Podcasts about Senior counsel

Artificial intelligence in legal cases The use of artificial intelligence is a topic of concern in legal cases, both by attorneys and parties to lawsuits they file. On Monday's "Sound of Ideas," we examine precedent being set in both situations in our latest installment of our "Law of The Land" series, where we look at how the law impacts our everyday lives. We start the conversation talking about how attorneys are using AI, both properly and improperly, in ways that affect not only client confidentiality and the cost for representation, but the way the judicial system functions, as a whole. Then, we look at ongoing lawsuits like the $1.5 billion case connected to Anthropic, an AI company which admitted using pirated copies of books to train its large language models known as "Claude." We explore the precedent these cases might set for compensation for artists of all kinds. Guests:-D. Allan Asbury, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct-Rohit Nath, Attorney, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Cleveland Clinic's settlement with the Department of Justice bars gender-affirming care for minors The Cleveland Clinic has become the second medical institution to reach an agreement with President Donald Trump's Department of Justice related to fraudulent billing allegations, specifically associated with gender affirming care for people under the age of 18. In the back half of Monday's edition of the "Sound of Ideas," we continue our "Law of The Land" series by sorting through the settlement which includes a payment of $300,000 from the Clinic to be split between the state of Ohio and the DOJ, and a commitment to set aside $2 million to cover the cost of detransitioning care for those seeking it who cannot afford it. The Clinic has also agreed not to provide puberty blocker and hormone treatments to minors for the next 20 years, which extends beyond current requirements under Ohio's House Bill 68, a law which has been in effect since 2024. In May, Texas Children's Hospital agreed to pay $10 million dollars and establish the nation's first "detransition clinic." In the Cleveland Clinic settlement, the Department of Justice called gender affirming care for minors "misguided medical interventions." Critics are calling this agreement a lapse in medical integrity, amounting to cruelty and anti-trans hate. Particularly, the emphasis on funding detransition care is being called unnecessary, bigoted and performative. When we reached out to the Clinic ahead of this segment, a spokesperson told Ideastream Public Media via email that the Clinic remains focused on providing exceptional care to its patients and communities. In our conversation, we talk through the DOJ's allegations against the Clinic and what the settlement entails. We'll also share a statement from the Cleveland Clinic on the agreement, and learn why an Ohio advocacy group is disappointed in this result, to say the least. Guests:-Dara Adkison, Executive Director, TransOhio-Justin Glanville, Deputy Editor of Engaged Journalism, Ideastream Public Media

On May 12, 2026, we produced a 90-minute webinar in which we explored one of the most important and rapidly developing issues in consumer financial services law: coerced debt and the emerging legislative efforts designed to address it. The webinar has been re-purposed into a two-part podcast series, the first of which is being released today, June 11th, and the second of which is being released next Thursday, June 18th. Alan Kaplinsky, Founder, former Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP hosted and moderated this discussion.  The discussion examines the growing recognition that individuals, often survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, human trafficking, or other forms of coercive control, can be manipulated, threatened, or deceived into incurring debt without meaningful consent. The program focuses in particular on New York's newly enacted coerced debt statute, which creates a framework allowing consumers to challenge the enforceability of debts incurred through coercion and requires creditors and debt collectors to investigate such claims. The episodes feature an outstanding panel of experts from academia, legal services organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and private practice. Professor Angela Littwin of the University of Texas School of Law discusses her groundbreaking research on coerced debt, including empirical studies demonstrating the prevalence of the problem and the inadequacy of traditional legal remedies such as divorce proceedings, bankruptcy, and fraud defenses. Representatives from CAMBA Legal Services, Brooklyn, New York, Divya Subrahmanyam and Naomi Young, explain how the New York statute is intended to operate in practice, including the evidentiary requirements imposed on survivors, creditor obligations upon receipt of a coerced debt claim, and the practical challenges survivors face in seeking relief. The program also examines the broader national landscape. Carla Sanchez-Adams of the National Consumer Law Center discusses similar legislative initiatives developing across the country, including laws enacted in states such as California, Texas, Connecticut, Minnesota, Maine, Illinois, and Vermont, as well as pending legislation elsewhere. Carla and the panel further analyze the interaction between coerced debt claims and existing federal laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Truth in Lending Act, while also addressing ongoing efforts to expand federal protections. Finally, Ballard Spahr attorney, Dan Wilkinson, offers an industry perspective on the significant operational and compliance issues created by these laws for banks, finance companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. The discussion highlights the challenges of identifying coerced debt claims, conducting investigations while protecting survivor confidentiality, training frontline personnel, and balancing consumer protection concerns with fraud prevention and risk management obligations. This podcast and the one we are releasing next week provide a comprehensive and balanced examination of a fast-evolving area of consumer finance law that is likely to have substantial implications for creditors, debt collectors, compliance professionals, consumer advocates, and policymakers nationwide. Part 1 of this discussion includes an introduction to the topic and the speakers by Alan Kaplinsky, an overview of coerced debt by Angela Littwin, and the analysis of the New York statute by Divya Subrahmanyam and Naomi Young.  Part 2 of the discussion, which is being released next Thursday, June 18th, will cover theories of liability under existing federal and state laws and bills pending in other states by Carla Sanchez-Adams, the Industry Perspective by Dan Wilkinson, and the key takeaways and closing by Alan Kaplinsky.  Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this episode, Adam Maarec sits down with fintech thought leader Simon Taylor for a lively fireside chat focused on the rapidly evolving world of fintech, payments, and banking innovation. Adam, an experienced legal and regulatory advisor in financial services, and Simon, widely recognized for his writing, podcasts, and advisory work with fintechs, banks, VCs, and regulators, delve into some of the most relevant challenges and opportunities shaping the industry today. Together, they unpack the rise of agentic commerce and the impact of AI-driven financial tools, exploring how personal finance agents and large language models are beginning to reshape shopping, payments, and financial management. The conversation covers the complexities of liability and authentication when using AI agents, the evolving regulatory landscape in the US compared to the UK and EU, and the ongoing battle with AML (Anti-Money Laundering) risks, particularly in relation to stablecoins and open banking. Listeners will hear candid takes on the tension between innovation and risk management, the evolving payments ecosystem (including A2A and stablecoins), and the real-world implications for merchants, consumers, and regulators as the industry pushes into new territory. The episode also highlights real use cases and experiments currently unfolding in the market, such as the integration of platforms like Perplexity and Plaid for next-generation personal financial management, and the adoption of stablecoins in B2B payments across global markets. Adam and Simon provide a balanced view, separating hype from genuine progress, and invite listeners to stay attuned to the early signals that are likely to shape the future of digital finance. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry. 

On a recent episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, Alan Kaplinsky, host of the podcast, had the opportunity to interview Amelia O'Rourke-Owens, a legal scholar and former CFPB policy fellow, about her article, "Tearing Holes in Consumer Protection: Democracy's Safety Net." Amelia is the founder and CEO of Resilience Solutions, which provides subject matter expertise and consulting services around policy solutions and strategic planning. The services enhance strategic objectives of their clients and build resilience in their enterprise and efforts.  The discussion explored the role of consumer financial protection law, the evolving mission of the CFPB, and the broader implications for democracy, innovation, and financial regulation. Amelia advances a bold thesis in her article: that consumer protection law, and particularly consumer financial protection law, may be the most impactful body of law in the United States. She further argues that the strength of consumer protection laws may serve as a barometer for the health of American democracy. To support this thesis, Amelia proposes a three-part framework for evaluating the "impact" of a body of law: 1.         The number of individuals protected 2.         The breadth of entities governed 3.         The available avenues for enforcement Under this framework, Amelia contends that consumer financial protection law stands apart because it affects virtually every American, governs a broad range of financial institutions and market participants, and relies on overlapping enforcement mechanisms that include federal regulators, state attorneys general, and private litigation. Alan and Amelia's discussion examined these themes in detail and highlighted several important points of disagreement. The CFPB's Role and Regulatory Philosophy A substantial portion of their conversation focused on the CFPB itself and how different administrations have approached the Bureau's authority. Amelia defended an expansive view of consumer protection oversight, arguing that robust regulation is necessary to prevent harmful market conduct and systemic instability. She pointed to the 2008 financial crisis as evidence that insufficient oversight can have devastating consequences not only for consumers but for the financial system as a whole. Alan expressed concern that, during the tenure of former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the Bureau frequently pushed beyond clear statutory boundaries through aggressive enforcement theories, expansive interpretations of UDAAP authority, and attempts to regulate emerging products and practices through guidance and supervisory pressure rather than formal rulemaking. As Alan noted during the discussion, many industry participants viewed the CFPB's approach under Chopra as creating significant uncertainty. Financial institutions often struggled to determine whether innovative products that complied with existing statutes and regulations would nevertheless become targets of CFPB criticism or enforcement. That uncertainty, in Alan's view, can have real-world consequences. Institutions may become more risk-averse, innovation may slow, and access to credit, particularly for low- and moderate-income consumers, may be reduced. Amelia strongly disagreed with the premise that regulatory oversight itself discourages innovation or access to credit. Instead, she argued that effective regulation can create guardrails that protect responsible market participants from competitors willing to cut corners or exploit consumers. The Importance of Multiple Enforcement Mechanisms Another key theme of the discussion was the importance of overlapping enforcement authority. Amelia emphasized the value of allowing state attorneys general to enforce consumer protection laws and argued that Dodd-Frank appropriately preserved state authority by limiting federal preemption in many contexts. She suggested that state regulators are often better positioned to identify emerging harms before they become national problems. Alan acknowledged that state enforcement can play an important role, particularly given the prevalence of arbitration clauses and class action waivers that have limited certain forms of private litigation. At the same time, Alan noted that overlapping federal and state enforcement can create inconsistent standards and compliance uncertainty for financial institutions operating nationwide. This tension between national uniformity and decentralized enforcement remains one of the central unresolved issues in consumer financial regulation. Areas of Agreement Despite their disagreements, there were several areas where Alan and Amelia found substantial common ground. Most notably, they agreed that one of the CFPB's most successful accomplishments has been the creation of its consumer complaint portal. The complaint database has provided consumers with an accessible mechanism for obtaining responses from financial institutions while also generating valuable market-wide data about recurring problems and trends. They also agreed on the growing threat posed by scams and fraud, particularly involving digital payment platforms and other rapidly evolving technologies. Amelia highlighted the enormous financial harm consumers suffer from fraud schemes, while Alan noted the increasing concern among policymakers and researchers regarding scams originating overseas and the need for a coordinated national response. Consumer Protection and Democratic Governance Perhaps the most provocative aspect of Amelia's article is her argument that consumer financial protection serves as a "bellwether" for the health of democracy itself. Amelia contends that strong consumer protection reflects a government responsive to the needs of its constituents, while weakening such protections signals an elevation of other interests over those of ordinary consumers. Alan expressed skepticism about tying consumer financial regulation so directly to democratic legitimacy. In Alan's view, there are also serious democratic concerns raised when an independent agency led by a single director exercises broad policymaking authority without clear congressional authorization. This debate reflects a larger national conversation about the proper role of administrative agencies, the balance between accountability and independence, and the limits of regulatory power. Looking Ahead The future direction of consumer financial protection remains uncertain. The CFPB under Acting Director Russell Vought has moved aggressively to scale back many of the initiatives pursued during the Chopra era, prompting intense debate about the agency's long-term mission and structure. At the same time, emerging technologies, digital payment systems, fraud risks, and evolving financial products will continue to challenge regulators, lawmakers, and industry participants alike. Alan's discussion with Amelia O'Rourke-Owens highlighted the sharp disagreements that exist regarding the CFPB and consumer financial regulation more broadly. But it also underscored the importance of continuing thoughtful and substantive dialogue about these issues as the financial services industry and regulatory landscape continue to evolve. Amelia's article was presented at the Loyola Consumer Law Symposium back in March. The article can be found in the Loyola Consumer Law Review Vol. 38:2. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled the "Lemon Test" for interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that the Clause must instead be interpreted by reference to "historical practices and understandings." To do this, the Court suggested it would look to certain historical "hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment." This has kicked off a vigorous debate, in both caselaw and scholarship, about what constituted "an establishment of religion" at the time of the Founding, and how that history should inform interpretation of the Establishment Clause today. Join a gathering of the foremost scholars and litigators of the Establishment Clause to discuss the Clause's historical meaning both as a matter of originalist theory and in its application to current church-state controversies, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools.Featuring:Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyDouglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of TexasMichael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Faith, Freedom and Family: A Timely Call to Action -- In an era marked by deep political polarization and societal fragmentation, a compelling new voice emerges, urging a return to foundational values … GUEST Timothy Goeglein … former 8-year Special Assistant to President G W Bush and VP of Govt and External Relations at Focus on the Family … author of “What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom, and Family” On Discipleship ... GUEST Dr Amy Peeler … The Kenneth T Wessner Chair in Biblical Studies and Prof of New Testament at Wheaton College … also Assoc Rector at St Mark’s Epis Church, Geneva, IL … author of “Women and the Gender of God” Ethical issues criminal defense attorneys face: how you and Kathy would handle them.… GUEST Bruce Antkowiak … Senior Counsel to the College & Archabbey, Past Chair of the Criminology Dept and Professor of Law at Saint Vincent College.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tax authorities are increasingly coordinating across borders, exposing multinational groups to more complex enquiries and joint audits. Head of Tax Knowledge, Zoe Andrews, is joined by Senior Counsel, Jamshed Bilimoria and Louise Giorgini, Senior Associate at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, to discuss how to navigate these challenges. They explore responding to information requests, managing joint audits, and resolving disputes - including the use of the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) - alongside current focus areas for HMRC and the ATO.  

