Technology Law and Digital Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposed rule, “Regulation Crypto Assets,” 91 Fed. Reg. 54510, on August 21, 2026 (FRN). Comments are due by October 20, 2026. Comments should reference File Number S7-2026-27 and may be submitted through the SEC’s internet comment form

On October 8, 2026, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) announced a multistate consent order with a money transmitter and cryptocurrency kiosk operator...

Celsius Network's bankruptcy estate has commenced thousands of avoidance actions against former customers to recover cryptocurrency withdrawn in the 90 days before filing.

The U.S. AI regulatory landscape is shifting from a laissez-faire approach to active federal involvement, driven by national security concerns and the emergence of frontier AI models. Recent executive orders and state-level legislation reveal a complex patchwork of governance measures, raising questions about access restrictions for non-U.S. organizations and the balance between innovation and security. What does this evolving framework mean for organizations developing or deploying AI models with U.S. expo

This update (No. 128 | 22 September 2026) covers key policy and regulatory developments related to EU geopolitical risks, including in particular, economic security, Russia’s war against Ukraine, Middle East conflict, health threats, and cyber threats. It does not purport to provide an exhaustive overview of developments.

On September 10, the NYDFS issued guidance on how entities subject to its Cybersecurity Regulation, 23 NYCRR Part 500, should conduct and use required cybersecurity risk assessments.

Recent federal court decisions are challenging long-standing interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's consent requirements for pre-recorded calls to cell phones.

Through our Viewpoints series, Riveron experts share their opinions on current topics, business trends, and industry news.

Effective January 1, 2025, California law AB 2426 will require companies offering online-only digital goods to disclose that consumers are purchasing a limited-duration license...

With the ever-growing barrage of rhetoric over just how, when, and if, AI will kill us all, the conversation also lends itself to, do we believe it will be AI that kills us, or a bad actor using AI? If I showed you a picture of East Asia at night from space and pointed out that you can’t see North Korea for the lack of available electricity, (It’s 99% blacked out, and only Pyongyang shows a small cluster of light) would you think for a minute that they would have the tech savvy, and high end software, or even hardware, necessary to steal $6.7 billion in crypto since 2017?

The U.S. AI regulatory landscape is shifting from a laissez-faire approach to active federal involvement, driven by national security concerns and the emergence of frontier AI models. Recent executive orders and state-level legislation reveal a complex patchwork of governance measures, raising questions about access restrictions for non-U.S. organizations and the balance between innovation and security. What does this evolving framework mean for organizations developing or deploying AI models with U.S. expo

Quick Answer: AI-assisted inventions use the same U.S. inventorship standard as other inventions, with only human beings eligible as inventors. Technology companies should document each person's conception of the claimed invention before drafting claims and approving inventor declarations. The USPTO imposes no general AI-use disclosure duty, but information material to patentability can still require disclosure. [2] Patent counsel should assess inventorship, disclosure, and eligibility separately before the company commits to a filing strategy.