Get tomorrow's brief in your inbox
Today: Gen Digital settles a $9.95 million TCPA class action over automated Norton and LifeLock calls to non-customers, with claims due April 13. Globe Life agrees to $4.66 million for data breach failures affecting 530,000 policyholders. An Oregon federal judge rules that ICE's warrantless arrests and self-issued administrative warrants violate the Fourth Amendment, halting dragnet operations targeting agricultural workers.
Oregon Federal Court Halts ICE Warrantless Arrests
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an opinion blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from conducting warrantless arrests and relying on self-issued administrative paperwork instead of judicial warrants. The court found ICE agents conducted dragnet operations in Oregon towns they called "target rich," surveilling apartment complexes in agricultural communities, scanning license plates, and detaining residents before transporting them 144 miles to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington. The court stated the law is clear and undisputed: ICE officers must obtain a warrant in advance or demonstrate both that an individual is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. ICE's practice of issuing internal administrative warrants that require no judicial review violates the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected the government's claims that ICE agents had sufficient probable cause, noting officers asked few questions before shattering windows, handcuffing people, and detaining them.
FTC Issues February 2026 Refunds for Consumer Protection Violations
The Federal Trade Commission distributed refunds in February 2026 to consumers harmed by three enforcement actions. AH Media Group sent PayPal payments to consumers charged for "free trial" cosmetics and weight loss supplements after previous refund checks went uncashed. The FTC argued AH Media enrolled consumers in unwanted subscription plans with additional monthly charges without proper disclosure. Mission Hills Federal and affiliated companies sent a second round of refund checks totaling over $627,000 to more than 10,000 people who lost money to student loan debt relief schemes. The companies charged illegal upfront fees and falsely promised to lower or eliminate student loan payments but did not apply funds to loan balances. The companies were banned from telemarketing and debt relief services. Golden Sunrise settlement sent 578 checks totaling over $40,700 to consumers who bought treatment plans after the company agreed to settle FTC claims it falsely marketed products as treating or curing COVID-19, cancer, Parkinson's disease, and other serious health conditions between 2017 and 2020.
$9.95M Gen Digital TCPA Class Action Settlement (Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-MTL)
Gen Digital Inc., parent company of Norton and LifeLock, agreed to a $9.95 million settlement to resolve Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for unsolicited calls to non-customers between February 19, 2021, and October 30, 2025. The case, Michelle Jackson v. Gen Digital Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiffs alleged Gen Digital violated the TCPA by using artificial or prerecorded voices in calls regarding LifeLock and Norton accounts to cellular telephone numbers of persons who were not customers. Class members who submit valid claim forms will receive an estimated $200 to $625, depending on participation. The claim form deadline is April 13, 2026. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 14, 2026. Claimants must provide evidence of having received one or more calls with an artificial or prerecorded voice regarding a LifeLock or Norton account during the class period and attest they were not a customer when the calls were received.
