Tag: Compliance

  • CBD: Legal or Not? | Webinar | Aug. 16, 2018 | 2pm

    [two-fifths-first]

    DATE: Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018

    TIME: 2 p.m. EDT; 1 p.m. CDT; 12 p.m. MDT; 11 a.m. PDT

    PLACE: Your computer

    PRICE: $197 per dial-in site (unlimited attendance at one location) through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter

    Register by Aug. 3 and save!

    For more information, email leslie.davidson@litigationconferences.com.

    Your webinar registration includes:

    •  A site license to attend this webinar (invite as many people in one location as you can fit around your computer at no extra charge).

    • Downloadable PowerPoint presentations from our speakers.

    •  The opportunity to connect directly with speakers during the audience Q&A session.

    •  At least one-hour of CLE credit.



    Speakers

    Daniel Shortt
    Harris Bricken
    Seattle

    Alison Malsbury
    Harris Bricken
    San Francisco

    [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths]

    With so many studies coming out on the benefits of CBD, a lot of people and companies see tremendous market opportunities and are diving in.

    Whether derived from industrial hemp or marijuana, these days CBD can be found in just about anything, from skin care products to pain medications to anti-seizure drugs—even beer. Companies, including large retailers like Target, have tried to sell or are selling products containing CBD online or across state lines.

    But determining the legal status of CBD isn’t easy. Because CBD is a cannabis derivative, the biggest question, of course, is whether or not it’s even legal under state and federal law. How you answer that could mean the difference between significant revenue gains and significant losses—even the possibility of criminal prosecution—for your clients.

    So, what do current federal laws say about the use of CBD? How do individual state regulations affect the legal status of CBD? What do the 2014 Federal Farm Bill and the Controlled Substances Act say about growing hemp? And what are the legal and business implications for companies operating in this space?

    Get answers to these questions and more when you register to attend “CBD: Legal or Not? How State and Federal Laws Govern the Manufacture, Marketing, and Distribution of CBD Products” on Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018. Listen as experts Daniel Shortt and Alison Malsbury, both attorneys with Harris Bricken, provide information that can help your clients determine whether or not what they’re doing with CBD is legal.

    You’ll learn about the two primary sources of legal CBD—industrial hemp cultivated in the U.S and hemp from abroad—and how the two distinct pathways differ. You’ll get practical do’s and don’ts for working lawfully in the hemp-CBD world despite its precarious legal status. You’ll come away with the most current data on the legalities of using CBD that could change the advice you give your clients about working within the law and avoiding possible criminal prosecution.

    Who Should Attend

    Whether you’re a local government official, state regulator, or an attorney with clients in the state-legal cannabis industry—anyone who needs to make sense of the current laws that govern the manufacture, marketing, sales, and distribution of products containing CBD—this is one webinar you can’t afford to miss.

    For one low price—just $197 (through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter)—you and your entire team at one location can take part in this fast-paced, insightful webinar. Best of all, you’ll be able to connect personally with our speakers when we open things up for questions from the audience.

    Here is just some of what you’ll learn during this in-depth 90-minute session:

    • How to interpret current state and federal laws governing the use and sale of products containing CBD.
    • The key questions to ask that will help determine if your CBD comes from a legal source—and what to do if it doesn’t.
    • How to find out which part of the plant your CBD is created from—and how what you learn could affect the legal status of your product.
    • What FDA approval of the first CBD drug, Epidiolex, means for the industry.
    • Marketing: The claims you can (and shouldn’t) make about your CBD products.
    • What the FDA has to say about marketing CBD as a supplement.
    • Is trademark protection possible under current law for CBD products—and if it is, how do you get it?
    • The prerequisites for legally selling CBD products across state lines or in stores that aren’t licensed to sell marijuana.

    And more!


    Speaker Bios

    Daniel Shortt is an attorney with Harris Bricken and works extensively with entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry. He is an authority on legal issues relating to CBD and hemp laws and has spoken on these topics at events across the country and overseas.