Faith, Freedom and Family: A Timely Call to Action -- In an era marked by deep political polarization and societal fragmentation, a compelling new voice emerges, urging a return to foundational values … GUEST Timothy Goeglein … former 8-year Special Assistant to President G W Bush and VP of Govt and External Relations at Focus on the Family … author of “What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom, and Family” On Discipleship ... GUEST Dr Amy Peeler … The Kenneth T Wessner Chair in Biblical Studies and Prof of New Testament at Wheaton College … also Assoc Rector at St Mark’s Epis Church, Geneva, IL … author of “Women and the Gender of God” Ethical issues criminal defense attorneys face: how you and Kathy would handle them.… GUEST Bruce Antkowiak … Senior Counsel to the College & Archabbey, Past Chair of the Criminology Dept and Professor of Law at Saint Vincent College.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Get Down: Beyond Bitcoin, host Cleve Mesidor sits down with two-term SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce—affectionately known as "Crypto Mom" and "Crypto's Architect"—for an engaging conversation.As Commissioner Peirce prepares to conclude her impactful tenure at the SEC later this year, she shares her unique origin story, vision for a digital asset regulatory framework, and insights regarding inter-agency harmonization between the SEC and CFTC.Commissioner Peirce is not just a champion of crypto, she also holds the industry accountable and advances sound guidance to build a stable industry. This captivating discussion covers a variety of timely topics, including tokenization opportunities for smaller players, as well as advice for the crypto industry about how best to continue to advance crypto rulemaking going forward.Interview with SEC Commissioner Hester M. PeirceCommissioner Peirce discusses her regulatory journey since 2018, impending departure from the Commission, and enduring optimism for the transformative nature of the technology.Crypto Origin Story: How early conversations with Jerry Brito sparked an interest in blockchain technology before joining the SEC during pivotal market shifts.Regulatory Harmonization: A deep dive into harmonization efforts with the CFTC, building on previous work with former Commissioner Brian Quintenz to develop a coordinated strategy.Advice to Industry: Why builders should focus on solving real-world consumer/investor problems and build commercially viable products.Life After SEC: Plans to transition into teaching, while cheering on sound regulation from the sidelines.Memorable Milestones: Reflections and why meeting conviction-driven builders during market lows remains her favorite part of the job.Next Gen Crypto: Reflecting on how Gen Z will integrate blockchain technology, and a call to use crypto as a tool for societal unity rather than divisiveness.About SEC Commissioner PeirceHester M. Peirce was appointed by President Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and was sworn in on January 11, 2018.Commissioner Peirce leads the SEC Crypto Task Force, which seeks to provide clarity on the application of the federal securities laws to the crypto asset market and to recommend practical policy measures that aim to foster innovation and protect investors.Prior to joining the SEC, Commissioner Peirce conducted research on the regulation of financial markets at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She was a Senior Counsel on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where she advised Ranking Member Richard Shelby and other members of the Committee on securities issues. Commissioner Peirce served as counsel to SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins. She also worked as a Staff Attorney in the SEC's Division of Investment Management. Commissioner Peirce was an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (now WilmerHale) and clerked for Judge Roger Andewelt on the Court of Federal Claims.Commissioner Peirce earned her bachelor's degree in Economics from Case Western Reserve University and her JD from Yale Law School.Links from the episodeCONNECT WITH COMMISSIONER HESTER PEIRCE:Website: www.sec.govCONNECT WITH BUTTERSCOTCH MEDIA:Website: butterscotch.mediaSubscribe to Chews Tipsheet: butterscotch.media/subscribeFollow us on X: @butterscotch360 CONNECT WITH BUTTERSCOTCH MEDIA:Website: butterscotch.mediaFinTech TV Network: https://fintech.tv/category/the-get-down-podcast-series/Subscribe to Chews Tipsheet: butterscotch.media/subscribeFollow us on X: @butterscotch360

In this episode of The Danielle Gill Show, Danielle sits down with Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project and a leading voice on constitutional law, Section 230, and conservative legal strategy. 00:13 – Introducing Will Chamberlain & his legal background 00:35 – Reaction to Thomas Massie’s loss in Kentucky 01:20 – Twitter politics vs real‑world voters 03:37 – Trump’s dominance and the GOP’s internal battles 07:57 – Is anti‑Trump sentiment growing on the right? 10:16 – Conservatism, influencers, and the international audience problem 13:02 – Supreme Court trends: race, redistricting & constitutional shifts 18:07 – Birthright citizenship: why the Court won’t overturn it 21:57 – The future of the Court: longevity, replacements & legacy 27:32 – Looking ahead to the 2028 GOP primary Watch full clips of the Danielle Gill Show here: https://rumble.com/c/DanielleDsouzaGill/videos?e9s=src_v1_cmd Find the full audio show wherever you get your podcasts:Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-danielle-gill-show/id1879812724 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/3x6hMKFn1roWyzLzednxXL?si=nhZG0TauTOmkWBo_ieFhcw Follow Danielle Gill on all social platforms:X - https://x.com/danielledsouzag?s=21&t=EDXtjHM__JNF18166lWkTQInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/danielledsouzagillFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/share/14YvjS1Umni/?mibextid=wwXIfrTruth Social - https://truthsocial.com/@danielledsouzagillSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming consumer financial services and countless other industries. As AI systems become more autonomous, adaptive, and deeply integrated into commercial decision-making, courts, regulators, and industry participants are increasingly confronting a critical question: when AI causes harm, who should be held responsible? In our latest episode of our award-winning, weekly Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, our host Alan Kaplinsky (the founder, Chair for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services at Ballard Spahr LLP)  had the pleasure of speaking with Mark Geistfeld, the Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation at New York University School of Law and the reporter for the American Law Institute's groundbreaking new project, Principles of the Law, Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence.  The discussion explored one of the most consequential emerging legal issues in the AI era: how traditional tort law doctrines, including duty, reasonable care, causation, foreseeability, product liability, and allocation of responsibility, should apply to AI systems. Professor Geistfeld explained why the ALI chose to pursue a "principles" project rather than a traditional restatement. Because there is still relatively little AI-specific case law, the project is intended to provide a forward-looking framework that adapts existing tort doctrines to emerging AI technologies. As Mark noted during the discussion, the project seeks to determine "what existing law, properly adapted to this new technology, would require." Their conversation covered a wide range of timely and challenging issues, including: Whether AI systems should be treated as "products" or "services" for purposes of tort liability; How liability may be allocated among foundation model developers, deployers, integrators, and end users; The role of reasonable care obligations in AI development and deployment, including testing, monitoring, and guardrails; The growing importance of transparency and industry best practices; The "black box" problem and the difficulty of proving causation when even developers may not fully understand AI outputs; The tension between fostering innovation and ensuring accountability; and How tort liability and regulatory frameworks can operate together in a complementary manner.   How rapidly advancing AI capabilities, including developments involving autonomous agents and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, are accelerating the urgency of creating coherent legal frameworks. One particularly interesting aspect of the discussion involved Professor Geistfeld's explanation of how AI liability differs from traditional product liability analysis because AI systems evolve, adapt, and operate probabilistically. He emphasized that many of the challenges courts will face resemble issues already encountered in pharmaceutical litigation, toxic torts, and medical malpractice cases involving probabilistic causation. The ALI project remains in development, but preliminary drafts are already beginning to shape legal and academic discussions. Given the pace of AI advancement, courts and policymakers are likely to confront these issues long before a final completed volume is published. This podcast continues our ongoing intensive coverage of artificial intelligence and consumer financial services, including our recent programs discussing the White House AI Action Plan (listen to part 1 here and part 2 here), the White House AI Framework (listen here) and other AI regulatory developments. The episode provides valuable insights for financial institutions, fintech companies, AI developers, compliance professionals, litigators, and anyone interested in the future legal framework governing artificial intelligence. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Annie talks with Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at The Article 3 Project, to discuss Thomas Massie losing to Ed Gallrein in the Kentucky Primary.

The Youtube Live Chat Poll today asks the question if you are a supporter of Thomas Massie or are you against him? Annie will talk with Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at The Article 3 Project, to discuss this further.

