Starting July 20, 2026, anyone walking into a New York State courthouse with smart glasses on (Meta’s Ray-Ban line or any similar device carrying a camera, microphone, or onboard processor) will need to hand them over to a court officer at the door before going any further. The directive comes from a July 1, 2026, Memorandum issued by the New York State Office of Court Administration, making New York the first state in the country to impose this kind of sweeping, systemwide restriction, reaching every level of the state’s court system.
The scope is intentionally wide. It reaches lawyers, parties to a case, witnesses, relatives sitting in the gallery, court staff, and ordinary visitors alike. Even smart glasses fitted with prescription lenses are banned. Anyone with prescription smart glasses should plan to carry a spare set of ordinary prescription glasses for the day.
A federal judge recently concluded that the defendant in a white-collar securities dispute may not claim that his conversations with the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, Claude, are privileged. Litigators and clients now must take heed.
Biometric technologies—such as fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems, and retina scans—are now commonplace in modern business operations. From employee timekeeping systems to facility security and customer-facing applications, these tools offer efficiency and convenience for many businesses. But these same conveniences have sparked backlash in the form of privacy litigation. In Illinois especially, companies are facing a surge of class-action lawsuits under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a pioneering law that imposes strict requirements on the use of biometric data and hefty penalties for companies failing to adhere to the law. This trend is not confined to Illinois: a growing patchwork of similar laws in other states means that using biometrics without proper safeguards can expose companies nationwide to significant statutory damages and legal risks.
Recent decisions from the European Union (EU) have placed renewed focus on the use of common cookies used on ecommerce and other websites used by consumers and employees and transfers of personal data collected through cookies to the United States. The EU Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) found that the use of widely used website technologies (i.e., cookies and java script) to automatically collect identifiers from the users’ devices or through their use of internet protocols (e.g., IP addresses) resulted in the collection of personal data. The DPAs further found that the subsequent transfer of this data to Google servers located in the United States violated EU cross-border data transfer requirements because there were inadequate safeguards under the Schrems II decision invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield. One notable impact of the decisions is to dismiss the adequacy of encryption technologies where the service provider (such as Google) has access to the cryptographic key and can be compelled to surrender it in order for the data to be decrypted and read by U.S. surveillance authorities. Consideration of the impact of these decisions is critically important for ecommerce and other websites operating in the EU, as well as more generally for organizations that transfer personal data of consumers and employees to the U.S.
Last week, FINRA published its 2022 Report on its Examination and Risk Monitoring Program (the “Report”), identifying key areas of focus for broker-dealer exams this year. The Report contains many of the same areas of focus as last year’s report, including anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, Reg BI and Form CRS, communications with the public, best execution and segregation of customer funds. Although the Report again identifies these general areas, it identifies new concerns and recent examination findings in those areas. In an effort to be user friendly, the Report highlights that new content in bold and identifies new areas for 2022. A key takeaway from the Report is the continued challenges posed by technology.
Recent Updates
- The Courthouse Banned Your AI Glasses: What New York’s Smart Glasses Rule Means for Litigants and Counsel
- Fall 2026 SCOTUS Preview: Cases to Watch
- Same Trade Secret Dispute, Different Injunction Standards: PCC Airfoils v. Daugherty, et al., and Forum Choice in Ohio
- ABA and FWA: Compliance Best Practices
- Regulatory Scrutiny in ABA: What Providers Need to Know About Compliance Oversight