公共政策和监管

  • 荷兰省和骑士的公共政策和监管集团是一支强大的两党团队,华盛顿州的深层关系,D.C。我们通过我们的经验和多样性建立了一个蓬勃发展的政府事务实践 - 并通过维持我们的两党方法。虽然一些公司的范围是根据哪个方的波动,但在代表客户倡导时培养过道两侧的长期关系,荷兰和骑士仍然稳定。
  • 诚实,能力,有说服力的沟通和深刻,过道两侧的长期关系是该公司处理国会和联邦政府时的标志性状。我们的律师和专业人士团队与您携手合作,并在联邦政策制新万博manbetx官网下载定者之前保持关键立法问题的声音。作为您的倡导者,我们通过认真的战略定位与您合作,以塑造公共政策决策。
  • 我们的经验丰富的团队由律师和游说者组成,全面了解联邦立法和机构政策制定流程。该公司在华盛顿州的前10名联邦游说和律师事务所中得到了认可。影响国家杂志点名华盛顿商务杂志
  • 我们将小企业文化与大公司合并,为您提供个性化的关注和彻底的政府代表。
政府

概述

政府 - 地方,部落,国家和联邦 - 担任监管机构,客户,竞争对手,倡导者和对手。政府实体的移位动态以及随后的经济或政治政策,法律法规对您的业务的健康和未来产生了关键影响。

在面对预期或意外问题的情况下保持竞争优势需要超过警惕。它对联邦政策和监管程序进行了深入了解,这是对您的行业和需求的直观意识,积极创造机会和战略的能力,以及在最高级别的政府中的说服性宣传。

荷兰省和骑士的公共政策和法规集团利用对政府运营和政治观点的深入了解,了解您的独特和不断发展的需要推进您的战略目标并解决问题。

我们通过政策深度和经验,政治实力,媒体精明和在各种实践中获得全国资源的组合来实现这一目标。这是一个公式,在公共政策和法律领先行业出版物中排名第一的公司中排名第一的公司。

你的声音。我们的宣传。

我们的哲学是作为您团队的扩展作用。

在制定影响您的行业的立法,监管和运营问题上,您可以发挥作用的作用作用。我们与您携手合作,以保持您在联邦政策制定者前面和中心的关键立法问题。作为您的倡导者,我们通过仔细,战略定位帮助您塑造公共政策决策。我们知道如何,何时以及何时介入以获得所需的结果。

我们的团队提供深度,多样性和两党的方法,这些方法已经成功地在政治气候中变化。诚实,能力,有说服力的沟通和深刻,过道两侧的长期关系是该公司处理国会和联邦政府时的标志性状。

这使我们在联邦拨款,赠款,监管,立法和授权程序中的广泛技能和经验,是我们帮助您实现目标的方法的基础。

我们的团队是你的力量

我们的公共政策和监管集团具有律师和游说家的理想结合,全面了解联邦政府和监管程序。我们团队的综合经验使我们能够为客户提供各种复杂政策领域所必需的至关重要的法律建议,并获得双方的主要决策者所需的权利。

我们完全从事荷兰境内的所有资源,以确保经验丰富,创造性和及时的服务到我们的公共政策客户。这种跨学科方法为您提供了对围绕对您最重要的问题的法律,政治,监管,业务和媒体组成部分完全分析。

我们国会的关系,白宫和行政部门是我们最强大的资源。我们的Bipartisan团队与联邦和州级别的多数和少数民族领导人保持了强有力的职业关系,我们经常与每个拨款委员会和小组委员会和实质性授权委员会合作。

在多个行业塑造决定manbetx万博app下载

多年来,我们代表了公司,贸易协会,非营利组织,部落实体和外国,国家和地方政府,涉及广泛行业的立法,包括:manbetx万博app下载

  • 医疗保健和生命科学
  • 通讯
  • 国防和外交政策
  • 教育
  • 活力
  • 金融服务
  • 国土安全
  • 印度事务
  • 国家和地方政府
  • 税收
  • 运输
  • 环境与水法

实例探究

多媒体

In the first episode of our Consumer Protection Defense and Compliance team's \"Clearly Conspicuous\" podcast series, attorneys Anthony DiResta and Da’Morus Cohen reflect on an interview they conducted with Michael Ostheimer, a senior lawyer at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). He is one of the key players in regulating and enforcing the laws concerning social media advertising and marketing. In the interview, Mr. Ostheimer discussed a number of rules, regulations and guidance that apply to social media advertising and the role of the FTC in regulating and enforcing those rules and regulations. Mr. DiResta and Mr. Cohen highlight a couple of the key takeaways and practical tips from the interview that professionals in the space need to know about.

\n

Duration 12:51

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Anthony DiResta: Hello, this is Tony DiResta, a partner in Holland & Knight, and I'm privileged to co-chair the firm's Consumer Protection team and I'm a former director at the Federal Trade Commission.

\n

Da'Morus Cohen: Good morning, I'm Da'Morus Cohen. I'm a partner at Holland & Knight here in the Miami office, and I'm also a member of the firm's Consumer Protection team, along with Tony. I focus my practice primarily on all aspects of advertising, marketing, promotional compliance, and both the social media and digital media spaces.

\n

Anthony DiResta: Today, we're launching a series called Clearly Conspicuous that's designed to give you practical and up-to-date information about consumer protection issues you need to know about, as well as what's going on with governmental regulators and law enforcers. Our series will feature various members of the firm's Consumer Protection team, who will cover a broad range of topics in the consumer protection space, and we hope you find it valuable.

\n

Da'Morus Cohen: As Tony said, we'll be covering a number of topics in the consumer protection space, and today we want to tell you about an interview we recently held with Michael Ostheimer, a senior lawyer at the FTC who is one of the key players in regulating and enforcing the laws concerning social media advertising and marketing. Mr. Ostheimer's interview is one of many that we'll feature as part of our team's initiative to bring what we call \"Conversations that Matter\" to the forefront. In that interview, we discussed a number of rules, regulations and guidance that apply to social media advertising and the role of the FTC in regulating and enforcing those rules and regulations.

