulatory oversight.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on technology, healthcare/life sciences and finance. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Ron Lanton 7/9/20 Ron Lanton 7/9/20

Tech Companies to Testify At House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27th

The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee has scheduled a July 27, 2020 hearing for the CEO’s of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook (Big Tech) to testify regarding the Committee’s ongoing investigation of digital marketplace competition. The hearing is titled “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple.”

The Committee’s press release has a joint statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler (D-NY) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Cicilline (D-RI) which states “Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement. Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation.”

The Committee’s investigation launched its antitrust investigation last June. The Committee’s efforts are bipartisan and the Committee is attempting to address whether Congressional oversight is needed to pass tighter antitrust laws to ensure a more balanced marketplace. The Committee’s investigation will focus on documenting where competition is lacking in digital markets; exploring whether large companies are suppressing competition; and determining whether Congress and regulators need to do more to address Big Tech's dominance. If Congress decides that legislation is needed, it could lead to the first major policy revisions of U.S. antitrust law in decades.

Additional policy threats to technology companies remain besides Congress. In a mix of business and political reasons for determining whether a new class of start ups is being stifled by Big Tech, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) last year have announced joint efforts to investigate Big Tech. The FTC will have responsibility for investigating Amazon and Facebook while the DOJ will investigate Google and Facebook. It is looking as though some kind of regulatory action is coming by year end. Not to mention Big Tech has been receiving a lot of antitrust scrutiny from overseas.

It is no secret that oversight over technology stakeholders is near. It’s best to look at your risks to determine whether you have the tools to protect your business and be nimble enough to navigate the changing policy currents.

Ron Lanton 6/28/20 Ron Lanton 6/28/20

New Legislation Targeting Technology Liability Shield Under Section 230

Now in addition to recent U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny, U.S. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which seeks to provide accountability for bad actors who abuse the Good Samaritan protections provided under that Act.

Earlier this year we started our conversation with the technology industry urging stakeholders to be aware of the growing policy attacks on the responsibilities of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) via the technology law 47 U.S. Code § 230.

The law which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides ISP’s with federal immunity to any cause of action that seeks to make ISP’s liable for information that originated with a third party service user.

Specifically, §230 states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The additional specifics of this law describe the liability shield that these companies currently enjoy which is further protected by federal preemption law.

A few weeks back we highlighted how politicians on both sides of the aisle have been more assertive in how tech companies are not living up to their expectations under Section 230. Now in addition to recent U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny, U.S. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which seeks to provide accountability for bad actors who abuse the Good Samaritan protections provided under that Act.

According to the Senator’s press release the bill “would prohibit Big Tech companies from receiving Section 230 immunity unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith and pay a $5,000 fine (or actual damages, if higher) plus attorney’s fees if they violate that promise.” This legislation makes it easier for Americans to sue tech companies that censor political speech or hide competitor content. This bill mirrors more conservative politicians who feel that tech companies are censoring conservative viewpoints.

Regardless of your political viewpoint, if you are a tech stakeholder that has ISP capabilities or you are providing services that deal with the exchange of ideas, you should be monitoring this type of legislative action to avoid unnecessary surprises to your business model. We at Lanton Law can help.

Our legal and policy tools can help offer your organization a clear path forward to navigate what will be changing policies for technology stakeholders. Contact us today to discuss your options.

Ron Lanton 6/3/20 Ron Lanton 6/3/20

FCC to Vote in June on Commissioner Carr’s 5G Upgrade Order

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that it will vote on Commissioner Carr’s 5G Upgrade Order as part of an initiative to accelerate U.S. wireless infrastructure improvement plans.

According to the FCC “The 5G Upgrade Order clarifies the FCC’s 2014 rules by:

Explaining when the 60-day shot clock for local approval begins
Specifying what new equipment qualifies for streamlined approval
Clarifying how local governments’ concealment and aesthetic conditions of approval apply
Asking for public comment on what activity related to a modification can occur outside of a wireless site”

The full Commission will vote on the 5G Upgrade Order at its next open meeting on June 9, 2020.

Ron Lanton 5/25/20 Ron Lanton 5/25/20

Online Political Advertising Legislation to be Introduced

U.S. Congressman Cicilline (D-RI) has announced his intent to introduce legislation “that tightly restricts the use of personal, online consumer data that is often used to ‘microtarget’ voters with misleading ads.” According to his release, the legislation will be titled the “Protecting Democracy from Disinformation Act” and has the following elements:

Restricts Microtargeting: Only allows advertisers and online platforms to use age, gender, and location when targeting political ads.
Improves Transparency: Requires disclosure and reporting on who paid for an ad, how much it cost, whom an ad is aimed at, and who saw the ad.
Holds Online Platforms Accountable: Provides enforcement through the Federal Election Commission’s existing authority, a private right of action, and criminal penalties for online platforms and ad intermediaries that knowingly and willfully violate the Act.