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast features a wide-ranging and timely discussion about one of the most consequential fair lending developments in years: the CFPB's final rule fundamentally reshaping enforcement under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. Hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (the Founder, Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP), the episode brings together an exceptional panel of fair lending authorities: our special guest Bradley Blower (the Principal and Founder of Inclusive-Partners LLC) along with John Culhane, Jr., and Richard Andreano, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP. The discussion revisits a proposal first examined on the podcast last year when the CFPB under Acting Director Russell Vought proposed sweeping revisions to ECOA enforcement principles (you can find more on that episode here). Now, the Bureau has finalized the rule largely as proposed, marking a dramatic shift in federal fair lending policy. The CFPB's Three Major Changes As discussed during the podcast, the final rule makes three major changes from the former Regulation B: ·        Eliminates the use of disparate impact analysis under ECOA and Regulation B. ·        Narrows discouragement liability by focusing primarily on spoken, written, or visual statements rather than broader conduct. ·        Revises the framework governing Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs), particularly for for-profit lenders. The Bureau's stated rationale is that ECOA does not authorize disparate impact liability and that fair lending enforcement should focus on intentional discrimination rather than statistical disparities alone. Supporters of the rule argue that the changes provide lenders with clearer standards, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and create a more predictable environment for innovation, including AI-driven underwriting and algorithmic decision-making. Critics, however, contend that the rule ignores the historical role disparate impact analysis has played in uncovering systemic discrimination and could make it substantially more difficult to identify discriminatory outcomes embedded in facially neutral policies or automated systems. Disparate Impact: A Sea Change, But Not the End of Fair Lending The panel devoted significant attention to the CFPB's elimination of disparate impact liability under ECOA. John Culhane described the move as a "dramatic shift" for non-mortgage lending, noting that disparate impact theories historically drove many federal fair lending actions involving indirect auto finance, student lending, and other consumer credit products. At the same time, Rich Andreano emphasized that the mortgage industry remains subject to disparate impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act because of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. As a result, mortgage lenders still face substantial fair lending exposure notwithstanding the CFPB's new ECOA position. The panelists also stressed that disparate impact is far from dead at the state level. Several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are expected to continue aggressive fair lending enforcement using disparate impact theories under state statutes, regulations, and consumer protection laws. Indeed, the panel highlighted the growing role of state attorneys general and state regulators as federal enforcement narrows. Discouragement Liability and the "Townstone Effect" Another focal point of the discussion was the CFPB's narrowing of discouragement liability. The panel explored how the Bureau's revisions appear heavily influenced by the CFPB's controversial enforcement action against Townstone Financial, where the Bureau alleged that comments made during radio broadcasts and podcasts discouraged minority borrowers from applying for loans. Rich Andreano characterized the final rule's discouragement provisions as effectively "the Townstone rule," reflecting the current CFPB leadership's strong opposition to the prior Bureau's enforcement theory in that case. Nevertheless, both Brad Blower and John Culhane cautioned that courts and state regulators may continue to consider broader conduct, including branch placement, marketing strategies, and community engagement, when evaluating potential redlining or discouragement claims. SPCPs Face New Uncertainty The podcast also examined the CFPB's revisions to Special Purpose Credit Programs. Brad Blower explained that while SPCPs remain permissible, the new rule substantially complicates the use of race-conscious programs by for-profit lenders. Many institutions may now seek to redesign programs around race-neutral criteria such as first-generation homeownership, low- and moderate-income geographies, or majority-minority census tracts. Rich Andreano warned that many financial institutions, especially banks, may scale back SPCPs due to litigation and regulatory uncertainty, particularly given the broader political and legal environment surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The Practical Message: "Stay the Course" Despite the significance of the CFPB's rule changes, the clearest takeaway from the discussion was remarkably consistent: lenders should not dismantle their fair lending compliance programs. All three panelists emphasized that institutions should continue: ·                 Monitoring for disparate impact. ·                 Reviewing underwriting and pricing models. ·                 Evaluating marketing and branch strategies. ·                 Testing AI and algorithmic systems for bias. ·                 Maintaining robust fair lending compliance management systems. As Brad Blower observed, institutions that "take their foot off the gas" risk state enforcement actions, private litigation, reputational harm, and future regulatory scrutiny under a different federal administration. Rich Andreano summarized the prevailing industry guidance succinctly: "Stay the course." AI, Algorithmic Underwriting, and Future Litigation The panel also explored how the rule intersects with AI-driven lending. Although federal ECOA disparate impact enforcement may narrow, the panelists noted that state laws and private litigation could continue targeting algorithmic discrimination. Several states already are pursuing or considering laws specifically addressing AI bias and automated decision-making. The panel further predicted that legal challenges to the CFPB's final rule are highly likely. Potential claims could include: ·        Administrative Procedure Act challenges. ·        Arguments that the CFPB disregarded congressional intent underlying ECOA. ·        Challenges arising under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference to agency rules. The panel suggested that litigation over the final rule could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, particularly on the unresolved question of whether ECOA itself authorizes disparate impact liability. Conclusion This episode provides an exceptionally practical and nuanced examination of one of the most important fair lending developments in recent memory. While the CFPB has dramatically narrowed federal ECOA enforcement theories, the broader fair lending landscape remains highly active due to state enforcement, private litigation risk, the Fair Housing Act, and ongoing scrutiny of AI-based underwriting systems. For lenders, the message from the panel was unmistakable: despite the CFPB's final rule, fair lending compliance remains as important as ever. You can listen to the full podcast on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast available through Ballard Spahr and major podcast platforms. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Send us Fan MailThe NCUA looks to be getting a new board chair: John Crews, a longtime Washington DC hand and currently Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Treasury Department.  Prior jobs include Policy Director of the Senate Banking Committee and Policy Advisor to House majority leader Steve Scalise.  He's a guy who knows his way around inside the Beltway.There's an urgency to his nomination because present  NCUA board chair Kyle Hauptman has been named to the board of the Public Company Accounting Oversight board.  Hauptman also is the only member of the NCUA's current board. There are two other seats but their occupants presently are involved in litigation and no longer serve.Will Crews cross the finish line in the Senate and assume the top job at NCUA?On the show is Washington DC lobbyist Elizabeth Ergubian, herself a former staffer at NCUA where she served as  Director of External Affairs & Communications and Policy Advisor to the Chair.Before that she was Deputy Chief Advocacy Officer & Senior Counsel at CUNA.She knows the Beltway doings, she knows credit unions, and here she tells what to expect in Crew's confirmation hearing - and when to expect it.Listen up.Like what you are hearing? Find out how you can help sponsor this podcast here. Very affordable sponsorship packages are available. Email rjmcgarvey@gmail.com  And like this podcast on whatever service you use to stream it. That matters.  Find out more about CU2.0 and the digital transformation of credit unions here. It's a journey every credit union needs to take. Pronto

On this episode of the SeventySix Capital Sports Leadership Show, Wayne Kimmel interviewed Paris Dupree, Vice President, Senior Counsel in Business and Legal Affairs at OneTeam Partners.Prior to joining OneTeam, Dupree served as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at JPMorgan Chase, where she led and negotiated major sponsorships and partnerships across  the company's Sports, Entertainment, Media, and Brand businesses—including the firm's partnerships with Madison Square Garden, the US Open, and the Chase Center, as well as global events such as the JPMorgan Corporate Challenge, the world's largest corporate running event. Her early career was shaped at leading law firms, including Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Pepper Hamilton LLP (now Troutman Pepper LLP), and Cooley LLP, where she gained significant experience in venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and advising private equity funds and growth-stage companies across technology, life sciences, and digital media sectors. A proud graduate of Brown University, Dupree earned her degree in Organizational Studies: Commerce, Organizations, and Entrepreneurship. While at Brown, she was captain of the Women's Lacrosse Team, earning First-Team All-Ivy and Academic All-Ivy honors, and also competed in basketball as a dual-sport athlete her freshman year. In 2010, she was selected to the U.S. National Women's Lacrosse Team—the first Brown player in more than a decade to earn that honor. She was recently inducted into Brown University's Athletic Hall of Fame, recognizing her enduring contributions to the university's athletic legacy. Dupree later earned her J.D. from The George Washington University Law School. Dupree's leadership and impact extend beyond her professional role. She was recognized as the 2024 Young Woman Professional Award recipient by the New Castle County Chamber of Commerce, honoring her professional excellence and community contributions. She currently serves on Brown University's President's Advisory Council on Athletics & Recreation, focusing on long-term strategic planning, and as a member of the Board of Trustees at Sanford School, an independent, college preparatory school in Hockessin, Delaware, where she plays an active role in advancing the school's mission, shaping strategy, and strengthening community engagement. Dupree resides in Wilmington, Delaware, with her husband, Vern, and their 5-year-old son, Cairo. Family is central to who she is, and she can often be found cheering on her husband and father's Delaware State Hornets basketball team or supporting Cairo's activities. Paris Dupree:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/parisdupree/Chapters02:07 Understanding One Team Partners' Role in Sports Licensing03:58 Commercial Partnerships and Their Impact on Athletes08:07 Structuring Fair Deals for Players and Brands09:59 Collaboration with Player Associations12:06 The Fun and Meaningful Aspects of Paris's Job14:11 Paris's Athletic Background and Its Influence18:03 The Similarities Between Sports and Business22:04 Mentorship and Leadership in Paris's Career30:17 The Future of Sports and Player Opportunities

America has historically led the way in intangible property rights. We were the first country to recognize copyright and patents in our constitution and became the first to recognize trade secrets as protectable assets in 1868. Property rules assume that the rights-holder has superior knowledge about how to use the property— when to share, when to exclude, and when to sell—and would do so without causing significant problems for others. Some see IP as a barrier to the free dissemination of ideas, art and inventions. Others argue that IP rights ensure control and appropriate returns for creators while unleashing an economic and creative engine that delivers trillions of dollars in value, high-quality jobs, life-saving medicines, and breathtaking works of beauty and ingenuity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.As modern debates swirl around everything from whether using copyrighted works to train generative AI should count as ‘fair use’, to whether medical diagnostic methods, business models and other abstract ideas should be patentable as they are overseas, to whether we should adopt European-style rules that treat privacy and data as a quasi-proprietary right or extend “rights of publicity” in the era of AI, this gathering of astute legal minds will return to first principles to explore a deceptively simple-sounding question: when should we recognize something as a property right? Join us for a deep dive into history, philosophy, and economics to understand some of the legal and policy dilemmas of our time, and whether and when expanding property rights is the answer.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law and Journalism, University of FloridaJeffrey E. Depp, Senior Counsel for Law and Policy, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Satya Marar, Postgraduate Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

America has historically led the way in intangible property rights. We were the first country to recognize copyright and patents in our constitution and became the first to recognize trade secrets as protectable assets in 1868. Property rules assume that the rights-holder has superior knowledge about how to use the property— when to share, when to exclude, and when to sell—and would do so without causing significant problems for others. Some see IP as a barrier to the free dissemination of ideas, art and inventions. Others argue that IP rights ensure control and appropriate returns for creators while unleashing an economic and creative engine that delivers trillions of dollars in value, high-quality jobs, life-saving medicines, and breathtaking works of beauty and ingenuity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.As modern debates swirl around everything from whether using copyrighted works to train generative AI should count as ‘fair use’, to whether medical diagnostic methods, business models and other abstract ideas should be patentable as they are overseas, to whether we should adopt European-style rules that treat privacy and data as a quasi-proprietary right or extend “rights of publicity” in the era of AI, this gathering of astute legal minds will return to first principles to explore a deceptively simple-sounding question: when should we recognize something as a property right? Join us for a deep dive into history, philosophy, and economics to understand some of the legal and policy dilemmas of our time, and whether and when expanding property rights is the answer.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law and Journalism, University of FloridaJeffrey E. Depp, Senior Counsel for Law and Policy, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Satya Marar, Postgraduate Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

This week, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a Texas law requiring public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses. The court explained that Stone v. Graham, which relied upon the now-defunct Lemon test to invalidate a similar Kentucky law decades ago, is no longer controlling. In the place of Lemon and its progeny, the en banc court explained, courts must ask whether a challenged law resembles a founding-era religious establishment. The court also held the challengers here failed to show the law substantially burdened their free exercise. Join us for a litigation update breaking down this ruling and what it may hold for Establishment and Free Exercise cases in the future. Featuring: Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law (Moderator) Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

As health systems increasingly adopt artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools across clinical, operational, and administrative functions, legal and compliance teams are being asked to navigate new and complex questions around contracting, risk allocation, data use, and regulatory uncertainty. Zach Stephens, Senior Consultant, Clearwater, speaks with Carolyn Metnick, Partner, Sheppard, and Lauren Edelman Willens, Senior Counsel, Henry Ford Health, about why AI contracting is different, how organizations are responding, where vendors are pushing back, top “must ask” due diligence questions for AI vendors, the biggest pressure points around data rights and use, issues related to risk and liability, contracting strategies that are proving especially valuable, and common mistakes. Sponsored by Clearwater.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DplWjIIduILearn more about Clearwater: https://clearwatersecurity.com/ Essential Legal Updates, Now in AudioAHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal EducationLearn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/. 