\n

Anthony DiResta: Indeed, Michael covered a broad range of practical topics and developments that impact what you and your companies are doing on social media. These topics included trends in social media, the role of disclosures, disclaimers, the use of blogs, celebrities and influencers, the revisions to the FTC guides on testimonials on endorsements, employee posts, reviews of products and services, FTC law enforcement actions, warning letters and other initiatives by the government, and social media policies and procedures. Obviously, a lot of ground was covered, and what we wanted to do in the next few minutes is to give you a couple of the key takeaways and practical tips that you need to know about.

\n

Social Media Policies and Disclosures

\n

Da'Morus Cohen: As Tony mentioned, we covered a lot of ground and a lot of material during our interview with Michael Ostheimer, and so for our key takeaways, I'll cover social media policies and disclosures and Tony will conclude with FTC law and enforcement actions. So, to jump in, social media policies, a big topic that we've chatted about a number of times over the past few years in previous interviews that we did with Michael Ostheimer. At the forefront, social media policies are a must. Every business that engages in social media advertising or that has a social media footprint, whether it be through itself or its employees, must have a formal social media policy. These policies should be implemented with management oversight and must be effective. The policies should be communicated to third party vendors as well as employees. The FTC also expects marketers to train employees on proper social media use. This obligation may extend beyond employees to third party agents, depending on the underlying relationship with that third party agent or the marketer. Finally, some form of monitoring is expected to ensure compliance with the market or social media policies and the FTC regulations and guidance.

\n

And from that we segue into social media disclosures. Disclosures are required no matter the social media platform that's being used. This includes well-known, high-profile platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, as well as YouTube and Twitter. This list is clearly not exhaustive. The rule is simple: If your company is advertising and disclosures would otherwise be required, include disclosures in your social media posts. Visual disclosures and audible disclosures may be required. This requirement may not only be limited to videos. Disclosures should be prominent and appear first. For instance, on Instagram, disclosures should appear in the first two to three sentences of the caption to be truly conspicuous and should not appear within a \"More\" link, which should appear above. Should gifts or other items be disclosed? This is a question that's routinely asked. Absolutely. It is critical for companies to disclose the material connection between any influencer or speaker and the brand, so [that] consumers know that this is an incentive that underlines the promotion. A free sample provides a material connection, as does an invitation to a party. Tony, you take it over from here.

\n
The rule is simple: If your company is advertising and disclosures would otherwise be required, include disclosures in your social media posts.
\n

FTC Law and Enforcement Actions

\n

Anthony DiResta: Thanks Da'Morus. With respect to law enforcement, I get this question quite a bit in terms of what does the FTC look to, what's the criteria, what triggers the sending of a subpoena or an access letter. And there are several factors that lead the FTC or any governmental agency to commence an investigation. The factors include consumer complaints -- they could come from the Better Business Bureau or state attorney general or right from the Consumer Sentinel itself at the FTC; actual monitoring by the FTC staff -- and they're very active, surfing the Web on a daily basis to look for actors or companies or targets they want to focus on. They're looking for a high number of reviews by the companies to see how active the company is and its social media engagement. There's whistleblowers, there's competitors. There's news stories. I've seen several investigations being triggered by the actual media interest in a particular situation or that's targeting a particular company. There's congressional inquiries. There's actual sweeps of industry practices by the Federal Trade Commission, or if they see certain conduct that's really problematic or characters or stakeholders that are being, shall we say, acting improperly, that the government feels they need to make a fix. There's referrals from consumer groups, and there's referrals from the NAD, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau. Importantly, the FTC does have their substantive priorities. So whether it's health, safety, financial security, or other pressing policy or consumer issues, and whether egregious conduct is in play, they're going to look at the method of communication from the company to the consumer: how is this information being disseminated and whether it's deceptive or unfair. And so they're also going to be concerned about emerging industries and emerging technologies as well, as companies become more and more sophisticated with these emerging technologies.

\n
Whether it's health, safety, financial security, or other pressing policy or consumer issues, and whether egregious conduct is in play, they're going to look at the method of communication from the company to the consumer: how is this information being disseminated and whether it's deceptive or unfair.
\n

So I also want to emphasize a very, very important point, because I think many companies believe they have a very effective compliance management system. They have policies and procedures, they're in writing, you know, so they think they're all buttoned up. But there's two other factors the FTC looks at in terms of the integrity and the evaluation of a compliance management system. Not only does it have to be in writing, it has to be well implemented. By that, what kind of training do you do for your employees or your third party vendors, and, if some of these agents fall off the reservation, what kind of disciplining takes place? Again, that goes in the implementation bucket. But you can have, according to the FTC's mindset, very solid policies and procedures that are implemented. But are they effective? Are they seeing the problems occurring over and over and over again? So the FTC is going to ask the question, what kind of monitoring, what kind of auditing are you doing to be sure that these policies and procedures as implemented are being effective? So be sure you take your policy and procedure analysis to those three steps that are very, very important.

\n
There's two other factors the FTC looks at in terms of the integrity and the evaluation of a compliance management system. Not only does it have to be in writing, it has to be well implemented.
\n

And finally, I want to get to relief in terms of what does the FTC do when they bring in companies and law enforcement action? Two forms of relief are injunctive relief, which are changes to the organizations, the policies and the procedures, the way the business is conducting itself, but also with respect to monetary relief. And Michael stressed in our interview with him that they are going to be looking at monetary relief in all advertising cases moving forward. So brands are really subject to these monetary penalties. And it's important to note in probably this upcoming administration that brands -- major brands -- are going to be held to a higher standard because they're trusted by consumers. And finally, I'm going to make the point that the FTC works actively with other law enforcement partners to monitor social media advertising. The FTC does not work in an echo chamber. They have memorandum of understanding, for example, with the Food and Drug Administration. They engage in sweeps with their partners in the states, with state attorneys general. And they're certainly working closely right now with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. I'll note that the nominee for the director of the CFPB, Mr. [Rohit] Chopra, is currently a commissioner at the FTC, so there's a lot of familiarity between goings on at the CFPB and the FTC.