Expect issues such as microtargeting and others to come to the forefront as we enter in the election season of 2020.

Lanton Strategies; a segment of Lanton Law works to help advance our clients interests before both legislative and regulatory bodies on the state and federal levels. We use sources from the Hill, state houses, agencies, markets and trade associations, to inform our clients and achieve proactive results. Let us know how either our government affairs services or legal services can help you achieve your priorities.

Ron Lanton 5/21/20 Ron Lanton 5/21/20

Apple and Google Announce Digital Contact Tracing Partnership Amid Privacy Concerns

Apple and Google have announced their partnership to enable Bluetooth technology to help interested stakeholders such as healthcare agencies and governments to fight COVID-19.

Apple and Google have announced their partnership to enable Bluetooth technology to help interested stakeholders such as healthcare agencies and governments to fight COVID-19. The announcement describes the tech companies’ intent of “releasing draft documentation for an Exposure Notification system in service of privacy-preserving contact tracing.” The most important thing to note is that the companies will not be building contact tracing apps but will be providing tools around a unified programming interface that will allow these aforementioned stakeholders to create their own contact tracing applications. And while this partnership and others like it are a much needed resource during our fight against COVID-19, privacy concerns with how these companies are using our information loom in the background.

So what is contact tracing? It can come in two forms. The first form is human to human tracing, which is described in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) list of core principles.

Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection.
In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious.
Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible.
To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.
Contacts are provided with education, information, and support to understand their risk, what they should do to separate themselves from others who are not exposed, monitor themselves for illness, and the possibility that they could spread the infection to others even if they themselves do not feel ill.
Contacts are encouraged to stay home and maintain social distance from others (at least 6 feet) until 14 days after their last exposure, in case they also become ill.

As you can see this is a very specialized skill that needs to be timely executed to prevent further spread of disease.

According to the CDC digital tracing on the other hand is another set of tools that can be used to “expand the reach and efficacy of contact tracers.” This is what we are seeing from the Apple-Google partnership, as well as other applications (apps) that we see flooding the market in an effort to provide additional tools to combat COVID-19.

Digital contact tracing can theoretically be more efficient because it doesn’t rely on memory, but requires user cooperation where people would have to download the relevant apps on their phones. In order for something like this to have an almost “real time” effect, a large number of people would have to adapt to this technology. Are we as a society ready for this? While emergencies like this would seem like the answer would be a common sense “yes” there are a lot of other issues at play such as are positive alerts to a user accurate and will a user’s information be protected? A great example of user worry could come in the form of potential genetic discrimination of which we wrote a prior blog post.

To date the skepticism of technology companies being able to use healthcare data has been rampant. For example, several industry stakeholders were surprised by the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) article that Google has been working since 2018 on a "secret" project involving patient data with Ascension, the St. Louis-based nationwide health system.

Project Nightingale would involve having Google be provided with millions of health records of U.S. citizens, which has prompted a recent follow up letter by three U.S. Senators to gain additional insight into the project’s specifics. Facebook has a new tool called Preventive Health that seeks to “connect people to health resources and checkup recommendations from leading health organizations.” And while Microsoft launched Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare; whose program applies “flexible capabilities to power individualized experiences, improve team collaboration, and unify data to unlock real-time insights,” demonstrates that while technology and healthcare are merging, the need for addressing privacy concerns remains at the forefront.

We need all the tools we can get our hands on during this difficult struggle against COVID-19, especially when it comes to digital contact tracing. There is no doubt that we need the efficiencies that technology has to offer. The potential is there, but there has to be buy in from a majority of people in order for this to work. Not only do we have to continue to work to ensure that everyone has access to smartphone technology, but we have to put some additional “safety checks” in place to ensure that ‘anonymized’ aggregated data isn’t sold, that sensitive protected health information (PHI) is guarded and the proper laws/regulations are put in place so that we can learn from the painful lessons that COVID-19 has taught thus far.

Ron Lanton 5/14/20 Ron Lanton 5/14/20

Will Immunity Passports Lead to Future Genetic Discrimination?

There is no need to rehash the harsh societal effects that COVID-19 has had not only on our psychological and financial wellbeing, but also on the vulnerable population’s immune system. Those having to deal with underlying health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension have been especially at risk, including some young and healthy individuals. As we race to understand the rationale behind why such an erratic disease impacts some but not others, the question that frequently comes up is whether a person’s genes has something to do with becoming infected?

