Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editors' note: Canada's national spam task force delivered its report in May to Industry Minister David Emerson. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and a member of the Board of Editors of our sibling publication Internet Law & Strategy, was on the task force and served as co-chair of the law and regulatory working group. The task force helped facilitate a series of cases, including Geist's own privacy complaint against the Ottawa Renegades football team over unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to him, to test the current Canadian legal framework.
The Government of Canada's Task Force on Spam concluded that the current laws governing spam are not good enough. While Canada alone is not able to deal with the spam problem nationwide, it must at least deal with the spammers in its own backyard. The current legal framework contains some significant holes and the task force's recommendations call for a spam-specific law accompanied by a new separate body to work on policy and enforcement coordination.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.