\n

So in conclusion, if you have any questions, please feel free to email or call Da'Morus and me. We look forward to more having more sessions with you and becoming a more effective partner with you as you engage in your social media advertising.

\n

Da'Morus Cohen: Thank you, Tony. That was a great summary. And with that, everyone, we wish you success in your marketing efforts, and we look forward to providing useful and practical information that will enhance your success. Have a great day.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: Insights from Our Interview with FTC Senior Lawyer Michael Ostheimer","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-insights-from-our-interview-with-ftc-lawyer-michael-ostheimer","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-insights-from-our-interview-with-ftc-lawyer-michael-ostheimer","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/media_first100dayspodcastep3_still.jpg","alt":"White House with blue sky in background"},"description":"

In the third episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration\" podcast series, Trade Partner Nasim Fussell and Tax Attorneys Alan Granwell and Joshua Odintz continue a discussion on the current state of the digital economy and digital services taxes (DST). They provide an update on DSTs in the U.S. and abroad and look at the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) plans for addressing DSTs and working with the OECD.

\n

For more in-depth info on the Biden Administration's Made in America Tax Plan and its interaction with OECD Inclusive Framework, read our recent alert.

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Nasim Fussell: Welcome back, everybody, to our second podcast on the digital economy and tax. I am Nasim Fussell. I'm a partner in the trade group at Holland & Knight, and I am joined once again today by two of our Holland & Knight tax gurus, Josh Odintz and Alan Granwell. We hope you had the opportunity to listen to our last podcast, essentially laying the framework for you on what is going on with digital services taxes. What are these taxes? Why the proliferation of these taxes around the world? And what is the United States and its trading partners doing to address these taxes and find an agreement on the global stage? So, with that, today we are going to just spend some time updating you on what has happened since we were last all together, talking about this very interesting topic.

\n

An Update on USTR and DSTs

\n

Nasim Fussell: On the trade front, when we got together last time, I gave you a brief overview of the latest actions taken by the Biden Administration. If you go back to last year when the last USTR started a number of investigations under the auspices of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, essentially they started these investigations and concluded before leaving office that these taxes were, in fact, discriminatory and unfairly targeting U.S. companies. However, they didn't take action. There was a lot of anticipation that that they would take action on their way out the door and impose tariffs, but they did not do so and they left that for the Biden Administration. At the end of March, the Biden Administration, through USTR, announced that it was going to seek comment from the public on a potential trade action against a number of the countries that USTR had investigated. That includes Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. USTR asked for public comment and also announced multijurisdictional as well as individual hearings on these various investigations that will be happening in the beginning of May. So if you are interested in commenting, we encourage you to get your comments in. If we can be of assistance, we would be very happy to and please feel free to reach out. The comments are due by April 30, and USTR is also asking if companies or organizations would like to appear at the hearing, that they submit their request for appearance by April 21, along with testimony. Again, these hearings will be held in early May, ranging from May 4 through May 11. Now another interesting development, at the end of March USTR announced that it would not be proceeding with investigations. At the last, USTR had begun on the DSTs that had been proposed by the European Union, the Czech Republic, Brazil and Indonesia. USTR indicated that these jurisdictions had not adopted or implemented the taxes, that it would be terminating the investigation. So that's where we are now on the trade front. Notably, USTR also said that it was going to continue to remain focused on the OECD process and committed to finding a solution there, but that it wanted to maintain its options, including tariffs in the meantime. With that, I want to hand it over to Alan to talk to us about what is going on in the tax universe. There's just been a flurry of activity and it all may very well determine what happens when it comes to the trade actions or not. So, Alan, over to you. Maybe you can clear some of this up for us.

\n
USTR also said that it was going to continue to remain focused on the OECD process and committed to finding a solution there, but that it wanted to maintain its options, including tariffs in the meantime.
\n

An Update on Taxes in the U.S. and Abroad

\n

Alan Granwell: Thank you so much and welcome, everybody. There, as Nasim has mentioned, really been a frenetic force of activities in the last week or so, every day something else comes out. Let me summarize it and then Josh and I will sort of chat about this in high-level terms. As you are undoubtedly aware, last week, the president announced his jobs plan, this major initiative to invest in American infrastructure, research, technology, green energy, which is more than the hard type of infrastructure, roads, airports and other types of facilities. This plan is proposed to be funded primarily by increases in corporate taxation, which we'll describe, and it's summarized in another document the administration released called the Made in America Tax Plan. Under this particular plan, the U.S. corporate income tax rate would be increased from 21 to 28 percent. There would be an adoption of a 21 percent global minimum tax on foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations. There would be incentivization for U.S. corporates to invest in the U.S. and in jobs, and a disincentive of the U.S. corporates to invest abroad and jobs, and also a disincentive in terms of profit shifting. All of this would be monitored by increases in the IRS budget on the compliance front. Well, the reaction to the infrastructure is one thing. I think the parties agree that infrastructure should be improved, but there has been a significant counter reaction to the increase in corporate rates to fund this particular plan. At the same time, while all of this is going on, as Nasim had mentioned and as we discussed in our first podcast, there are the imposition of the unilateral digital services taxes by countries around the world and how the U.S. reacts against those. As we mentioned, there is this project going on at the OECD to resolve these issues, which is the Pillar One and Pillar Two, to deal with profit allocation and nexus initiatives and also a global minimum taxation. What is so interesting in terms of what the Biden Administration did is they tied their corporate tax increases to what is going on in the OECD. In other words, to maintain U.S. competitiveness in view of the proposed increase of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the U.S. has actively engaged with the OECD Inclusive Framework dealing with this Pillar One and Pillar Two, and in the Pillar Two context has urged countries around the world to adopt a robust minimum taxes and to provide for disincentives. And if they don't adopt these minimum taxes, these countries would be subject to disincentives, potentially the denial of deduction of payments to these low tax countries. Likewise, in terms of how to address digital service taxes and the proliferation of those types of taxes worldwide, the United States is mentioning to the U.S. that that type of issue has to be resolved in order to really create a uniform international tax structure. The proposals being made currently by the U.S. would provide a simpler method to deal with the process, allocation and nexus, as opposed to the complex ways that previously had been proposed. Simpler ways would reduce compliance, administrative burdens, provide certainty in principle and not be discriminatory against large U.S. companies. If this all works, the idea would be that there would be a resolution of this DST problem and concomitantly an increase in the global minimum tax, so countries then would not be racing to the bottom. Josh, am I getting this right? What do you think the takeaways of this unusual initiative are?