While it seems like we have been discussing gene therapy for some time, understanding how to harness the potential of the human genome is still in the “early innings.” According to the National Human Genome Research it was found that there are about 20,500 genes in human DNA. This information had taken 13 years to find and was completed in 2003. There are so many things to learn about our genes in order to be precise enough to fully realize how we can get to the ultimate improvement in patient outcomes. Unfortunately, it seems as though time is not on our side when needing to understand how our genes play a key role in fighting this terrible disease. It seems like the best thing to mitigate our circumstances until we get a vaccine is how to contain it. From social distancing to contact tracing, one idea that has been gaining steam on re-opening the economy is the possibility of immunity passports.

So what are immunity passports? The World Health Organization (WHO) states “Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’ that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”

Currently there is so much fear and mistrust regarding information on COVID-19 that in order for this to work in my opinion, we would have to have certainty in antibody testing, as well as a 100% understanding about how long immunity actually lasts. Aside from a vaccine, this would certainly move economies forward as a way to slowly start to recoup the financial losses we have witnessed worldwide. But could well intentioned things like immunity passports lead to something unintended such as genetic discrimination?

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), genetic discrimination occurs when people are treated differently by their employer or insurance company because they have a genetic mutation that causes or increases the risk of an inherited disorder or they have a familial history of a specific health condition. Surprisingly, this issue could determine whether someone gets hired or fired and could mean the difference between receiving comprehensive coverage.

GINA does provide a solution to genetic discrimination. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) provides for protection against this type of discrimination. Title I of GINA prohibits genetic discrimination in health insurance, and Title II prohibits genetic discrimination in employment.

Under the first part of the act, it is illegal for health insurance providers to use or require genetic information to determine whether a person is eligible for coverage. The second part prohibits employers from using a person’s genetic information in making decisions about hiring, promotion, and various other terms of employment.

However, GINA and similar laws do not protect individuals from genetic discrimination under every circumstance, such as an instance in which an employer has fewer than 15 employees. The act also does not apply to those serving in the military or those insured under the Veterans Health Administration or Indian Health Service. Furthermore, the act does not protect against genetic discrimination in other forms of insurance, including life, disability, and long-term care, according to the NIH.

While GINA’s development was designed for genetic discrimination, I believe that we have not yet seen how this law could potentially evolve from its original intent, especially in this circumstance. Constantly looking through both a policy and legal lens, I see potential problems with an immunity passport. While I understand how this is designed to get the economy back on track, how will individuals be judged regarding obtaining an immunity passport. Is this something you will be required to have by an employer? Are there privacy issues that will evolve from having to declare whether you have an immunity passport? Will employees be looked at differently if they have a passport versus those that don’t? Will an employee’s cost of insurance increase because they happened to get COVID-19?

COVID-19 has changed our lives in ways that we cannot yet imagine. As we start transitioning back towards living with this complex disease until there is a cure, our minds are currently undergoing small yet lasting changes that will unconsciously shape the way we make decisions going forward. It is very foreseeable that society will try and mitigate risks to businesses, meaning that it is not unforeseeable that companies may try and understand any genetic risks that may exist to employees. Whether this is the new normal, a threat to privacy or something else remains to be seen.

*Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is an opinion and is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Access to this information does not create an attorney client relationship between Lanton Law and the viewer. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.

Ron Lanton 4/24/20 Ron Lanton 4/24/20

The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace

We are honored to have worked with STACK for Pharmacy on a great and timely webinar titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace. COVID-19 has changed the way that we work, communicate and transfer information and finances. We discuss the early trends of what we are seeing from a transitioning marketplace.

Click here to access the webinar

Ron Lanton 4/13/20 Ron Lanton 4/13/20

Upcoming Webinar with STACK and Lanton Law

STACK will be teaming up with Lanton Law to do an April 22, 2020 webinar at 1:00 PM EST titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace.”

STACK will be teaming up with Lanton Law to do an April 22, 2020 webinar at 1:00 PM EST titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace.” Join Jonathan Ogurchak, Founder & CEO of STACK and Ron Lanton III, Esq, Principle of Lanton Law to discuss the following:

Challenges facing healthcare organizations with a rapid deployment to “work from home” environments

Considerations to ensure ongoing compliance and ensure appropriate use

Future areas for advancement related to the “new normal” organizations are likely to face

Click here to register

Ron Lanton 3/29/20 Ron Lanton 3/29/20

Lanton Law; Your Digital Lawyer & Lobbying Team

As organizational needs evolve right now, businesses are looking for innovative ways to become efficient and manage risks.

For years our team at Lanton Law have been helping businesses around the country remotely with a variety of transactional needs.