A recent win for Moody Bible Institute and a case for a Christian photographer are just the beginning of the good news! Senior Counsel for ADF Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse joins us to discuss the recent ruling in DeGross v. Hunter, pushing back on Washington State's foster care regulations. DeGross v. Hunter – ADF Media (https://adfmedia.org/case/degross-v-hunter/)

Today, we released a new episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast examining one of the most significant recent federal developments in the fight against scams and fraud: Executive Order 14390. Hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (the founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel in the Consumer Financial Services Group), the episode features returning guests Kate Griffin and Nick Bourke of the Aspen Institute, who previously joined the podcast to discuss Aspen's landmark report, United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams.   Why This Episode Matters Scams and fraud continue to impose staggering losses on American households, businesses, and financial institutions. As discussed in the episode, the Aspen report framed scams as a "whole-of-society" problem requiring coordination across government, financial institutions, technology companies, telecom providers, and civil society. The new Executive Order appears to respond directly to that challenge by calling for: A coordinated federal anti-scam strategy Greater inter-agency cooperation Enhanced public-private information sharing Increased disruption of transnational scam networks Stronger victim restitution and recovery efforts More aggressive international enforcement tools, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure In many respects, the Executive Order may represent the first serious federal attempt to build a national strategy to combat scams. Key Themes Explored in the Episode During the discussion, Kate Griffin described the Executive Order as the "starting gun" in the race against scams—an important signal that the federal government is now treating scams as a national priority. Nick Bourke emphasized that success will require more than enforcement alone. He noted that regulators, financial institutions, telecom carriers, and digital platforms must be empowered to share information and intervene more effectively when suspicious activity is detected. The conversation also examined: Coordination Across Government The Executive Order relies heavily on the federal government's National Coordination Center framework to align agencies such as the Departments of Treasury, State, Justice, and Defense. Whether that coordination translates into meaningful operational change remains to be seen. 2. Information Sharing and Safe Harbors The guests explained that one of the largest barriers to scam prevention is the inability of private-sector participants to share threat intelligence quickly because of privacy, litigation, or antitrust concerns. Legislative or regulatory safe harbors may ultimately be necessary. 3. Targeting the Scam Business Model Rather than focusing solely on individual fraudsters, the discussion stressed the need to undermine the economics of scams—making them harder, riskier, and less profitable for criminal enterprises to operate. 4. Victim Restoration A particularly notable feature of the Executive Order is its call for a victim restoration program, which could help return seized assets to scam victims more efficiently. 5. Modernizing Law Enforcement Tools The guests also highlighted the need to modernize legacy federal databases such as FBI and FinCEN reporting systems, many of which were designed before today's high-speed digital scam environment. What Comes Next? While the Executive Order is an important milestone, the guests agreed that additional action will be needed from Congress, regulators, and the private sector. A successful anti-scam strategy will likely require: Clearer legal pathways for data sharing Better consumer reporting systems Greater use of AI and analytics International cooperation Faster prosecutions and asset recovery Ongoing public education efforts Bottom Line This episode makes clear that scams are no longer simply a consumer-protection issue, they are now a national economic security issue. The White House has taken an important first step, but whether the Executive Order produces meaningful results will depend on execution, follow-through, and sustained cross-sector collaboration. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

This episode is a recording of a webinar panel hosted by International Allies Against Mining, moderated by Yvette Borja, with Vidalina Morales, President of the Association for Social and Economic Development of Santa Marta, John Kavanaugh, Senior Advisor at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Luis Parada, Senior Counsel for Sovereign Arbitration Advisors. They discuss the 12 year long fight to pass the historic 2017 metals mining ban and the continued interest that mining companies have demonstrated in El Salvador. Support the podcast by becoming a patron: https://patreon.com/radiocachimbona?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkRead Yvette and Jorge's article describing their experience observing the Santa Marta 5 criminal trial: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q43k0hpFollow @radiocachimbona on Instagram, X, and Facebook

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Welcome to our Next Generation Roundtable, hosted by Know Why podcaster Liberty McArtor. During the first hour, she is joined by speaker and author Patrina Mosley and by consultant and writer William Barclay. In the second hour, Podcast Host Alyssa Sonnenburg and Senior Counsel at ADF Chelsey Youman join Liberty. They'll […]

In the episode of Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today, we explore the White House's National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence published on March 20, 2026. This new framework represents the Administration's most concrete attempt yet to shape the future of AI governance in the United States. While it does not carry the force of law, it offers a revealing look at the policy direction the Administration hopes Congress will take. Joining our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group), for this discussion were Charlie Bullock (Senior Research Fellow at The Institute for Law and AI), Kristian Stout (Director of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law & Economics), and Greg Szewczyk, head of Ballard Spahr's Privacy and Data Security Group. Below are the key takeaways from the conversation. From Principles to Policy: A Clear Shift One of the most striking aspects of the new framework is how sharply it departs from last year's more principles-based "White House AI Action Plan." That earlier effort emphasized risk awareness, governance principles, and a balanced approach to innovation and regulation. On October 30, 2025, we produced a webinar entitled: "AI in Financial Services: Understanding the White House Action Plan – and What It Leaves Out", which featured the same speakers as the podcast being released today, plus Dean Ball, former White House senior advisor and one of the architects of the White House AI Action Plan. This webinar was then re-purposed into a two-part podcast series released on December 4 and 10, 2025. By contrast, the new framework is short, just a few pages, light on detailed policy prescriptions, and heavily focused on limiting regulation, particularly at the state level. As Charlie Bullock observed, the document is notable as much for what it doesn't include as for what it does. Rather than proposing robust federal oversight, it largely outlines areas where the government should refrain from acting. Federal Preemption Takes Center Stage The framework's most consequential and controversial feature is its strong endorsement of federal preemption of state AI laws. It proposes broad preemption in areas such as: ·        AI development ·        Liability for third-party misuse of AI systems ·        Restrictions on AI-enabled activities that would otherwise be lawful At the same time, it preserves certain state authorities, including: ·        Zoning and infrastructure decisions ·        State use of AI ·        "Generally applicable" laws (e.g., fraud, consumer protection, and child safety) This raises a critical question: How meaningful are these carve-outs? As we discussed, broadly worded exceptions, particularly for state "police powers", could significantly limit the practical reach of federal preemption and potentially preserve a patchwork of state regulation. The Patchwork Problem Isn't Going Away Even with federal action, the reality is that state-level AI regulation is already underway. Laws like Colorado's AI Act and emerging chatbot regulations illustrate how quickly states are moving. Greg Szewczyk noted that, unlike privacy law, where states have largely converged around similar frameworks, AI regulation could diverge in more fundamental ways. Without a consistent federal baseline, companies may face: ·        Increased compliance costs ·        Operational complexity ·        Uncertainty in deploying AI tools across jurisdictions Interestingly, some state regulators (including Democrats) may ultimately favor a well-crafted federal preemption regime if it provides clarity without sacrificing core protections. Innovation First—But Who Benefits? The framework strongly emphasizes: ·        AI infrastructure buildout ·        Faster permitting ·        Regulatory sandboxes ·        Access to federal datasets Kristian Stout highlighted that these priorities could accelerate innovation but they are not automatically startup-friendly. Large incumbents may benefit disproportionately due to: ·        Greater access to compute resources ·        Established compliance capabilities ·        Ability to absorb regulatory costs This tension between promoting innovation and preserving competition remains unresolved. Child Safety, IP, and Free Speech: More Questions Than Answers The framework touches on several critical areas but leaves key details unsettled: Child Protection It endorses tools like age verification and parental controls but offers little guidance on implementation. Compared to proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the framework appears less aggressive and more preemptive of state innovation. Intellectual Property Rather than legislating, the framework defers to the courts on issues like: ·        Fair use in AI training ·        Output infringement This "wait and see" approach avoids premature policymaking but prolongs uncertainty. Free Speech A novel component aims to prevent government "jawboning" of AI providers; i.e., informal pressure to shape outputs. While rooted in legitimate First Amendment concerns, its ultimate scope and constitutionality remain unclear. No New AI Regulator—For Now The framework rejects the creation of a centralized AI regulator, instead relying on existing agencies. This approach has clear advantages: ·        Agencies already understand their sectors ·        Avoids bureaucratic duplication But it also raises concerns: ·        Limited technical expertise ·        Resource constraints ·        Inconsistent oversight across agencies As discussed, a hybrid model, combining agency expertise with centralized technical guidance, may ultimately emerge. Will Anything Actually Pass? Perhaps the most sobering takeaway: major AI legislation is unlikely in the near term. As Charlie Bullock put it bluntly, companies should not invest significant resources preparing for this specific framework. The political reality is: ·        Deep divisions within and between parties ·        Limited legislative bandwidth before the midterms ·        Competing proposals with very different philosophies That said, elements of the framework may still surface incrementally in future bills. The Anthropic "Mythos" Moment: A Glimpse of What's Coming While not covered by the White House framework, our discussion closed with a timely real-world example: reports about Anthropic's advanced AI model, "Claude Mythos," capable of identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at scale. Whether somewhat overstated or not, the episode highlights a broader truth: ·        AI is accelerating existing capabilities, not inventing entirely new ones ·        The pace of advancement is increasing rapidly ·        Both risks and defensive tools are evolving simultaneously As Kristian Stout noted, this is less a radical break than a compression of time and accessibility, making powerful capabilities available faster and to more people. Final Thoughts The White House AI Framework signals an important shift in U.S. policy thinking: ·        Away from abstract principles ·        Toward concrete (if still incomplete) legislative direction It prioritizes innovation, federal uniformity, and limited regulation but leaves fundamental questions unresolved. For industry participants, the key takeaway is not immediate compliance but continued vigilance. The direction of travel is becoming clearer, even if the destination remains uncertain. We will closely continue to monitor developments closely on our blog, webinars and podcast shows. We will soon be releasing podcast shows with (1) Professor Mark Geistfeld of NYU Law School about ALI's relatively new project entitled "Principles of the Law Pertaining to Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence" and (2) with Professor David Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School about an article he co-authored with the CEO of the American Arbitration Association entitled "Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure, and the Courts are Coming." Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this episode of Just Compensation, Megan Monson, Amy Komoroski Wiwi, and Amy C. Schwind continue their discussion regarding employment law updates and trends from 2025 and what employers should expect as 2026 continues. They focus on broader changes, covering non-competes, pay transparency and pay data reporting, AI, and DEI. Listen to Part I here. Speakers: Megan Monson, Partner, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Amy Wiwi, Partner, Employment Amy C. Schwind, Senior Counsel, Employment

Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the United States Department of Justice, makes his return to the morning show on this hump day installment of Sid & Friends in the Morning. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of Justice Above All investigates one way in which segregation has been rebranded in the twenty-first century: all-white, or “whites-only,” settlements. In recent years, there has been an alarming rise in these settlements across the United States. Attempts to build all-white settlements represent a modern rebranding of segregationist housing practices like restrictive covenants. All-white settlements are morally corrosive to a multi-racial democracy and undermine the principles of inclusive housing articulated in the Fair Housing Act. Policymakers and all people who oppose segregation should actively resist the rise of all-white settlements.Today's host is Dr. Kesha Moore, Research Manager of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: Jason Bailey, Senior Counsel, Legal Defense FundJin Hee Lee, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Legal Defense FundCynthia Miller-Idriss, Professor, American University School of Public Affairs and School of Education; Founding Director, Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation LabYou can learn more about this episode by visiting our landing page.This episode was written and produced by Jakiyah Bradley. Resonate Recordings provided production support.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf. 