\n
What is so interesting in terms of what the Biden Administration did is they tied their corporate tax increases to what is going on in the OECD … to maintain U.S. competitiveness in view of the proposed increase of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the U.S. has actively engaged with the OECD Inclusive Framework dealing with this Pillar One and Pillar Two.
\n

Josh Odintz: Alan, you absolutely nailed it, and there's a lot to unpack. I think it's interesting, looking at the OECD and Inclusive Framework process, just reminding everyone that back in 2020 the last administration created a new hurdle for Pillar One and said that Pillar One would be a safe harbor for Amount A. Amount A, once again, is the IP return that would be ceded to the market jurisdiction. Secretary Yellen noted that the U.S. changed its negotiation position and that Pillar One, Amount A would no longer be a safe harbor and the U.S. would change its negotiating position. So that led to, I think, some very positive developments and showed the U.S.' willingness to move in a direction to reach agreement at the Inclusive Framework. It's clear that the Biden infrastructure proposals are fairly similar to what is under discussion at the OECD on Pillar Two. What we have not seen is how Pillar One would operate in the U.S. system, but perhaps the U.S. will move forward on changes to guilty and changes to the BEAT, or the base erosion and anti-abuse tax, and will then make further revisions to align us with Pillar One if an agreement is reached.

\n

Nasim Fussell: Does this mean we're going to end up with tariffs? Because what you guys just described sounds incredibly ambitious, but there also seems to be this great deal of ambition backing the goals. So are we going to get there? Are we going to avoid tariffs? Where do you see this going?

\n

Josh Odintz: So I think there are different pieces of what's in the Biden tax proposal. It's possible that we end up with multiple rounds of corporate tax and international tax changes. I think raising the rate, for example, is fairly easy. If one looks at the polling, it's a fairly popular message to increase corporate taxes in exchange for paying for better infrastructure - that even polls well among Republicans. So I think it's possible we could see a corporate tax increase, and then on the OECD Inclusive Framework and guilty BEAT side, we need to see more details to see the advanced thinking of Treasury. We will see that when the Treasury releases its full budget and green book, and we'll get a sense of what the connections are between the different provisions. It's possible that may not be ready for passage in the near term and it might be a Fall exercise. At the same time, what we've seen at the OECD so far, the two public documents, Pillar One and Two, contain detail, but not sufficient detail for implementation. So we don't really know the timeframe for implementing Pillars One and Two, they will require uniform legislation and a multilateral instrument. Both of those could take years once a deal is reached, to flesh out the details. I'd say we're in this period of flux. Alan, there is some cryptic messaging about unilateral measures. What do you think? Where are we on the path for agreement?

\n
If one looks at the polling, it's a fairly popular message to increase corporate taxes in exchange for paying for better infrastructure - that even polls well among Republicans.
\n

Alan Granwell: Thanks, Josh. I mean, interestingly, I think the idea is to sidestep all the trade issues by having countries adopt a uniform and robust global minimum tax. By happenstance, I was speaking to various colleagues today in Switzerland and Ireland, and the U.S. is proposing a 21 percent rate, in certain instances in Switzerland, under the various cantonal tax regimes, the rate is 13 percent, and the rate that is sort of the headline rate in Ireland is 12.5 percent. So in terms of reaching agreement on a 21 percent rate of corporate minimum tax, you will have countries such as Switzerland, Ireland and Hungary, which has a 9 percent rate, not much in favor of it, but subject to the unilateral approach the U.S. might take at denying deductions and applying then to parties in those other countries. So I think all of this has a long way to go to get resolved, but I think the underlying premise now of the administration is to reduce the race to the bottom. It's important for countries around the world to agree to a uniform rate, but that whole arrangement will not get that far through the continuation of the imposition of unilateral taxation through these DSTs or other types of crawlspaces taxation. Therefore, it's necessary to have a stable system. As Josh was mentioning, you have to resolve who's within scope, how does this all work, can you achieve certainty, and from the U.S. point of view that it doesn't discriminate against the large U.S. taxpayer. So I think, Josh, this is a huge challenge, not only in terms of doing all of that, but also maybe equally challenging in relation to how all of this is going to be passed by the U.S. Congress, which is probably a topic for another day.

\n
It's important for countries around the world to agree to a uniform rate, but that whole arrangement will not get that far through the continuation of the imposition of unilateral taxation through these DSTs or other types of crawlspaces taxation.
\n

Nasim Fussell: Indeed. Well, thank you both. I find that I learn so much from both of you about everything that is happening in parallel in the tax and trade world right now, and really, one is so dependent on the other in terms of outcome. At the end of the day, whether it's taxes or tariffs, it's all taxes in the end. So please do reach out if you would like to talk to us more about any of this, and we are going to continue coming together to bring you more content.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: An Update on the Digital Economy and DSTs","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-an-update-on-the-digital-economy-and-dsts","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-an-update-on-the-digital-economy-and-dsts","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/media_cpf_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Insights and Outlook on Community Project Funding Webinar"},"description":"

Members of Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group host a webinar covering Community Project Funding (CPF), formerly known as earmarks. Team members share insights on the new process as well as guidance on steps you can take to have your project considered.

