Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Tampa, Florida, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm's Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Trained as an employee benefits lawyer, focused on compliance, Joe also is a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group.

In short, his practice focuses on the matrix of laws governing the privacy, security, and management of data, as well as the impact and regulation of social media. He also counsels companies on compliance, fiduciary, taxation, and administrative matters with respect to employee benefit plans.

Artificial intelligence has quickly become part of the modern lawyer’s toolkit. Attorneys are using generative AI platforms to assist with legal research, drafting, editing, and document review. While these technologies can improve efficiency, a growing number of court filings across the country demonstrate a significant risk: AI-generated hallucinations, including fabricated case citations, nonexistent authorities, and

Key Takeaways

  • Outlines key considerations for businesses using productivity management and monitoring platforms – such as, Teramind, ActivTrak, and Insightful – and whether their use may require a CCPA risk assessment.
  • Identifies the specific CCPA risk assessment triggers most relevant to such productivity technologies.

Productivity management and monitoring platforms have become a fixture of the

Key Takeaways

  • Analyzes whether recording customer service and sales calls triggers the CCPA’s new risk assessment requirements.
  • Identifies the specific CCPA triggers most relevant to call recording, particularly when AI analytics are applied to recordings.
  • Notes related obligations under state wiretapping laws and other state privacy frameworks.

Recording customer calls is among the most common

State breach-notification laws continue to evolve, and legislatures are using 2026 sessions to tighten consumer protections and shift the civil liability landscape that often follows a cyber event.

For businesses, the practical takeaway is that incident response planning increasingly needs to account not only for “whether notice is required,” but also for hard timelines, regulator-facing

Key Takeaways

  • Examines how AI-driven hiring and applicant screening tools interact with the CCPA’s new risk assessment requirements.
  • Identifies the CCPA risk assessment triggers most likely to apply—including automated decision-making and systematic observation of applicants.

Artificial intelligence has made significant inroads into the hiring process. Employers increasingly rely on AI-driven tools to screen resumes, analyze

A recent Inc. article highlights an unsettling controversy involving Delve, a Y Combinator-backed compliance startup, and allegations that strike at the heart of how organizations rely on SOC (System and Organization Controls) 2 reports which evaluate an organization’s internal controls over security, availability, and privacy.

According to the report, a whistleblower investigation alleges that Delve

When assisting businesses with the commercial aspects of the California Consumer Privacy Act, we advise them that this same law, with “consumer” in its name, also applies to data related to job applicants, employees, contractors, and other California state residents. Some are surprised, but we get to work addressing some nuanced issues, as some

Every so often a law that was passed years ago quietly becomes a present-day compliance reality. Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is one of those laws. Tucked into an eleven-hundred-page infrastructure bill with little public debate, the “kill switch law” as it has come to be known by some, awaits

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently announced a HIPAA enforcement action against an employer-sponsored group health plan. The action resulted in a payment to HHS of $245,000 and a two-year corrective action plan. While HIPAA enforcement is common in the healthcare sector, actions directly against employer-sponsored