A recent court ruling requiring continued funding of CFPB gives the organization room to keep carrying out its mission despite ongoing pressure from the White House and Congress. We'll examine how the decision affects the bureau's day‑to‑day operations and longer‑term outlook, with Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, Alan Kaplinsky.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The theme for World Intellectual Property Day 2026 is “IP and Sport,” and here on Brand & New we're joining in the celebrations with a close look at the powerful intersection of intellectual property (IP) and sport, and there may be no better stage for that conversation than “the world's game:” football, or as it called in the United States, soccer! The goal of World IP Day 2026 is to highlight how creativity, innovation, and strong IP protection keep sport thriving, dynamic, and accessible worldwide—and few organizations embody that global impact quite like the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).In this episode of Brand & New, we're joined by Tiffany M. Shepard, Director and Senior Counsel, Brand Rights Protection at FIFA World Cup 2026. In this role, Ms. Shepard leads the North American enforcement strategy to safeguard FIFA's World Cup 2026 IP, retail licensing, and sponsorship rights from ambush marketing, counterfeiting, and unauthorized affiliations. Prior to joining FIFA, Ms. Shepard served in various in-house roles at major global brands, including at BuzzFeed Media Enterprises, The Kraft Heinz Company, and The Procter & Gamble CompanyMs. Shepard joins us today for a timely and wide-ranging conversation about protecting one of the most valuable and visible sports brands on the planet. As excitement builds toward the upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup, she discusses the importance of safeguarding IP across borders, preserving trust and authenticity for billions of fans around the world, and what's keeping her team busy in the weeks leading up the event. From the challenges of brand protection at large-scale global sporting events to advice for the next generation of IP professionals, this episode explores why IP matters not just to organizations like FIFA—but to creativity, innovation, and the future of sport itself.Related ResourcesAbout Tiffany M. ShepardAbout World Intellectual DayAbout the FIFA World Cup 2026Recent and Related Brand & New EpisodesIP and the SDGs: Building Our Common Future with Innovation and CreativityWomen Leaders Series: Advancing Athlete RightsRelated 2026 Annual Meeting SessionsAmbush Marketing Without Borders: How Sports Rights Are Protected WorldwideDupe Culture: The Imitation Game

In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, host Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel) had the pleasure of speaking with Sam Levine, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), about the agency's evolving role as one of the most active local consumer protection regulators in the country. Important note: This podcast was recorded prior to DCWP's April 8, 2026 release of its proposed "click-to-cancel" rule addressing subscription practices. Alan recorded a description of the proposed rule which is at the end of the recording. We also wrote a separate blog about that significant development. A Local Regulator with National Influence From the outset, Commissioner Levine emphasized that DCWP is not simply a municipal agency focused on traditional licensing and enforcement, but rather a modern regulator tackling complex consumer protection issues that increasingly mirror those addressed at the federal level. "Local enforcement can be incredibly impactful—we're often closest to consumers and can move quickly to address emerging harms." He noted that New York City's scale and diversity make it a uniquely important testing ground for innovative consumer protection strategies. Executive Orders Driving Enforcement Priorities A key backdrop to DCWP's current activity is a pair of mayoral directives—Executive Order 9 and Executive Order 10—issued by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on January 5, 2026 (shortly after he took office) which we have discussed in a prior blog post. These Executive Orders signal a clear policy direction to fulfill his campaign promise to make life more affordable for everyday New Yorkers: an intensified focus on consumer protection, particularly in areas involving deceptive practices, hidden or "junk" fees, and recurring payment models. Executive Order 10, in particular, directs DCWP to prioritize enforcement against "subscription traps" and misleading recurring charge practices—laying the groundwork for the Department's subsequent proposed "click-to-cancel" rule published on April 8, 2026. Commissioner Levine made clear that these directives are not merely aspirational, but are actively shaping the agency's enforcement and rulemaking agenda: "We're aligning our work with the Mayor's directive to go after practices that frustrate consumers and undermine fair competition." Enforcement Priorities: Targeting Deceptive Practices A central theme of our discussion was DCWP's aggressive focus on deceptive and unconscionable trade practices, particularly in areas where consumers are most vulnerable. Commissioner Levine highlighted the agency's work in combatting: 1.     Hidden fees and misleading pricing practices 2.     Predatory lending and financial services abuses 3.     Worker exploitation in the gig economy 4.     Emerging digital marketplace risks "We're focused on conduct that distorts consumer choice—where people think they're getting one thing but end up locked into something very different." He underscored that transparency and fairness are guiding principles behind DCWP's enforcement agenda. Final Debt Collection Rules: A Significant Regulatory Development We also discussed DCWP's recently finalized debt collection regulations, which we have analyzed in prior blog coverage. These rules represent one of the most significant updates to New York City's debt collection framework in years. Commissioner Levine emphasized that the rules are designed to modernize existing requirements and address evolving industry practices, including the increased use of digital communications. "The goal is to ensure that debt collection practices keep pace with how consumers actually communicate today, while maintaining strong protections against harassment and abuse." Among other things, the rules clarify permissible communications, reinforce substantiation and disclosure requirements, and strengthen consumer protections in line with broader trends seen at the federal level. These rules, which go effective later this year, apply not only to third-party collectors and buyers of consumer debt, but also to creditors of consumers whenever the debtor resides or is located in New York City. Collaboration with Federal and State Regulators Drawing on his prior experience at the Federal Trade Commission as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Levine discussed the importance of coordination across jurisdictions. "There's a real opportunity for federal, state, and local regulators to work together and reinforce one another's efforts." He explained that DCWP frequently collaborates with the FTC, the New York State Attorney General's Office, and other enforcement bodies, particularly in cases involving multi-state or national conduct. At the same time, he made clear that local regulators can lead: "We don't have to wait. If we see harm affecting New Yorkers, we're going to act." Rulemaking as a Strategic Tool In addition to enforcement, Levine emphasized DCWP's increasing use of rulemaking to shape market behavior proactively. "Rules give clarity to businesses and protections to consumers—they're an important complement to case-by-case enforcement." He noted that clear rules can help level the playing field for companies that are already trying to do the right thing. Focus on Financial Services and Marketplace Innovation The conversation also explored DCWP's interest in financial services, particularly as new products and delivery models emerge. Levine pointed to risks associated with: 1.     Fintech innovations that may outpace regulatory frameworks 2.     Online platforms that obscure key terms or pricing 3.     Products that rely heavily on consumer inertia or behavioral biases "Innovation can be a good thing—but it can't come at the expense of transparency or fairness." Practical Takeaways for Industry For companies operating in or serving New York City, the message from DCWP is clear: 1.     Expect active enforcement of deceptive practices 2.     Monitor local regulatory developments, including mayoral directives and rulemaking initiatives 3.     Prioritize clear disclosures and consumer-friendly processes 4.     Anticipate continued focus on digital and subscription-based business models "Our goal is straightforward: markets should work for consumers, not against them." Looking Ahead Although our discussion did not cover it because it happened after our podcast was recorded, DCWP has since proposed a significant new rule targeting subscription practices—further underscoring the agency's commitment to addressing modern consumer risks and reflecting the policy direction set by Executive Order 10. Given Commissioner Levine's leadership and experience, including his prior role at the FTC, DCWP is likely to remain at the forefront of consumer protection innovation. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Thursday, April 23, 2026 Welcome to Point of View's Next Generation Roundtable – hosted by Liberty McArtor! Her co-host in the first hour is Senior Counsel at ADF Chelsey Youman. In the second hour, Liberty is joined by writer and research associate John Mancini and senior policy analyst at Human Coalition, Clare Ath. What are the issues […]

Two Major ALM Conferences back-to-back … Two years in a row!   There were skeptics.  The proverbial "they" said it couldn't be done.  Once again, Legal Speak believed it … and was there to see it for themselves. For over 20 years now, the General Counsel Conference Midwest has been the premier event in the industry.  Delivering practical solutions and key insights that today's General Counsel need to successfully overcome a litigation crisis, manage and better leverage C-Suite relationships, and do more with fewer resources.  For the 3rd year, Legal Speak was there live to bring you interviews with interesting attendees as well as moderators and speakers from various panels from this year's event at the Chicago. In this episode, host Patrick is joined by Chantal Kazay Rivera, Senior Counsel of the Commercial Litigation Practice Group, at the McDonald's Corporation   Host: Patrick Smith Guest: Chantal Kazay Rivera Producer: Charles Garnar  

The Steve Gruber Show | America in Focus: AI, Crime, Courts, and the Fight for Accountability --- 00:00 - Monologue 18:56 – Amy Kremer, Chair of Humans First, longtime conservative activist, and founder of Women for Trump. Kremer discusses the growing concerns surrounding artificial intelligence and its societal impact. She highlights efforts by Humans First to bring the AI debate to policymakers in Washington. 27:53 – Tom Simon, spokesperson for Home Title Lock and former FBI Special Agent with 26 years of experience. Simon breaks down a $17 million mortgage fraud scheme targeting Los Angeles homeowners. He explains how these scams operate and what people can do to protect their property. 37:52 - Monologue 46:50 – Carrie Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network. Severino discusses a recent legal development involving Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish and its implications for climate-related litigation. She explains how the ruling may impact future court strategies. 56:39 – Dr. Mandy Buechner, board-certified trichologist and naturopath practitioner. Buechner discusses strategies for improving hair health and addressing common concerns. Visit pureance.com and use code EARLY to save 35%. 1:05:38 – Congressman John James, representing Michigan's 10th Congressional District. James discusses his stance on immigration policy and his efforts to address sanctuary state concerns. He outlines priorities related to enforcement and state-level policy. 1:15:37 - Monologue 1:24:29 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber reviews trending headlines and major news stories shaping the day. The segment covers a range of political and cultural topics. 1:34:38 – Paige Rogers, sophomore at Boyce College, and Cliff Martin, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute. Rogers shares her experience of losing her job after discussing her Christian beliefs at work. Martin provides legal perspective on religious liberty and workplace rights. 1:43:12 – Ivey Gruber, President of the Michigan Talk Network. Gruber continues breaking down trending headlines and notable stories from across the country. The segment offers commentary on key issues in the current news cycle. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... The tenth episode is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/p757dQjoydM

In this explosive interview, Annie Frey sits down with Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project, to break down Virginia Democrats' aggressive new redistricting map and what it reveals about their willingness to seize and abuse power. From the overwhelming influence of deep-blue Arlington and Fairfax Counties to Abigail Spanberger's stunning flip-flop on gerrymandering, Chamberlain pulls no punches. He compares Virginia's map to Texas and Illinois, explains why Republicans in red states like Indiana are missing massive opportunities, and lays out exactly what needs to happen after the next census: counting only citizens and gutting the Voting Rights Act's racial gerrymandering mandates. Chamberlain also weighs in on the latest Supreme Court leaks, the slow-walking of dissents, and how Democrat justices' behavior is fundamentally changing how the Court operates—potentially forcing the conservative majority to deliberate in private. Plus, he discusses a bold idea: could a Trump executive order return Arlington to the District of Columbia and flip Virginia red again?

The latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today tackles one of the most consequential developments in bank–fintech litigation in recent years: the Los Angeles Superior Court's tentative decision in Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Hewlett (read more here). This case squarely addresses the long-debated "true lender" doctrine which has for decades bedeviled banks and Fintechs and "bricks and mortar" non-banks that have entered into joint ventures with one another to engage in interstate lending programs which take advantage of interest rate exportation rights afforded to banks. After applying application California and federal law, the Court granted summary judgment to OppFi and against the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) which unsuccessfully maintained that OppFi is the true lender and not OppFi's partner, FinWise Bank. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former chair of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, is joined by two leading voices with sharply contrasting perspectives: Professor Emeritus Arthur Wilmarth, a prominent critic of bank–fintech partnerships, and Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Ron Vaske, who regularly advises banks and fintech companies on structuring such programs. Their discussion offers a deep and balanced exploration of the court's reasoning and its broader implications.   A Tentative Decision with Significant Implications At the center of the case is a partnership between OppFi, a fintech platform, and FinWise Bank, a Utah-chartered, FDIC-insured institution. The program allowed FinWise to originate consumer loans at interest rates permissible under Utah law and export those rates nationwide under Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The DFPI challenged the arrangement, arguing that OppFi—not FinWise—was the "true lender," which would subject the loans to California's 36% interest rate cap. In a tentative ruling, the court rejected the DFPI's position and granted summary judgment in favor of OppFi. The court emphasized traditional indicia of lending authority, including: •           FinWise's role in funding the loans •           Its control over underwriting criteria •           Its retention of a 5% ownership interest •           Its ongoing oversight of compliance and marketing Critically, the court also relied on the longstanding California law principle that usury is determined at the inception of the loan. (See the discussion below.) Because FinWise originated the loans, the court concluded they were not rendered unlawful by OppFi's subsequent purchase of a 95% participation interest giving which gave it a predominant economic interest.   Competing Views on "True Lender" The podcast highlights a fundamental divide in how courts and commentators approach the true lender doctrine. Professor Wilmarth argues that the court failed to meaningfully engage with the "predominant economic interest" test, which focuses on who bears the majority of the economic risk and reward. In his view, OppFi's 95% participation interest suggests that it—not the bank—is the real lender in substance. He also raises broader concerns about whether such arrangements undermine state usury laws and expose consumers to excessively high-cost credit. Ron Vaske, by contrast, emphasizes the legal and structural realities of the transaction. He underscores that FinWise is the named lender, funds the loans, and remains legally responsible to borrowers. From this perspective, the allocation of economic interests after origination should not redefine the identity of the lender or override federal law permitting rate exportation.   The Role of "Valid When Made" Another key related theme explored in the episode is the "valid when made" doctrine—the principle that a loan that is lawful at origination remains lawful after assignment. The court's reliance on this concept reinforces the importance of determining lender status at the moment the loan is made, rather than based on subsequent transfers or participations. The discussion also touches on the interplay between state and federal law, as well as the continuing relevance of regulatory interpretations following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright, which curtailed Chevron deference.   What Comes Next? It is important to note that the court's ruling is still tentative. In accordance with California procedure, OppFi must submit a proposed final opinion and order to the Court. If adopted, an appeal by the DFPI appears likely—potentially setting the stage for further appellate guidance on the true lender doctrine in California and beyond.   Why This Matters This case is part of a broader and ongoing policy debate: ·                 Supporters of bank–fintech partnerships argue they expand access to credit and operate within well-established federal banking frameworks. ·                 Critics contend they can be used to circumvent state consumer protection laws, particularly interest rate caps. As the regulatory and judicial landscape continues to evolve, OppFi v. Hewlett represents a significant—and closely watched—development. It may be significant to note that, unlike several other states, California does not have a statute stating that the holding of a "predominant economic interest" in a loan makes the holder the true lender  Be sure to listen to the full podcast episode for a deeper dive into the case and the competing legal and policy perspectives shaping the future of bank–fintech partnerships. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Ayana Dow, Senior Counsel at the DeFi Education Fund (DEF) shares her unique career trajectory from Big Law and Capitol Hill to the forefront of decentralized finance policy. The discussion centers on the critical need for regulatory clarity in crypto, the distinction between decentralized protocols and centralized entities, and the ongoing efforts to educate lawmakers on blockchain technology. Key takeaways include an analysis of how current market structure bills might shift oversight to the CFTC and the importance of protecting software developers to ensure the continued innovation of DeFi systems. Episode Highlights From Big Law to D.C. Policy: Dow discusses her transition from traditional M&A and regulatory work to policy-focused roles. Experience on the Hill: Insights from Dow's time as a policy fellow for Congressman Jim Clyburn and her internship at the CFTC. The Tennis Connection: How the real-time problem-solving skills learned as a collegiate tennis player apply to navigating shifting SEC guidance. The Crypto "Genesis Block": Why the potential for financial inclusion and "debanking" issues drew Dow to the crypto industry. Mission of the DeFi Education Fund: An overview of DEF's role as a nonpartisan advocacy group focused on sound policy and judicial education. Law Firm vs. In-House Policy: The structural challenges of conducting long-term policy work within the billable hour model of a traditional law firm. Why Focus on Developers?: Understanding why the DeFi Education Fund prioritizes the protection of software developers over specific tokens or protocols. Market Structure & Regulatory Harmonization: A breakdown of recent SEC and CFTC guidance and the future of congressional legislation. The Impact of Chevron Deference: Discussion on how the removal of Chevron deference changes how agencies and judges interpret financial laws.     Resources Mentioned DEF's Myth v. Fact Sheet on the BRCA (Link) A DEF blog post on the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act of 2026 A DEF Letter to the SEC in response to Citadel Securities 

In this episode of The Get Down: Beyond Bitcoin, Ritzy P and Cleve Mesidor host TuongVy Le, General Counsel at Veda and former SEC official. They discuss bridging the gap between federal regulation and decentralized finance, moving past the "Degen phase" toward institutional-grade consumer protection.All Things ButterscotchEcosystem Updates: Cleve Mesidor highlights the expansion of Butterscotch Media and the rise of niche, founder-led journalism.Events: A preview of the EVE Wealth Summit in Arizona and plans for Consensus 2026 in Miami.Real Talk AI: Ritzy P introduces her new virtual workshop focused on AI ethics and community education.Interview with TuongVy LeFrom SEC to Veda: TuongVy discusses her transition from SEC enforcement to building crypto infrastructure.DeFi Vaults: How Veda abstracts complexity into "Vaults," functioning as the on-chain equivalent of a 401k or ETF.Policy vs. Innovation: Using the "automobile analogy," she argues for policy centered on safety (seatbelts) rather than banning innovation.The Design Partner: Why modern crypto lawyers must help design products that earn the trust of both regulators and everyday users.About TuongVyTuongVy “Vy” Le is General Counsel at Veda, a crypto infrastructure company helping to make DeFi programmable and accessible for all. She has held senior legal and policy leadership roles across the crypto industry, including as General Counsel of Anchorage Digital, Partner and Head of Regulatory and Policy at Bain Capital's crypto venture capital fund, and Deputy General Counsel and Compliance Officer at the digital identity company Worldcoin. Earlier in her career, Vy was Senior Counsel in the Enforcement Division and Chief Counsel of the Legislative Affairs Office at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, advising Congress on emerging financial markets and legislation. Vy has served on the CFTC digital assets advisory committee and on the boards of multiple blockchain policy associations, and began her career at the law firm WilmerHale LLP. She is a graduate of Yale Law School and speaks and writes frequently on how emerging technology can help modernize markets, including in Bloomberg, Fortune, Law360, and CoinDesk. She co-hosts the weekly crypto legal podcast “DEX in the City.”Links from the episodeCONNECT WITH TuongVy Le:X (formerly Twitter): @TuongVyLe12LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/TuongVytle/DEX in the City: https://unchainedcrypto.com/dex-in-the-city/CONNECT WITH BUTTERSCOTCH MEDIA:Register for TRUST MEDIA: https://tr.ee/aYftUgRitzy P's Real Talk AI: https://www.ritzyperiwinkle.com/realtalkaiWebsite: butterscotch.mediaSubscribe to Chews Tipsheet: https://butterscotch.media/subscribeFollow us on X: https://twitter.com/butterscotch360

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark recaps the epic Masters weekend as well as Jimmy Failla's great performance at "The Factory" in Chesterfield. Mark is then joined by Jim Carafano, a Senior Counsel to the President of the Heritage Foundation. He's later joined by J. Peder Zane, an editor at Real Clear Investigations and Columnist for Real Clear Politics. He discusses his latest Real Clear Politics article which is headlined, "Good Information is Hard to Find" which dives into information overload. In hour 2, Sue hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day and more. Mark is then joined by Mack Bradley, a local space writer and the author of “The Space to Lead”. Bradley reacts to Friday's Artemis II splashdown, the success of the mission and more. He's later joined by KSDK Sports Director Frank Cusumano who reacts to the Masters weekend, the Cardinals series loss against Boston and more. In hour 3, Mark is joined by FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey. Bailey discusses his reason for being in town to discuss safety measures for the FIFA World Cup in the state with Governor Mike Kehoe. He's later joined by Ed Rhode, a local political consultant. They discuss what in the world is going on with downtown St Louis streets. They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark recaps the epic Masters weekend as well as Jimmy Failla's great performance at "The Factory" in Chesterfield. Mark is then joined by Jim Carafano, a Senior Counsel to the President of the Heritage Foundation. He's later joined by J. Peder Zane, an editor at Real Clear Investigations and Columnist for Real Clear Politics. He discusses his latest Real Clear Politics article which is headlined, "Good Information is Hard to Find" which dives into information overload.

In this segment, Mark is joined by Jim Carafano, a Senior Counsel to the President of the Heritage Foundation. Carafano shares his thoughts on the US Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

We're pleased to announce that our latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast is now live and it's one you won't want to miss. In this episode, our host Alan Kaplinsky, founder, Chair for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group, is joined by Max Dubin, Chief of Staff to the Acting Superintendent of Banking at the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). As a senior leader at one of the most influential state financial regulators in the country, Max offers a rare and insightful look into how DFS is approaching some of the most important issues facing the consumer financial services industry today. A central focus of the conversation is the Department's proposed framework for regulating the rapidly evolving "buy-now, pay-later" (BNPL) market (read more about BNPL on our Consumer Finance Monitor blog here.) Max provides valuable context on what DFS is aiming to accomplish and how it is thinking about balancing innovation with consumer protection. Among other points, he explains that the DFS is seeking to craft a regulatory approach that reflects how BNPL products actually function in today's marketplace, while also ensuring that consumers receive clear disclosures and are adequately protected from potential risks. We also cover a wide range of additional "hot" topics at DFS, including DFS regulatory, supervisory and enforcement priorities, emerging consumer protection concerns, the DFS' approach to fintech innovation and partnerships, crypto licensure and regulation, New York Governor Hochul's budget priorities, which includes reforms of the insurance industry to make it more affordable, coordination with other state and federal regulators, and what industry participants should expect from DFS in the months ahead. This episode offers practical insights for banks, nonbanks, fintech companies, and their counsel, particularly those focused on compliance, product development, and regulatory strategy. Max's candid and thoughtful perspectives provide a valuable window into the thinking of DFS at a time when state-level regulation is playing an increasingly prominent role. We hope you enjoy the conversation.  This is the second of our 3-part series focused on agencies in New York City and State which have a major impact on banks and non-banks who do business with New York City and State residents. On February 12, we released a podcast show, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, featuring Jane Azia, Chief of the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection and Alec Webley, Assistant Attorney General of the New York Attorney General's Office. Among other things, Jane and Alec discussed the New York FAIR Business Practices Act which expanded the scope of New York's consumer protection law to cover unfair and abusive acts and practices as well as deceptive acts and practices. Very soon, we will be releasing Part 3 of the series which will be a conversation between Alan and Commissioner Sam Levine, the head of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.   Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