\n

Our bipartisan group of attorneys and professionals drill down on details and programs available for the following subcommittees:

\n\n

Duration: 01:06:00

","link":{"label":"Insights and Outlook on Community Project (Earmark) Funding","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/insights-and-outlook-on-community-project-earmark-funding","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/insights-and-outlook-on-community-project-earmark-funding","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_first100dayspodcastep2_still.jpg","alt":"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration - Episode 2: The Digital Economy and Tax"},"description":"

In the second episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration\" podcast series, Trade Partner Nasim Fussell leads a discussion with Tax Partners Alan Granwell and Joshua Odintz on the current state of the digital economy and digital services taxes (DST). They provide a comprehensive overview of DSTs and look at the United States' current relationships with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, particularly through the administrational changes.

\n

For an update on these topics, listen to Episode 3: An Update on the Digital Economy and DSTs.

\n
\n

Podcast Transcript

\n

Nasim Fussell: Welcome, everyone, to the first in a series of podcasts on the digital economy and digital services taxes with Holland & Knight. My name is Nasim Fussell and I am a partner in the international trade group at Holland & Knight. I work with our Public Policy Group extensively, and particularly in this area of digital economy and digital services taxes with two of my colleagues and partners that I have here with me today who are key to knowledge and the pathway on this topic. So in this podcast, we're going to provide an overview for you on what is going on with digital services taxes today, not just domestically, abroad and at the multilateral forum. We're also going to talk about why the trade and tax aspects of DSTs, as they are known, are such important issues for companies engaging in international commerce. In latter podcasts, which will follow in the coming weeks, we will delve more into the technical detail and invite other experts to join us for a discussion to update you on the current developments in these areas. So, let me start by introducing you to my colleagues. Alan Granwell is a tax attorney with more than 50 years' experience in the area of international taxation. Alan is a former international tax counsel at the Treasury Department and brings a wealth of knowledge and perspective to these issues. Joshua Odintz is a tax attorney in our D.C. office, where he focuses on tax policy, tax controversy and tax planning. Josh also served at Treasury, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all things tax. So, thank you both for being here today.

\n

What are the Digital Economy and Digital Services Taxes (DST)?

\n

Nasim Fussell: Let's start with some basics. What is the digital economy? An economy based on digital computing technologies, although in our world today, it is commonly perceived as conducting business through market based on the Internet and using the World Wide Web. Here are some fast facts. The digital economy is equivalent to 15 and a half percent of global GDP, and it's growing two and a half times faster than global GDP over the past 15 years, according to the World Bank. Governments in which digital economy customers are located want to tax revenues derived from the digital economy through a new form of tax that we are discussing today known as digital services taxes. Why? We'll get to that in this podcast today where we plan to lay the groundwork for you. What is a DST? I'm going to hand that over to Josh to tell us a little bit more about this, and then we're going to dove into why all of this is happening. So, Josh, over to you. What is a DST?

\n

Joshua Odintz: Thanks, Nasim. So, a DST is basically a tax that applies to businesses selling digital services to consumers located within a jurisdiction. There are roughly more than 40 DSTs in effect or under consideration, but there are some common themes or elements to it. The first is it's generally imposed on gross revenues and second, it's generally imposed on companies or entities that meet a certain revenue threshold, either in a jurisdiction or globally. DSTs are also targeted at a small number of large digital companies, so think of it as social media companies, e-commerce marketplace companies, cloud services and web-based service platforms. So looking by example, the European Commission proposed a DST back in 2018 that would have imposed a temporary DST of a three percent rate on revenues derived from online advertising services, receipts from digital intermediary service activities and sales of user collected data. So the European Commission version would have applied to businesses with worldwide revenues of 750 million euros in taxable revenues within the EU exceeding 50 million euros. Ultimately, the EU did not adopt that proposal, but several EU countries have gone off and created their bespoke versions of a DST.

\n
A DST is basically a tax that applies to businesses selling digital services to consumers located within a jurisdiction. 
\n

How Do DSTs Work?

\n

Joshua Odintz: So there's a range of flavors of DSTs from the tax rate, ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 percent on receipts from sale of advertising space, the provision of digital intermediary services such as the operation of online marketplaces and the sale of data collected from users. So generally, what we've seen is a common theme that there must be a group level threshold and then a domestic level threshold, and then the taxes are designed to hit certain services that, once again, involve the collection of data. Alan will get into in a minute how we ended up here, but it's just worth observing that there's a lack of understanding of how digital economy companies make their money. It's generally through data collection and use of data, and so the DSTs are targeted at those companies that you collect and are able to manipulate that data. So DSTs are theoretically temporary taxes until there's a global consensus at the OECD, and we'll get into the details of the work at the OECD, but certainly these taxes are growing and, like I said, the number has exceeded 40 in number. So as far as criticisms - from the U.S. perspective, DSTs are targeted at U.S. multinationals. That is certainly a view that has been raised to USTR, and Nasim will get into that later in our broadcast, and these are taxes that are targeted at large U.S. multinationals and provide an advantage to home country businesses that fall beneath the threshold. These are also taxes that are likely to be passed on to customers, and some businesses in the digital economy will be able to pass this along to customers, while other businesses will not be able to because of the competition and the business models. We've seen that some of the digital economy businesses have increased their costs and prices and will pass those along to the consumers of their services. There's also a significant theme that we will touch upon in subsequent podcasts, but there's the potential with the DST for double taxation, and that could occur where two or more countries consider a certain revenue, stream a source there and seek to tax the same revenue stream. Only the UK has a provision that would address double taxation. So there is a true risk that if countries are not coordinated, they could seek to tax the same stream of revenue more than once.

\n

Nasim Fussell: That was a really helpful foundation and raises a question for me as not a tax person, and Alan, I'm going to pose this to you. Why can't the current international tax system simply apply to digital services? Why are we where we are today?