Legal services include but not limited to:

Contract drafting, review and negotiation
Due diligence in transactional matters
Change of ownership
Corporate governance matters
Employment matters
Privacy and data security
Leases
Business strategy and growth objectives
Day to day operational matters
Litigation readiness and response
Pre-litigation dispute resolutions such as arbitration and mediation
Regulatory compliance
Acquisition due diligence/transfer of ownership
Payor network access

Additionally, our government affairs services include:

Federal and state lobbying
Strategic consulting
Bill composition/bill check service
Submitting regulatory comments
Regulatory monitoring

Ron Lanton 2/16/20 Ron Lanton 2/16/20

With the Debate Over Data Privacy Increasing, Senator Gillibrand Proposes Legislation to Create New Data Protection Agency

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has announced the creation of new legislation titled the Data Protection Act. According to the Senator’s press release, the bill would create “the Data Protection Agency (DPA), an independent federal agency that would protect Americans’ data, safeguard their privacy, and ensure data practices are fair and transparent.

The DPA will have the authority and resources to effectively enforce data protection rules—created either by itself or congress—and would be equipped with a broad range of enforcement tools, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and equitable remedies. The DPA would promote data protection and privacy innovation across public and private sectors, developing and providing resources such as Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) that minimize or even eliminate the collection of personal data. The U.S. is one of the only democracies, and the only member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), without a federal data protection agency.”

The proposed bill will have three core missions:

Give Americans control and protection over their own data by creating and enforcing data protection rules
Maintain the most innovative, successful tech sector in the world by ensuring fair competition within the digital marketplace
Prepare the American government for the digital age

Governmental oversight into data is showing no signs of slowing down. Gone are the days where you don’t have to worry about regulations in order to operate. If you are a healthcare, technology and financial services stakeholder, data privacy will be the most important issue to overcome within the next 10-20 years. Ensuring against breaches of personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable financial information (PIFI), and other sensitive data will be key to compliance, trust and market competitiveness. Contact Lanton Law so that our experts can use their advocacy and legal services to help you prepare and succeed in a more interconnected world.

Ron Lanton 2/13/20 Ron Lanton 2/13/20

What is the Potential Fallout from FTC’s Decision to Investigate Big Tech?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a press release announcing that the agency will examine prior acquisitions by large technology companies between the years of January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019. With a 5-0 vote, the Commission seeks to examine subsequent trends of large cap acquisition on smaller firms to determine whether competition was restricted or whether competitive concerns should have been raised.

What is the Potential Fallout from FTC’s Decision to Investigate Big Tech?

“The Federal Trade Commission issued Special Orders to five large technology firms, requiring them to provide information about prior acquisitions not reported to the antitrust agencies under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The orders require Alphabet Inc. (including Google), Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., and Microsoft Corp. to provide information and documents on the terms, scope, structure, and purpose of transactions that each company consummated between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2019.

The Commission issued these orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose. The orders will help the FTC deepen its understanding of large technology firms’ acquisition activity, including how these firms report their transactions to the federal antitrust agencies, and whether large tech companies are making potentially anticompetitive acquisitions of nascent or potential competitors that fall below HSR filing thresholds and therefore do not need to be reported to the antitrust agencies.”

What specifically is the FTC looking for?

“The Special Orders require each recipient to identify acquisitions that were not reported to the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice under the HSR Act, and to provide information similar to that requested on the HSR notification and report form. The orders also require companies to provide information and documents on their corporate acquisition strategies, voting and board appointment agreements, agreements to hire key personnel from other companies, and post-employment covenants not to compete. Last, the orders ask for information related to post-acquisition product development and pricing, including whether and how acquired assets were integrated and how acquired data has been treated.”

What are the options for the FTC under this action?

With this review being operated by the agency’s Office of Policy Planning under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act the review could trigger an enforcement action but that this inquiry would not be able to share information with the Department of Justice unless there is an enforcement action.

So what does this mean?

The FTC has significant power to scrutinize mergers and stop them. In this case, the FTC’s aim is to examine how big tech became big tech? The answer is simple, not only did they innovate to create go to products, but these large companies like Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple grew through acquisitions. Determining whether to incorporate competition or “kill” acquired companies has heavily contributed to their success. While the FTC does have power to make problems for these companies, the fact that the agency’s scrutiny could go on for years poses the question of whether the FTC has enough resources to make any meaningful differences. Additionally, will these same scrutinized big tech companies provide a marketplace solution themselves by divesting certain businesses before policymakers require them to do so.

This may be different for tech companies that aren’t large cap tech. Knowing what the competitive playing field is along with how regulators are overseeing this market is crucial to your success. Contact Lanton Law to learn about your options to put together a solid strategy to reach your goals.

For more information contact

Ron Lanton III, Esq.

Principal

Lanton Law

rlanton@lantonlaw.com

Disclaimer

The materials and information provided in this update is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Use of and access to this article or any of the materials or information contained within this article do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lanton Law and the user or viewer. You should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.