It's Tuesday, March 31st, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson and Timothy Reed Court awards Christian photographer $800,000 over discrimination Christian photographer Chelsey Nelson has scored an $800,000 settlement from the city of Louisville, Kentucky. That comes after city officials tried to force her to photograph and promote homosexual weddings. Bryan Neihart, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, worked on the case. His take is that “the government cannot force Americans to say things they don't believe. For almost six years, Louisville officials tried to do just that by threatening to force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs.” Chelsey said she hoped people would see the reason she fought for her free speech, even if they don't agree with her. NELSON: “What I wish more of them would understand is that I'm actually fighting for their right to create consistent with their beliefs, even though it's a separate worldview and belief system from my own.” “My witness to my children is very important to me. I would hate for them to grow up and look back and see that their mom cowered on this issue because she feared man more than she fears God. So that was an incredible inspiration to me.” 2 Timothy 2:15 says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.” Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, & Germany embrace abortion and perversion the most The worst nations in the world for attitudes towards homosexuality and abortion are Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and Germany. Sweden was the worst nation on all morality indexes. Nigeria, Kenya, and Indonesia maintained the highest moral conscience on moral issues, in this survey conducted by Pew Research. Of the 25 nations surveyed, the United States was the only country where the majority of the people surveyed considered their own nation as morally evil. Canada topped off as the most self-righteous nation, with 92% considering their citizenry to be morally good.  Trump shares Franklin Graham's evangelistic message on Truth Social U.S. President Donald Trump shared a letter on his Truth Social account on Sunday which had been sent to him by Evangelist Franklin Graham last October. Without any additional comment from President Trump, the letter from Franklin Graham contained a powerful evangelistic message, reminding him, “The only One who can save us from hell is Jesus Christ. You cannot save yourself. … The only way to Heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. God requires of us to turn from our sins, and by faith, believe in our heart, that Jesus Came to Earth, died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and God raised Him to life on the third day.” The letter closed with Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”  70% oppose sending Abortion Kill Pill in mail A large percentage of Americans oppose the Abortion Kill Pill being shipped through the mail. According to a new poll from CRC Research, 70% oppose abortion drugs being dispensed through the mail. Plus, nearly half of respondents say they would be less likely to support those who promoted the kill pills. Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said, “Voters could not be speaking any more clearly on abortion drugs flooding the mail, driving up abortion rates and undermining protections for women and children. They recognize this is an urgent public health and safety crisis that demands a return to common sense, like in-person doctor visits that were required under the first Trump administration.” Job 36:6 says, “He does not preserve the life of the wicked, but gives justice to the oppressed.” Beef and oil prices are spiking The price of beef is spiking as markets are volatile, oil prices remain high, and beef herds continue to diminish in the United States. In January 2026, only 86.2 million head of cattle were reported in the United States, the lowest number since 1951.  The war in Iran is also affecting the supply chain for fertilizer and oil, products the cattle industry relies upon heavily.  “Project Hail Mary” movie acknowledges God's providential control The film Project Hail Mary has topped the worldwide box office for two weekend in a row now. The Christian movie review organization, Movie Guide, touts the movie as “Christian” for its reference to a belief in God, and an acknowledgement of God's providential control over what happens. The story is about a school teacher who saves the world. Fox News called the film, starring Ryan Gosling, an anti-woke blockbuster. Megan Basham, Babylon Bee, and other conservative commentators gave the film a thumbs up.   Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 95% critics score, and a 96% audience score. And some say this may be the film that saves Hollywood.  The film has netted $300 million in two weekends. It's the top-grossing film of the year, thus far. However, parents should be warned that Focus on the Family reveals that God's name is used in vain 7 times, there are references to hooking up, and that the content is heavy for kids. The movie is based on the book by the same name written by Andy Weir which has been featured on the New York Times' best-seller list for 41 weeks in a row. He also wrote The Martian in 2011 which was adapted into the 2015 film of the same name starring Matt Damon and directed by Ridley Scott.  Another country music crossover into pop And finally, in pop media, country music is crossing over again onto the pop charts. Ella Langley, a Southern Baptist girl, made it to #1 on both charts with “Choosin' Texas.” The trend picks up with Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift's big hits from the early 2000s. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, March 31st, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Show, our host, Ballard Spahr's Alan Kaplinsky, was joined by colleagues Steven Burt and Melanie Vartabedian to explore a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex area of consumer financial services: residential solar finance. Building on prior discussions of the broader solar finance landscape, this episode zeroes in on the regulatory and litigation developments that are reshaping the residential solar market in real time. The discussion highlights how an industry that experienced explosive growth over the past decade is now facing heightened scrutiny from regulators, enforcement agencies, and private litigants alike. From Rapid Growth to Market Headwinds As Steven explained, the residential solar industry expanded dramatically between 2015 and 2022, driven by: Federal and state tax incentives Declining equipment costs Innovative financing models Aggressive direct-to-consumer sales strategies Growth peaked around 2023, but the market began to slow in 2024 and beyond due to several converging factors: Changes to net energy metering policies (particularly in California) Rising interest rates impacting financing affordability Supply chain constraints Increased emphasis on battery storage solutions Federal policy shifts, including reduced support for renewable energy and changes to tax credits These developments have forced industry participants to adapt quickly—often while still operating under legacy business models that are now attracting scrutiny. A Surge in Government Investigations and Enforcement One of the most significant themes discussed in the podcast is the sharp rise in government scrutiny. State attorneys general and consumer protection agencies across the country have launched investigations and enforcement actions targeting: Direct-to-consumer sales practices Marketing representations about energy savings and tax benefits Long-term financing structures, particularly loan-related fees A notable inflection point came in 2024, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a spotlight on solar financing, identifying risks such as: Alleged "hidden" dealer or platform fees Misleading claims regarding tax credits Misrepresentations about system performance and savings Since then, enforcement activity has expanded across numerous states, with additional investigations ongoing. Notably, even local regulators—such as New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection—have begun to assert jurisdiction, signaling a broader and more aggressive enforcement landscape. Private Litigation: Class Actions and the "Dealer Fee" Controversy Parallel to government activity, private litigation has surged. Melanie Vartabedian highlighted two major waves of litigation: 1. Earlier Cases: Sales Practices Initial lawsuits focused on: Unauthorized credit checks (FCRA claims) High-pressure or deceptive sales tactics Misrepresentations about tax savings and energy production 2. Current Wave: Financing Structures More recent cases center on dealer fees (also called platform or financing fees), with plaintiffs alleging that: ·        These fees are effectively hidden finance charges ·        They should be disclosed under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Courts in Minnesota have allowed these claims to proceed past motions to dismiss, rejecting arguments—at least at the early stage—that such fees are merely "seller's points" exempt from disclosure. While these rulings are preliminary, they have: ·        Opened the door to costly discovery ·        Encouraged additional class actions and enforcement cases ·        Created significant uncertainty regarding how courts will ultimately resolve the issue The Expanding Role of the FTC Holder Rule Another important litigation risk involves the FTC Holder Rule, which allows consumers to assert claims against loan holders that they could assert against installers. This creates potential exposure for: ·        Lenders ·        Secondary market participants ·        Securitization investors Although liability is generally capped at the amount of the loan, the rule can still create substantial risk, especially where plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts. Practical Guidance for Industry Participants The speakers emphasized that companies operating in the residential solar space must take proactive steps to manage risk. Key recommendations include: 1. Strengthen Compliance and Oversight Conduct comprehensive reviews of sales and marketing practices Ensure clear, accurate, and compliant disclosures Align legal and compliance teams with customer service functions to identify emerging issues early 2. Enhance Dealer and Partner Management Perform rigorous upfront diligence on third-party installers and sales organizations Implement ongoing monitoring and auditing Act quickly to address complaints or misconduct 3. Improve Transactional Transparency Reassess how pricing and fees—particularly dealer fees—are structured and disclosed Evaluate potential exposure under TILA and state consumer protection laws 4. Conduct Portfolio-Level Risk Assessments Carefully diligence solar loan portfolios prior to acquisition Consider litigation and regulatory risks embedded in originated assets 5. Stay Ahead of Policy and Enforcement Trends Monitor federal, state, and local regulatory developments Engage with industry groups and legal advisors Anticipate—not react to—regulatory changes What Lies Ahead: The Next 18–24 Months Looking forward, the panelists expect: Continued and expanding enforcement activity, particularly at the state level More class actions and private litigation, fueled by early court rulings Greater clarity regarding dealer fee treatment, as courts begin to rule on the merits Increased scrutiny of sales practices, especially those involving third-party dealers Importantly, the regulatory and litigation environment is unlikely to ease in the near term. Instead, companies should expect more investigations converting into enforcement actions and greater coordination among regulators. Key Takeaways As Alan Kaplinsky summarized, the message for industry participants is clear: ·        The residential solar market is entering a more challenging and regulated phase ·        Government scrutiny and private litigation are rising in tandem ·        Compliance, transparency, and oversight are no longer optional, they are essential Companies that proactively adapt to this new environment will be far better positioned than those that wait to respond under the pressure of an investigation or lawsuit. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.  

In this episode of Just Compensation, Megan Monson, Amy Komoroski Wiwi, and Amy C. Schwind discuss employment law updates and trends from 2025 and what employers should expect as 2026 continues. They delve into state-specific changes, noting minimum wage and salary threshold increases, prenatal leave and sick time, and independent contractor classifications, and other New York, New Jersey, and California legislation.  Speakers: Megan Monson, Partner, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Amy Wiwi, Partner, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Amy C. Schwind, Senior Counsel, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits

Host: Annik Sobing Guest: Valentin Povarchuk, Senior Counsel, Acrevis Law Group Published: March 2026 Length: ~35 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Lessons from Applied Materials: Export Controls, Entity List Risks, and Semiconductor Enforcement Annik Sobing welcomes Valentin Povarchuk, trade compliance expert with 20+ years across big law, in-house, and boutique firms, for a deep dive into export controls and sanctions—his thought leadership sweet spot. They unpack the Applied Materials $252M settlement for ion implanter sales to SMIC (despite BIS warnings and Entity List designation), Pterodyne Flare's $1M mitigated penalty (via voluntary disclosure), and how companies navigate entity list risks in semiconductors amid U.S.–China tensions. Valentin teases an April 7 free GTC webinar on due diligence. What You'll Learn in This Episode Valentin's background 20+ years advising on customs, AD/CVD, export controls, sanctions; now at Acrevis Law Group helping companies (esp. tech/startups) build compliance programs. Expert in entity list/entity alerts, corporate risk management—not just tariffs/customs. Semiconductor export controls 101 Focus on equipment/software for advanced chips (AI training), not just chips themselves; bipartisan consensus on China as tech adversary (Russia/Belarus secondary). Biden's AI Diffusion Rule (global licensing limits) revoked by Trump; new approach more “transactional” (trade for access). Uncertainty reigns—no clear replacement yet. Applied Materials case breakdown ($252M penalty) BIS sent is-informed letter warning off SMIC; later Entity List addition. Applied continued via South Korean plant (substantial transformation: assembly/testing to claim “Korean origin” tariffs now; semicon/tech under microscope—review Entity List diligence today. Is-informed = hard stop; don't “get creative” without weighing enforcement (spirit > letter). Voluntary disclosure works—self-report transparently for leniency. Join Valentin's free April 7 GTC webinar on due diligence. Credits Host: Annik Sobing Guest: Valentin Povarchuk Subscribe & Follow • YouTube • Spotify • Apple Podcasts Join the conversation with fellow trade professionals in the Trade Geeks Community: https://globaltrainingcenter.com/portal/?utm_source=SimplyTradePodcast