\n

Why Digital Services Are Taxed Differently

\n

Alan Granwell: Thank you, Nasim. I think that's really the crux of the issue and the simple answer is, and then I'll get into it a bit more, is that digital is a virtual type of methodology. You don't have a physical presence. It all goes through the computer or the Internet or something which is not physically situated in the particular country. When we examine our international tax system and the norms that apply to our international tax system, which incidentally are followed by most of the world through the OECD documentation and studies and model treaties and commentaries, we find that under non-digital situations for a tax payer, not resident in the local country, the source country, in order to be taxable in that source country, the same U.S. taxpayer has to have a form of physical presence in the country and do business in that country. The physical presence can either be an office/fixed place of business, or it could be an agent which has certain authorities to bind the principal in that country and if you do not have that nexus with the particular country, income from transactions related to that country generally are not subject to taxation in that country. There obviously are exceptions, but that is the general rule. When we think of the digital economy, we are thinking of something which doesn't have that fixed presence, and if you don't have the fixed presence, then under our bilateral tax treaty system, a U.S. company which doesn't have a presence but is doing things in that other country generally would not be subject to local country taxation. So we have this conundrum in terms of the source countries, where various of the major U.S. companies who have digitized their business can undertake transactions in that country. Based on our current system of treaties and also the local laws of the country, the U.S. entity would not be subject to tax. Because of the growth in this area, through the statistics you had mentioned, these local countries are seeking to find a way to tax income from what they perceive should be taxable because of value creation in their countries. I think at this stage, let me just sort of turn it back to Josh to describe what is going on in terms of the OECD considerations of that issue and the initial studies. This is sort of the birth of this whole inquiry as to how to more appropriately tax the digitization economy.

\n
When we think of the digital economy, we are thinking of something which doesn't have that fixed presence, and if you don't have the fixed presence, then under our bilateral tax treaty system, a U.S. company which doesn't have a presence but is doing things in that other country generally would not be subject to local country taxation.
\n

Joshua Odintz: Thanks, Alan. Let's go back a little bit in history to 2013. So the OECD, which is an organization that is comprised of 37 members and was formed after World War II, back in 2013, focused on base erosion and profit shifting, or the BEPS Project. There were 15 action items that the OECD explored. Action item number one was the digital economy, and the question at that time was whether the digital economy should be ring fenced, or should it be taxed in a way that is consistent with norms? Do the norms have to be changed? So that was action item one. Within the other 14 action items, the OECD issued a series of reports and, in some cases, model legislation. It also updated the multilateral instrument. So those items were adopted by countries and are continuing to be adopted by countries. The OECD issued a report in 2015 on action item one, the digital economy. That report noted that because the digital economy is increasingly becoming the economy itself, it's not possible to ring-fence the digital economy from the rest of the economy for tax purposes. The United States was pretty firm in that position during the Obama Administration, and the work continued behind the scenes and there was a change in administration in the United States. Then in 2018, the G20 and the Inclusive Framework, which involves more than 130 countries, continued to work on the issue and deliver an interim report in March 2018. Then in 2019, the members of the Inclusive Framework, that includes the 37 OECD countries, plus almost 100 countries that normally are not involved in these matters, so the OECD brought them into the tent to try to drive or create consensus. In 2019, the Inclusive Framework agreed to examine the digital economy and unresolved tax issues from BAPS in two pillars, and that could lead to a consensus solution to tax challenges arising from the digital economy.

\n

Alan Granwell: Josh, just to interject, what you are describing with this Inclusive Framework is really an undertaking by the nearly 140 countries to recalibrate our basic international tax system. So this is really a fundamental change in how countries can impose tax on entities from other countries which don't have a physical presence in the local country.

\n
\n
This Inclusive Framework is really an undertaking by the nearly 140 countries to recalibrate our basic international tax system.
\n

Joshua Odintz: I think another way of putting it, is that it would take us away in transfer pricing from the arm's length standard. In the case of Pillar One, it would say that a digital company would have to cede some of its profits to a market-based country. This reflects the view of the marketplace countries that it's the market, and not the technology or the intellectual property, that is responsible for profits.

\n

Alan Granwell: Indeed. So that's where we are.

\n

The Trade Impact of DSTs

\n

Nasim Fussell: Wow. Well, thank you both for really laying out what is a fascinating, though clearly very complicated issue. Let me say a little bit now that we've discussed the tax side of this issue about why I'm here. For our audience, you may be wondering now that we're deeply ingrained in tax, why is this trade person here? Well, let's think about the trade impacts of these DSTs and also talk a little bit about how the United States has responded to the proliferation of beasties around the world. So we talked a bit about the digital economy and Alan, thank you for answering my question about why we are where we are. I think that the way you answer the question really hit the nail on the head from a trade perspective as well. You know, historically, when we talked about trade, we were talking about the trade in goods, the movement of goods across borders, while increasingly we're talking about trade in services and even more increasingly, trade in digital services. So put simply, the movement of these digital services around the world by virtue of what these services provide.

\n

Nasim Fussell: The issue here now is that these DSTs essentially serve as a trade barrier to these services trades and, in particular, with the increasing number of DSTs popping up around the world and the way that they have been set up, there has been a strong perception that these unilaterally enacted DSTs unfairly target and discriminate against large U.S. technology companies. During the last administration, there were a number of Section 301 investigations launched into DSTs in Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. There was a lot of bipartisan support for the Trump Administration launching the Section 301 investigations, which is really noteworthy because they were launched in a period of time during which the Trump Administration had launched and taken terrorist action on imports from China under the purview of Section 301. A lot of retaliation had been put in place by the Chinese as a result. The Trump administration had taken action under a number of other statutory authorities to impose tariffs as well, all of which had also invited retaliation. So while there was a lot of bipartisan consternation about tariffs, there was a lot of bipartisan support for these Section 301 investigations into these DSTs. Again, I think it has a lot to do with this very strong and again, very bipartisan perception that these DSTs were unfairly targeting and discriminating against these large U.S. technology companies.