Globe Life $4.66 Million Data Breach Settlement
Globe Life Inc. and American Income Life Insurance Co. reached a $4.66 million settlement in Texas federal court to resolve claims they failed to adequately protect personal information in a 2024 data breach. The settlement provides up to $3.4 million in cash payments to class members and $1.26 million in attorneys' fees, representing more than 530,000 individuals who received notice their information was potentially exposed. Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval on February 12. The lawsuit consolidated three proposed class actions claiming Globe Life and American Income Life failed to properly encrypt or redact sensitive information of clients and insurance applicants, leaving it vulnerable to theft during a 2024 cyberattack. Class members may receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for documented losses and compensation for lost time at $18 per hour for up to four hours. The agreement provides two years of credit monitoring. Globe Life notified approximately 850,000 individuals whose information was stored in databases linked to the breach. The case is In re: American Income Life Insurance Co. and Globe Life Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00262, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
PayByPhone Class Action Challenges Parking App Charging Practice (Case No. 3:26-cv-01266)
Plaintiff Justin Alicea filed a class action lawsuit in California federal court on February 11, 2026, alleging PayByPhone's mobile parking meter app deceptively begins charging consumers for parking while they are still on the payment selection screen. The complaint alleges PayByPhone violates California, Florida, Massachusetts, Washington, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws by departing from the traditional "payment-first" model where timers begin after transactions are processed. Alicea claims the app initiates parking sessions in the background as soon as a user selects a duration, even before selecting a payment method or clicking the final "Pay" button. The lawsuit alleges the interface obscures this early start time by displaying static duration labels. A user selecting "15 minutes" sees "Parking for 15 m" even if they spend several minutes entering payment information, resulting in significantly less time than paid for. The lawsuit asserts PayByPhone profits from this practice through flat service fees (such as 35 cents per session in San Francisco) by causing sessions to expire earlier, increasing the likelihood users pay for extension transactions or vacate for new paying customers. The proposed class seeks certification for users who paid for parking via the app within the last four to six years in the six states. The case is Alicea v. PayByPhone US Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01266, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Supreme Court Appellate Waiver Case (Hunter v. United States)
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in Hunter v. United States about exceptions to federal defendants' waivers of their right to appeal. Justices appeared poised to endorse more exceptions than the two the government proposed: ineffective assistance of counsel in entering plea agreements and sentences above the statutory maximum. Multiple justices expressed concern about relying solely on contract law to define exceptions to appellate waivers. A majority seemed likely to hold that defendants could escape appellate waivers when enforcing them would result in a "miscarriage of justice," a standard applied by several federal courts of appeals. Hunter pleaded guilty to one fraud count stemming from a decade-long financial scheme causing losses of nearly $500,000. In exchange, the government dismissed nine fraud counts and secured his agreement to waive his right to direct appeal and collateral review, except for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Hunter challenged a special condition of his supervised release requiring him to take prescribed medication for depression and anxiety. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed his appeal under the appellate waiver. Justice Elena Kagan questioned when the exception would apply, noting Hunter's counsel referenced contract defenses, a miscarriage-of-justice exception, errors outside the realm of plausibility, and constitutional violations without clear delineation.
OpenAI Pentagon Agreement Criticized for Weak Surveillance Restrictions
OpenAI faced criticism after filling the gap created when Anthropic refused to drop restrictions against using AI for surveillance and autonomous weapons systems. Following reports that ChatGPT uninstalls rose nearly 300% after the announcement, CEO Sam Altman published an internal memo stating that "Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, [and] FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals." The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued the government does not believe "consistent with applicable laws" means "no domestic surveillance" and has embraced lax interpretations that bless mass surveillance and large-scale civil liberties violations. The word "intentionally" fails to address incidental collection, as intelligence agencies have insisted mass surveillance of U.S. persons happens incidentally because communications with people inside and outside the United States are swept up in programs designed to collect only foreign communications. The contract amendment states the system "shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons' private information" and "shall not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law." EFF called these "weasel words" that create ambiguity protecting parties from accountability for contract violations. OpenAI noted the Pentagon promised the NSA would not use OpenAI's tools absent a new agreement and that deployment architecture will help verify no red lines are crossed, but EFF argued secret agreements and technical assurances have never been enough to rein in surveillance agencies and are no substitute for strong, enforceable legal limits and transparency.
AI-Generated Content IP Risk Management
The Debevoise Data Blog published guidance on managing intellectual property risks in AI-generated content for marketing and communications. Under current U.S. law, works generated solely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. Companies can claim copyright only in aspects reflecting meaningful human authorship, such as substantive editing, selection, arrangement, or creative modification of AI-generated material. AI-generated content may be suitable for background or short-lived assets where exclusivity is not critical, but reliance on unmodified or lightly edited AI outputs for flagship brand materials, national advertising campaigns, or proprietary visual identities can undermine or preclude efforts to secure and enforce ownership rights. Companies should document respective contributions of human authors and AI systems, including when, how, and to what extent AI-generated content is modified. Even where AI-generated output is not copyrightable, companies may protect and enforce rights in human-authored elements incorporated into final assets. Trademark and trade dress rights may offer alternative protection for brand identifiers, as trademark law does not impose a "human authorship" requirement. A wave of copyright infringement lawsuits has been brought against AI developers by copyright holders alleging unauthorized use of protected works in model development and operation.