    Mr. Shortt helps clients with corporate formation, transactional, licensing, regulatory, and litigation needs. He writes for the award-winning Canna Law Blog and speaks to media outlets about his perspective on legal issues in marijuana and hemp.

    Mr. Shortt graduated from the University of Washington School of Law where he worked extensively with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to fund and establish the Cannabis Law and Policy Project (CLPP). He then served as the editor of the CLPP blog and as a Hazelton Fellow researching cannabis law.

    Alison Malsbury is an attorney with Harris Bricken. She focuses her practice on corporate and intellectual property transactions, working primarily with cannabis, tech, and entertainment clients. Ms. Malsbury has assisted clients with contracts, company formation, intellectual property protection, and regulatory compliance, and has worked with creative entrepreneurs at all stages of business development. She has a growing practice representing celebrities on cannabis endorsement deals and helping cosmetic and skin care companies navigate the complex CBD laws.

    Before joining Harris Bricken, Ms. Malsbury worked with the in-house legal team of one of the largest software companies in the world on its trademark and technology licensing issues.

    Ms. Malsbury graduated cum laude from Santa Clara University School of Law where she was the technical editor for the Santa Clara Journal of International Law.

    REGISTER NOW

    [/three-fifths]

  • California Enacts the ‘First Truly Sweeping Privacy Regime’ in Record Time

    The California legislature — apparently not wanting to be pegged as just another slow-moving governing body — took the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 from proposal to passage to signing in one week.

    Critics weren’t sitting on their hands either.

    “Businesses Blast California’s New Data-Privacy Law,” read one headline in the Wall Street Journal. For consumers, Californians anyway, the good news is that they can refuse to allow companies to sell their personal data. But, the WSJ reported, business across the country say the law will cause “far-reaching damage to everything from retailers’ customer-loyalty programs to data gathering by Silicon Valley tech giants.”

    Law firms are cranking out their advisories and analyses.

    Sullivan & Cromwell says the CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by:

    “Creating an expanded definition of personal information for purposes of the Act;

    “Creating new data privacy rights for California consumers, including rights to know, access, have deleted and opt out of the sale of their personal information;

    “Imposing special rules for the collection of consumer data from minors; and

    “Creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the Act and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches.”

    The firm also offered a quick comparison between the CCPA and the GDPR.  “At a high level, the CCPA bears certain similarities to GDPR, the comprehensive regulation governing the “processing of personal data” of EU residents. But the CCPA and GDPR provide for differing rights, obligations, and exceptions, and compliance with one will not necessarily ensure compliance with the other. For example, unlike GDPR, the CCPA does not generally (other than with respect to minors) require businesses to implement an “opt-in” system to obtain consumers’ consent prior to processing their information. Instead, the CCPA requires businesses to allow consumers to “opt-out” of having their information sold. Thus, businesses will need to develop a CCPA compliance strategy in light of these and other differences with GDPR. Businesses may choose to adopt differentiated policies for consumers in different jurisdictions, or may seek to create a unified global policy that adopts the most consumer favorable protections from the CCPA and GDPR (and, of course, other applicable regulations).”

    A Ropes & Gray team wrote that now is the time for companies to evaluate the impact of the law on their options, even though it does not go into effect until 2020. “Perhaps reflecting the rushed manner in which the legislation was adopted, there remains considerable ambiguity about some key provisions within the Act. For example … companies are not permitted to discriminate against consumers who exercise their rights under the Act through differentiated pricing or lower service levels. However, the Act provides that companies may offer a different price if the consumer allows the company to sell their data, provided the price difference is “directly related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.” Presumably, this is intended to mean the value provided to the consumer in exchange for their data, but on its face, it would appear that companies are required to calculate the intrinsic value to the consumer of their personal information.