\n

So, you know there, as I said, were a number of these investigations and just at the end of 2020 - and I must add that these investigations were going on while all of the processes that Alan and Josh described for you at the OECD were taking place. While this is all taking place, the administration conducted its investigations and at the end of 2020, there was an expectation with heading into the New Year, the Biden Administration coming in and all of the bipartisan support that I noted earlier, that the Trump Administration would likely take action if not on all of the investigations, then at least on the French DST, which is where it started its Section 301 investigation process. In fact, I'm going to take a moment to speak about the French investigation and how that unfolded, because I think it'll provide a good illustration of some of the decision making that occurred in parallel with the talks at the OECD. So in July 2020, the Trump Administration, after going through its process investigation under Section 301 and determining that the French DST was in fact discriminatory and unfairly targeting U.S. companies decided to impose tariffs. Under Section 301, it also has the authority to consult with the other party and that is what it chose to do with the French government. The two governments, the U.S. government and the French government agreed to pause on the tariffs and to allow the OECD process to unfold in an effort to try to reach a deal there so that there would not have to be forward movement on Paris. Well, that process unfolded a bit, and we reached July 2020 when a conclusion had not been reached yet and the Trump Administration announced that they were going to impose tariffs on the French, but that they would wait another 180 days before imposing them. So I'm going to stop there for just a moment, to see if Alan and Josh want to provide some parallel input on what was happening in Paris at the OECD at the time, and some insight into why that pause might have been taken by USTR. 

\n
I think it has a lot to do with this very strong and very bipartisan perception that these DSTs were unfairly targeting and discriminating against these large U.S. technology companies.
\n

The United States and the OECD Inclusive Framework

\n

Joshua Odintz: Absolutely. So a few things. One, Congress - and this was bipartisan, bicameral - supported the OECD Inclusive Framework process, but it did not support necessarily the outcome because as we'll discuss the later podcasts, the outcome would require potentially legislation and a modified model U.S. tax treaty. So the United States supports a process but does not support the outcome that is reserved for a later date. The United States participated in the Inclusive Framework, sat at the table, the then deputy assistant secretary for International Tax Affairs was actively involved in the negotiations, but there was a letter from Secretary Mnuchin on one of the pillars that provided that Pillar One and specifically Amount A, which goes to the IP returns in the digital economy, that that would be a safe harbor. That was viewed as not constructive by the Inclusive Framework and created some problems in negotiations. Its second, different countries were focused on different pieces of the Inclusive Framework. Some of the countries wanted to adopt Pillar Two and were less interested in Pillar One. Some of the market countries were focused like a laser on Pillar One. So the negotiations led to two reports for which we have received comments. There have been public consultations, but there are two reports that were issued by the secretariat at the OECD. So they do not reflect the views of the countries, they just reflect the view of the OECD. That is currently where we are with respect to documents. The United States recently indicated with the new Biden Administration that it is changing its position with respect to Pillar One. The United States is willing to consider Pillar One not as a safe harbor, but as part of a broader package for the Inclusive Framework that would be mandatory.

\n

Alan Granwell: I just wanted to make a very brief comment. First, Pillar One is dealing with DSTs as Josh had described, Pillar Two is dealing with global minimum taxes and the interaction with our U.S. minimum tax under the guilty regime. Why is all of this important for U.S. multinationals? The reason is, it could change the way these multinationals are taxed abroad and whether they will get what we call foreign tax credit for any local taxes imposed. We will get to all of this in future podcasts and go through the current mind numbing sort of analysis of these two pillars, but best to do that for another day.

\n
Why is all of this important for U.S. multinationals? The reason is, it could change the way these multinationals are taxed abroad and whether they will get foreign tax credit for any local taxes imposed.
\n

Nasim Fussell: Thanks, Alan. So let me pick back up on trade, because the way the story ended in early 2021 with the Trump Administration is a determination not to take action after concluding all of these investigations and determining across the board that there was, in fact, targeted discrimination against U.S. companies. Why? You know, it was highly speculated that perhaps focus should remain at the OECD. What USTR indicated, however, was that it would not take immediate action, but would continue to evaluate all available options and leave it for the Biden Administration to determine what steps to take.

\n

Where the Biden Administration Is Now

\n

Nasim Fussell: So where are we now? We have a new Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, and we have a new USTR, Katherine Tai. Secretary Yellen has already engaged at the OECD and had bilateral discussions with key counterparts like French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire. Ambassador Tai said in her Senate confirmation hearing that she will work closely with Treasury to address digital services taxes at the OECD, signaling that our focus really is going to be on getting this resolved multilaterally. However, notably on March 26, Tai's USTR made its first big announcement regarding next steps in its investigation of digital services taxes. USTR announced that it would be preserving its procedural options under Section 301 for taking possible trade actions on the investigations conducted on Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. As we noted earlier, the previous USTR found that the DSTs adopted by these trading partners do discriminate against U.S. digital companies. In its announcement, USTR also, however, noted once again that it's committed to finding a solution on the multilateral level, signaling that there will continue to be a focus on finding a solution at the OECD with our trading partners. USTR also announced that it would be terminating the investigations that the previous USTR did regarding the DSTs proposed by Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union and Indonesia. It indicated that none of these had adopted or implemented the DSTs that were under consideration when the investigations were conducted last year. So if any of these countries do proceed with adopting or implementing a DST, USTR may very well initiate new investigations. I think very notably, this announcement on March 26 was silent on the French DSTs, which we have discussed today and the taxes in place. One can speculate whether that is because any action taken now would be outside of the statutory period permitted under Section 301 or just a really a firm commitment perhaps between the United States and France in trying to resolve this multilaterally, but we shall see. This is something that we will be able to dove into and analyze a bit more deeply on a future podcast.

\n
","link":{"label":"Podcast: The Digital Economy and Tax","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-the-digital-economy-and-tax","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/podcast-the-digital-economy-and-tax","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/04/media_conversations_that_matter_still.jpg","alt":"Woman with red glasses and dark brown hair in front of a white bookshelf"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's webinar series, \"Conversations that Matter,\" features interviews with senior government officials, thought leaders, general counsels and policymakers concerning critical consumer protection issues. In the second installment of this series, Partners Kwamina Williford and William Farley talked with Maneesha Mithal, an associate director in the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Division of Privacy and Identity Protection. Their conversation touched on artificial intelligence and facial recognition, the use of health data and other key FTC priorities in this area.

