Hunton Retail Law Resource

What if courts used artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the plain meaning of undefined terms, including terms in insurance policies? Eleventh Circuit Judge Newsom ponders that very question in his concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, decided May 28, 2024. In a recent Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog post discussing the intersection of AI and insurance, insurance coverage partner Michael S. Levine and associate Alex D. Pappas unpack Judge Newsom’s concurring opinion. In doing so, they not only discuss the pros and cons of using AI to discern the plain meaning of certain words and phrases, but they discuss whether AI can answer a vexing question on the minds of insurers and policyholders alike: what is AI and how should it be defined?

The FTC is once again taking issue with hidden fees, suing Adobe, Inc., alleging the company and two corporate executives deceived consumers by hiding the early termination fee for a popular subscription plan and making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions.

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs announced an investigation into the popular kids YouTube channel “Vlad and Niki,” owned by Content Media Group FZC, LLC (CMG), which produces videos under various licensing and merchandising agreements. Because these agreements obligate CMG to produce the videos and allow CMG to share in generated revenue, CARU considers CMG an endorser of the products in Vlad and Niki videos and subject to CARU’s Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children’s Advertising.

On May 2, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a decision ruling that initiation of an e-commerce website’s procedure to evaluate patent infringement claims subjects the initiating party to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state. Retailers and consumer products companies may wish to consider the possibility of ending up in federal court in a non-preferred venue prior to using one of these programs.

On May 9, 2024, the First Circuit became the first federal appellate court to address whether national retail websites’ use of session replay code creates specific personal jurisdiction for wiretapping claims allowing website users to hale retailers into court in any state where they visited these websites. The First Circuit concluded that it does not. It held that a website user failed to demonstrate that Ohio-based Bloomingdales.com intentionally targeted its website and its accompanying use of session replay software at users in Massachusetts and, therefore, failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over Bloomingdales.com for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Act and Massachusetts Invasion of Privacy Statute. Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, No. 23-1683, 2024 WL 2074685 (1st Cir. May 9, 2024).