Utah Proposes 2% Tax on Online Pornography (SB 73)
Utah Senate Bill 73 would levy a 2% "material harmful to minors" tax on revenues generated by sale of online pornography, reduced from an original 7% proposal. The bill passed the state Senate and is on track to clear the House and be signed by Gov. Spencer Cox. Funds would support enforcement of Utah's social media and pornography age verification laws. The bill makes it illegal to circumvent content blocks implemented by platforms due to age verification laws, punishable by civil penalties. The bill prohibits websites covered by age verification laws from offering Utah-based users information about using VPNs to circumvent content blocks. Specific language states: "A commercial entity that operates a website that contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors may not facilitate or encourage the use of a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to circumvent age verification requirements, including by providing: (a) instructions on how to use a virtual private network or proxy server to access the website; or (b) means for individuals in this state to circumvent geofencing or blocking." The bill raises First Amendment concerns and privacy concerns related to age verification technology. Utah has no authority to restrict communications of private companies to customers or supersede interstate commerce on lawful products and services.
Supreme Court Emergency Docket Procedures Defended
SCOTUSblog published analysis defending the Supreme Court's emergency docket procedures after the Court issued two emergency orders on Monday: Mirabelli v. Bonta, vacating the 9th Circuit's stay of a district court injunction protecting parents from California's gender-identity nondisclosure policies, and Malliotakis v. Williams, staying a New York trial court order that would have redrawn a congressional district before the 2026 midterms. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in Mirabelli complained the Court resolved "novel legal questions" with "scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing," without oral argument, on a "short fuse." Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in Malliotakis stated the order "can be summarized in just 7: 'Rules for thee, but not for me.'" The analysis argued critics identify no rule the Court violated, only a preference for more waiting, but that standard has never governed the emergency docket. The Court has authority to act to protect potential future jurisdiction even before a case is in final appellate posture to prevent irreversible facts on the ground from mooting constitutional questions. There is no rule requiring en banc exhaustion before seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The standard governing emergency applications is the four-factor framework from Nken v. Holder (2009): likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The majority of emergency applications are filed immediately after adverse panel rulings, before the 14-day window for seeking panel or en banc rehearing has closed.
TCPA Compliance Audit Due: Companies using automated dialing systems or prerecorded voice messages must verify all outbound calls are directed only to current customers or individuals who provided express written consent. The Gen Digital settlement demonstrates TCPA liability for calls to non-customers. Update customer verification processes and implement pre-call database checks before April 13, 2026, claim deadline.
Data Breach Encryption Review: Insurance providers and companies handling large customer databases (500,000+ records) must implement encryption at rest for all personally identifiable information following the Globe Life $4.66 million settlement. Conduct security assessments for legacy systems storing applicant and policyholder data by Q2 2026.
AI Service Government Contracts: Organizations providing AI tools to government agencies must replace "consistent with applicable law" language with specific technical prohibitions and independent oversight mechanisms. The OpenAI-Pentagon agreement demonstrates that broad compliance clauses provide no meaningful surveillance restrictions. Establish third-party auditing for government AI deployments.
Immigration Enforcement Cooperation: State and local law enforcement agencies must review cooperation agreements with ICE following the Oregon federal court ruling that warrantless arrests and self-issued administrative warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. Require judicial warrants before detaining individuals for immigration purposes to limit constitutional liability exposure.
AI-Generated Content Documentation: Marketing and communications teams must document human contributions to AI-generated content before deploying assets for flagship campaigns, advertising, or proprietary brand materials. Works generated solely by AI have no copyright protection under current U.S. law. Develop internal policies distinguishing AI use for low-value assets from high-value materials requiring substantive human authorship to preserve ownership rights.