    Covington & Burling attorneys said “the California legislature is expected to further revise the CCPA before it takes effect in 2020,” but businesses should start to prepare. “Covered businesses should assess whether existing practices involving the collection, use, or sharing of data implicates the personal information identifiers defined in the act. If so, it might be prudent to consider changes, such as minimizing the collection of certain personal identifiers where practicable, modifying third party contracts involving the sale or sharing of personal Data Privacy and Cybersecurity information, and adjusting data privacy policies and procedures to comply with the CCPA. Companies in highly regulated industries that already are subject to sector-specific federal privacy laws will want to consider the potential availability of exemptions under the CCPA. For example, the CCPA does not apply to personal information that is collected, processed, sold, or disclosed by a financial institution pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) if the CCPA is in conflict with the GLBA. Additionally, with personal information increasingly employed to optimize products and services, covered businesses across industries, particularly those utilizing data monitoring and analytic tools, should anticipate the need to allocate resources and prepare for increased operating costs associated with, among other things, optimizing data retention policies, training personnel, enabling consumers to submit requests to access, delete, or opt out of the sale of their personal information, updating consumer notice practices, and other organizational and infrastructure changes.”

    Morrison & Foerster attorneys commented that with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375), “the United States now has its first truly sweeping privacy regime.”

    The Act is a first, the firm writes, “not only because of its expansive scope, but also because of the process by which it was enacted. Never before has such sweeping privacy legislation been enacted in the span of a single week, with limited input from key stakeholders. While this fast track averted the ballot initiative and the challenges presented by the initiative, it also left a complex—and messy—privacy regime whose exact scope is not clear.”

    “In the short term,” the MoFo analysis continues, “businesses undoubtedly will continue their efforts to identify and advocate for amendments to clarify key ambiguities, including the scope of consumers’ private right of action and civil enforcement actions. Businesses may also seek to amend onerous provisions, such as the requirement that businesses disclose to consumers both categories of PI and “specific pieces” of PI collected about them. Separately, businesses should also monitor for any regulatory proposals by the California AG to implement the Act and be prepared to advocate accordingly.”

    Read the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 for yourself.

  • Congressional Cannabis Proposal Would Can Criminalization

    Could this be the thing that brings the parties together?

    Here is a quote from an article written for Forbes.com by freelance writer Janet Burns.

    [Jolene Forman, staff attorney at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance] called the bill a “first step,” and noted, “This bipartisan proposal clears the way for states to develop their own marijuana policies without fear of federal intervention. This will give states more opportunity to restore communities that have borne the brunt of the drug war and mass criminalization.”

    So far, 30 states, Washington, DC and the U.S. territories of Guam and Puerto Rico have enacted medical marijuana legislation, while estimates suggest that 63 million Americans reside in areas where anyone over 21 may now legally possess the plant.

  • Insurance Coverage and GDPR: What’s Your Financial Exposure? –Linda Kornfeld, Blank Rome

    In her recent article — GDPR Is Finally Here: It’s Time to Make Sure Your Current Cyber Policy Will Protect against New Financial Exposures — Blank Rome insurance coverage partner Linda Kornfeld wrote:

    Companies can face large financial exposure for GDPR “fines or penalties.” Are they covered under currently worded cyber policies? The answer is, maybe not if your policy, e.g., covers regulatory proceedings addressing only failures to protect private information, as opposed to GDPR proceedings that may address broader noncompliant data collection and use practices. Additionally, coverage for GDPR fines or penalties may be more restricted under the laws of many European countries than the laws of certain states in the United States. Your insurer may agree to choice of law language in your policy that will increase the chances of coverage.


    On behalf of all of us at HB — Congratulations to Linda on her move to Blank Rome! 

    Now Vice Chair of the firm’s Insurance Recovery Practice Group, Linda is one of the nation’s most prominent insurance recovery attorneys, representing corporate policyholders in high-stakes litigation for more than 25 years. Using strategic, creative approaches in her trial and appellate practice, Linda assists her clients in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance assets. She is a strategic adviser to senior executives and in-house counsel on mitigating risk and maximizing insurance recoveries.

    Linda has been a valued contributor to HB programs and, before that, to Mealey’s Conferences and Mealey’s Litigation Reports.