On today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast our host, Alan Kaplinsky, discusses the rapidly evolving landscape of federal financial supervision with Sherra Brown, Head of Regulatory Research and Analysis for the Americas at Vixio Regulatory Intelligence. Our conversation focuses on what may be a fundamental shift in supervisory practices at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the implications of parallel changes at the federal banking agencies. Recent reports suggest that the CFPB may dramatically scale back its supervisory program—potentially reducing the number of examinations from roughly 600 annually to about 70, conducting examinations entirely virtually, narrowing the scope of reviews, and even Introducing a so-called "humility pledge" for examiners. If implemented, these developments would represent a significant departure from the Bureau's prior supervisory posture. At the same time, the federal prudential banking regulators—the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Federal Reserve Board—are moving toward a more risk-focused examination model, eliminating "reputation risk" as a supervisory category and signaling a broader effort to reduce regulatory burden. Below are several key themes from our discussion. Possible Structural Changes to CFPB Supervision Sherra and Alan discussed reports that the CFPB could significantly reduce the scope and frequency of its supervisory examinations. The Bureau may move toward a model involving: 1.     Fully virtual examinations 2.     A dramatically smaller number of exams each year 3.     Narrower, risk-focused review areas 4.     Greater reliance on institutions' internal compliance testing The shift could also reflect staffing reductions and broader policy priorities under the current administration. While virtual examinations are not new, as they were widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential reduction in exam scope and volume would mark a major change. As Sherra noted, a narrower supervisory footprint raises an important question: is the Bureau fundamentally redesigning its supervisory model or simply doing the minimum necessary while its future remains uncertain? What a Virtual Examination Looks Like For institutions that have not experienced a virtual exam, the process is procedurally similar to traditional on-site supervision. Institutions typically receive a document request list and must provide materials electronically. Interviews and meetings with examiners occur via videoconference. However, the key difference is relational. Virtual supervision makes it harder for examiners and institutions to build the working relationships that often facilitate dialogue and clarification during an on-site review. Data integrity, document accessibility, and centralized record management become even more important in a virtual environment. Likely Areas of CFPB Focus Although the Bureau has not yet clearly identified which institutions will be examined, Sherra suggested that the focus will likely be on large banks rather than non-bank entities. She also noted that several areas historically emphasized by the CFPB appear unlikely to receive the same attention going forward. For example, the Bureau has backed away from certain fair-lending theories such as disparate impact. One area that appears likely to remain a priority is protections for service members, including compliance with the Military Lending Act. Prudential Regulators: A Parallel Shift While the CFPB's future direction remains uncertain, the prudential regulators have continued their examination programs. One of the most notable developments is the elimination of "reputation risk" as a supervisory category. The OCC has already removed it from examination practices, and both the FDIC and Federal Reserve have indicated similar intentions. Historically, reputation risk sometimes served as a catch-all category allowing regulators to pressure institutions even when no specific legal violation was identified. Its removal is part of a broader effort to focus supervision on clearly defined financial, operational, and compliance risks. At the same time, regulators appear to be tailoring examination intensity more carefully based on institutional size and risk profile, potentially reducing the burden on community banks. Compliance Should Not Be Relaxed Despite the apparent reduction in federal supervisory activity, Sherra emphasized that institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. Several factors make continued vigilance essential: 1.     State attorneys general remain active in consumer protection enforcement. 2.     Private litigation risk persists. 3.     Future administrations could revive aggressive federal supervision, potentially accompanied by look-back reviews. Strong documentation, robust complaint management processes, and clear audit trails remain essential. The Growing Role of States Another important theme from our discussion is the expanding role of state enforcement. Several states, including New York, California, and Massachusetts, have signaled their intention to fill any perceived gaps left by reduced federal oversight. State regulators and attorneys general continue to focus on issues such as fair lending, consumer protection violations, and deceptive practices. Accordingly, institutions operating nationally must consider not only federal expectations but also evolving state regulatory priorities. Five Practical Takeaways Five key takeaways for financial institutions navigating this changing supervisory environment are: 1.     Fewer examinations do not mean less regulatory risk. 2.     Complaint management and data analytics will become increasingly important. 3.     Documentation discipline is even more critical in a virtual examination environment. 4.     Institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. 5.     Board and senior management oversight remain essential. In short, while federal supervision may be evolving, the fundamental expectations for sound compliance and risk management remain unchanged. Listeners can access the full discussion on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, where Sherra Brown provides valuable insight into what may be one of the most significant shifts in federal financial supervision in recent years. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Chicago Way w/John Kass (03/17/26): This week, the Honorable Judge James R. Brown (ret.) returns to the podcast with Brendan Philbin, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, to discuss a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of Judge Brown, who was removed from his judicial recall appointment after Illinois Supreme Court justices retaliated […]

Is the FACE Act being enforced as Congress originally intended or has its selected application raised serious concerns about fairness, constitutional limits, and the protection of pro-life Americans?The FACE Act has returned to the national spotlight following charges against former CNN anchor Don Lemon for interfering with the religious exercise of worshippers at a Minnesota church last month. Enacted in 1994, the law was intended to protect access to both reproductive health facilities and houses of worship by imposing criminal and civil penalties on those who intimidate, injure, or obstruct individuals seeking to enter them.In recent years, however, questions have been raised about whether the statute has been enforced evenhandedly. The law has been used repeatedly to prosecute pro-life activists, while many pro-life pregnancy resource centers and churches that have faced vandalism, threats, and even firebombings have seen comparatively limited federal response. These concerns have fueled growing calls in Congress to repeal or reform the statute.Join us for a timely discussion as a panel of experts examines the FACE Act’s statutory framework, its recent enforcement, and the constitutional and policy questions surrounding its future.Featuring:Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteJeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, First LibertyErin Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together; Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the consumer financial services industry. From underwriting and fraud detection to customer engagement and collections, financial institutions are increasingly deploying advanced AI tools to automate processes, personalize services, and improve operational efficiency. We are releasing today, on our Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast show, a discussion of what may be the next major technological shift for the industry: Agentic AI in Consumer Financial Services — AI systems capable of acting autonomously, making decisions, and interacting directly with consumers. The discussion featured Professor Oren Bar-Gill of New York University School of Law, along with Ballard Spahr partners Joseph Schuster and Adam Maarec.  The discussion was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel. The panel examined how agentic AI differs from earlier forms of automation, the benefits it offers financial institutions and consumers, and the significant legal and regulatory risks it may create. Below are the key takeaways from the discussion. What Is Agentic AI? Agentic AI refers to AI systems that can independently take actions on behalf of users or organizations. Unlike traditional automation, which performs predefined tasks, or generative AI, which primarily produces content, agentic AI systems can: ·                 Make autonomous decisions ·                 Interact directly with consumers ·                 Initiate actions such as transactions or communications ·                 Learn from prior interactions In financial services, these systems may soon conduct customer service interactions, initiate collections calls, execute payments, or manage purchasing tasks for consumers. While these capabilities promise major efficiencies, they also raise complex legal questions regarding accountability, fairness, and consumer protection. Understanding AI-Driven Consumer Harm Professor Bar-Gill framed the discussion by examining potential consumer harms associated with AI-powered decision-making. Drawing on his recent book with Cass Sunstein, Algorithmic Harm: Protecting People in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, he explained that the impact of AI depends largely on the type of market in which it operates.  The book is available on Amazon here. Sophisticated vs. Unsophisticated Markets Bar-Gill distinguishes between: ·                 Sophisticated markets, where consumers are generally able to make informed decisions ·                 Unsophisticated markets, where consumers are more likely to misunderstand complex products In sophisticated markets, AI-driven personalization, such as individualized pricing, can increase efficiency and expand access to products by offering lower prices to consumers with lower willingness to pay. In contrast, in markets involving complex financial products, such as credit cards, mortgages, or insurance, AI-powered personalization may harm consumers who misjudge product costs or benefits. For example, if a consumer mistakenly overestimates the value of a financial product, an AI system may set the price just below that mistaken valuation, leading the consumer to pay more than the product is actually worth. Algorithmic Price Discrimination One area of growing concern is AI-enabled price discrimination, where algorithms tailor prices to each consumer's willingness to pay. Examples cited during the discussion included: ·                 Airlines experimenting with AI-based pricing strategies ·                 Online retail platforms offering individualized prices for identical products ·                 Insurance companies using algorithms to optimize premiums While pricing based on individual risk, such as in insurance underwriting, is widely accepted, pricing based on willingness to pay raises significant consumer protection concerns. As these practices expand, they are likely to attract increased attention from regulators and lawmakers, particularly at the state level. AI Use Cases in Consumer Finance The panel also highlighted several areas where AI is already being deployed across the consumer financial services lifecycle. Marketing and Customer Acquisition Financial institutions are using AI to analyze large data sets and create highly personalized marketing campaigns. Large language models can generate customized messaging tailored to specific demographic groups or individual consumers. While this personalization improves targeting and engagement, it also creates compliance challenges related to: ·                 Misleading advertising ·                 Disclosure requirements ·                 Potential discriminatory targeting Underwriting and Credit Decisions AI-driven underwriting tools allow lenders to analyze alternative data, such as cash-flow information, to assess creditworthiness. These tools may expand access to credit for consumers who previously lacked traditional credit histories. However, they also raise fair lending concerns under laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. Because many AI models operate as "black boxes," institutions may struggle to explain how decisions are made, an issue that can complicate discrimination analyses and regulatory oversight. Fraud Detection AI is particularly powerful in fraud detection, where pattern recognition is essential. Advanced models can analyze transaction behavior in real time to identify suspicious activity while minimizing unnecessary transaction declines. These tools also allow financial institutions to communicate with customers instantly, confirming transactions or investigating suspicious activity through automated interactions. Servicing and Collections Agentic AI may soon conduct both inbound and outbound customer interactions, including: ·                 Customer service conversations ·                 Dispute resolution ·                 Collections calls In some cases, AI-driven voice systems can conduct conversations that are indistinguishable from human interactions. While this technology may improve efficiency and reduce costs, it raises legal concerns about consumer deception, harassment, and compliance with debt collection laws. Core Legal Risks Despite the novelty of the technology, many of the key legal risks arise from existing laws, not new AI-specific statutes. Liability for AI Actions As Joseph Schuster emphasized, AI is a tool, not a liability shield. Institutions remain responsible for the actions of AI systems just as they would for the actions of employees or third-party vendors. Traditional legal doctrines, including agency law, vicarious liability, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, continue to apply. UDAP Risks AI systems interacting with consumers may create risks under federal and state UDAP laws if they: ·                 Provide inaccurate information ("hallucinations") ·                 Fail to deliver required disclosures ·                 Exhibit overconfidence in uncertain responses ·                 Engage in manipulative behavioral targeting. Fair Lending and Discrimination AI models can unintentionally produce discriminatory outcomes, even when protected characteristics are not used as inputs. As Professor Bar-Gill noted, future litigation may increasingly focus on disparate impact analysis, which examines whether outcomes disproportionately affect protected classes regardless of the model's internal logic. Governance and Risk Management Given these risks, institutions are increasingly adopting governance frameworks for AI deployment. Common practices include: ·                 AI governance committees with cross-functional participation ·                 Model inventories and risk-tiering systems ·                 Vendor due diligence for AI providers ·                 Data mapping and validation processes ·                 Continuous monitoring of AI outputs. Financial regulators are already asking supervised institutions detailed questions about how AI is being used. Institutions that implement structured governance processes are better positioned to respond to these inquiries. The Rise of Agentic Commerce One emerging application of agentic AI involves autonomous purchasing. For example, a consumer might instruct an AI assistant to plan and purchase supplies for a birthday party. The AI would then select vendors, place orders, and initiate payments using the consumer's stored payment credentials. But what happens if AI makes a mistake, such as ordering supplies for 1,000 guests instead of 10? Such scenarios raise difficult questions involving: ·                 consumer authorization ·                 merchant liability ·                 payment network rules ·                 dispute resolution These issues are only beginning to receive attention from regulators and industry participants. Key Takeaways for Financial Institutions The panel concluded with several recommendations for institutions exploring AI deployment. First, distinguish beneficial uses from harmful ones. AI can deliver significant consumer benefits, but firms must remain vigilant about potential misuse or unintended harm. Second, prioritize governance. Robust policies, oversight structures, and risk management processes are essential. Third, remember that existing laws still apply. AI systems must comply with the same consumer protection, fair lending, and disclosure requirements that govern traditional processes. Finally, institutions must recognize that failing to adopt AI also carries risks. As fraudsters increasingly deploy advanced technology, financial institutions may need AI tools simply to keep pace. As AI technology continues to evolve, the legal framework governing its use in financial services will also develop. For now, however, the most important lesson is that innovation must proceed hand-in-hand with careful legal and compliance oversight. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.