Hunton Retail Law Resource

Retailers continue to deploy AI throughout their enterprises, with particular emphasis on enhancing operational productivity. One area where AI can improve operational efficiency is predictive inventory and logistics planning. Yet the technology is not without risk, and businesses should understand both the challenges associated with deploying AI and the ways they can mitigate supply chain and logistics disruptions through insurance and other forms of risk transfer when the technology fails to perform.

The NCAA’s eligibility rules have been facing growing antitrust pressure as athletes argue that limits on how long they can compete effectively limit how long they can earn from name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) opportunities and revenue-sharing income tied to Division I sports. Current NCAA Bylaw 12.6 allows Division I athletes five years to complete four seasons of competition, with exceptions tied to injuries, illnesses, transfers, and redshirt rules. Athletes are challenging those rules as anticompetitive under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Self-checkout has become a familiar feature in many retail stores, but it is also drawing increasing attention from state and local lawmakers. Several US states have proposed legislation to restrict self-checkout usage largely in response to theft and labor concerns. While no statewide bills have been signed into law, this is a trend retailers should watch closely.

Retail employers are navigating an immigration compliance environment that is becoming more complex at both the operational and strategic levels. Recent policy changes require employers to respond to shifting humanitarian-based work authorization categories, while proposed wage changes could reshape the economics of hiring and retaining professional foreign national talent. 

National advertising campaigns of old required multi-day model shoots, multi-camera video productions, and multi-disciplinary graphic creation. Generative AI advertising, however, has opened a new chapter in marketing ideation and production. For retailers in particular, these tools make it faster and cheaper to create digital ads, seasonal promotions, product images, and social media content—often without involving traditional agencies or creative teams. Even old commercials and brand stories, once thought to be merely corporate history, are getting new life and are being reimagined and repurposed. While the speed-to-market and costs perspective advantages of AI generated advertising are adulated by their developers, the risks—and who bears the responsibility for those risks—are often understated. 

Recent product liability cases against A.I. companies are applying traditional product liability theories to a new technology. In February 2026, the California Superior Court for San Francisco County entered an order coordinating twelve cases pending against defendant OpenAI. See In re: ChatGPT Prod. Liab. Cases, Cal.Super. Ct., JCCP No. 5431. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI’s ChatGPT is unreasonably dangerous and caused psychological harm to plaintiffs or their family members by reinforcing delusional beliefs, endorsing suicidal ideation and providing information to decedents about how to harm themselves, and contributing to users’ psychological deterioration. 

The U.S. Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that would create a uniform standard for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.  The proposed rule has significant implications for employers who share workers or rely on contractors, because a joint-employment finding may expand liability to multiple employers for wage-and-hour violations, leave obligations, and other statutory compliance issues.  The agency has said the proposed rule is intended to “reduce compliance and litigation costs, improve the Department’s ability to enforce the law, and help workers to better understand their rights and available remedies” while also promoting “greater uniformity in the analysis applied by courts.”

On March 12, 2026, we published a blog post discussing the implications of the U.S. Mint ceasing penny production and the various legal and tax implications for multistate businesses. As discussed, each state has legislative discretion on how to address these issues.

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York offers useful guidance for retailers defending website accessibility claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Jones v. Moscot.com, LLC, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s ADA claim as moot after concluding that the retailer’s remediation efforts and ongoing accessibility measures eliminated any live controversy. As background, Title III of the ADA provides a narrow remedial framework for private plaintiffs, only authorizing civil actions for preventative relief via injunctions and restraining orders. Monetary damages are not available to private plaintiffs for a past violation, so the success of a plaintiff’s ADA accessibility claim depends on a showing that the violation will continue.

California finalized its extended producer responsibility regulations effective May 1, 2026, requiring producers to register by June 1 through Circular Action Alliance or CalRecycle. CalRecycle also launched a new compliance system, while Circular Action Alliance issued non-binding illustrative fees ahead of final rates expected in October 2026.