\n

Duration: 57:21

","link":{"label":"Privacy and Identity Protection: Hear Directly from the FTC","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/privacy-and-identity-protection-hear-directly-from-the-ftc","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/04/privacy-and-identity-protection-hear-directly-from-the-ftc","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Partner Meital Stavinsky joined The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences (FDACS) Podcast for a discussion on equality and women in agriculture, historically a male-dominated field. Ms. Stavinsky shared how she became involved with the organization Florida Agri-Women, including the influence of her upbringing in Israel. She also covered how the pandemic has affected agriculture, how the industry can continue to innovate and how organizations can best advocate for women in it.

\n

Duration: 17:49

","link":{"label":"FDACS Women's History Month Podcast with Commissioner Nikki Fried","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/fdacs-womens-history-month-podcast-with-commissioner-nikki-fried","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/fdacs-womens-history-month-podcast-with-commissioner-nikki-fried","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_earmarkspodcast_still.jpg","alt":"Earmarks: A Conversation with Quorum and PP&R Practice Leader Rich Gold"},"description":"

In the first episode of \"The Eyes on Washington Podcast\" series, Public Policy & Regulation Group Leader Rich Gold spoke with Quorum about all things earmarks. He describes what earmarks are, how they've changed and how organizations can increase chances of earning earmarked federal funding. The practice was removed in 2010 after a series of ethical scandals, but legislators are increasingly supporting its reintroduction with new rules to make it more transparent and ethical. Mr. Gold said although he believes the movement back toward earmarks would have happened regardless of COVID-19, the pandemic has shown how and where earmarks could be useful. He also shared tips for improving the chances of receiving federal funding, adding that earmarks can help increase access to the federal government at the local or state level.

\n

Looking for more? Quorum summarized the podcast conversation on their blog as well.

\n

Duration 20:41

","link":{"label":"Podcast - Earmarks: A Conversation with Quorum and PP&R Practice Leader Rich Gold","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-earmarks-a-conversation-with-quorum-and-rich-gold","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-earmarks-a-conversation-with-quorum-and-rich-gold","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Public Policy & Regulation Group Leader Rich Gold was featured on The Political Life podcast discussing the American Rescue Plan, earmarks and expected upcoming legislation. Mr. Gold described what led to the reinstatement of earmarks, now called \"Community Project Funding,\" and offered an update on the transition to a new administration, a process that has occurred almost entirely virtually. He also talked about the status of the American Rescue Plan and previewed the next round of Congressional activity, including an infrastructure package, immigration reform and climate change-related legislation.

\n

Duration: 32:19

","link":{"label":"Rich Gold on the American Rescue Plan, the Return of Earmarks, & More","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/rich-gold-on-the-american-rescue-plan-the-return-of-earmarks-and-more","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/rich-gold-on-the-american-rescue-plan-the-return-of-earmarks-and-more","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_conversation_with_nm_chief_deputy_still.jpg","alt":"Conversations with State Attorneys General - Episode 2: New Mexico Chief Deputy Attorney General Tania Maestas and Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan"},"description":"

In the second episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"Conversations with State Attorneys General\" podcast series, attorney Stephen Cobb talks with Chief Deputy Attorney General of New Mexico, Tania Maestas, and Attorney General of Vermont, TJ Donovan, about their positions on data privacy and how it impacts their respective states. Generals Maestas and Donovan discuss the bipartisan issue of data security and how the United States can set firm protections without creating a patchwork of laws from state-to-state.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Chief Deputy Attorney General Tania Maestas and Attorney General TJ Donovan","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-a-conversation-with-new-mexico-state-ag-and-vermont-state-ag","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/podcast-a-conversation-with-new-mexico-state-ag-and-vermont-state-ag","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/03/media_israeli_smart_cities_tech_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Faces on a screen with play button overlaid"},"description":"

The Israel-America Chamber of Commerce, the Consulate General of Israel in Miami, BDO Israel, the Federation of Local Authorities in Israel, SelectUSA and Holland & Knight co-hosted the final online presentation in a series on new business regulatory trends in the Biden Administration. This program looked at what Israel smart cities tech companies can expect from the new administration.

\n

The moderator and panelists, including Israel Practice Co-Chairs Meital Stavinsky and Ronald Klein, discussed potential regulatory hurdles Israeli companies might face as well as opportunities for collaboration with U.S. strategic partners.

\n

Duration: 57:17

","link":{"label":"New Business Regulatory Trends in the Biden Administration: What Israeli Smart Cities Tech Companies with U.S. Operations Need to Know","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/what-israeli-smart-cities-tech-companies-with-us-operations","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/03/what-israeli-smart-cities-tech-companies-with-us-operations","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/mediafirst100dayshcstill.png","alt":"First 100 Days Title Slide"},"description":"In the first episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"The First 100 Days of the Biden Administration\" podcast series, Senior Policy Advisor Miranda Franco leads a discussion with attorney Robert Bradner and Senior Public Affairs Advisor Suzanne Joy on the healthcare priorities and landscape facing the new administration. They discuss current issues and provide listeners with an inside look on what to expect in the upcoming months.","link":{"label":"Podcast: Healthcare Priorities and Landscape","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-healthcare-priorities-and-landscape","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-healthcare-priorities-and-landscape","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/media_ftcwebinar_still.jpg","alt":"Anthony DiResta with Play Button During Webinar"},"description":"Holland & Knight's new series, \"Conversations that Matter,\" features interviews with senior government officials, thought leaders, general counsels and policymakers concerning critical consumer protection issues. The series kicks off with Michael Ostheimer, a senior staff attorney in the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Division of Advertising Practices. Partners Anthony DiResta (a former FTC director) and Da'Morus Cohen (experienced in FTC matters), members of our Consumer Protection Defense and Compliance Team, ask Mr. Ostheimer about the FTC's approach to social media advertising, including an analysis of recent FTC enforcement actions, guidance and expectations for compliance.","link":{"label":"Social Media Advertising: Hear from the FTC","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/social-media-advertising-hear-from-the-ftc","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/social-media-advertising-hear-from-the-ftc","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/mediaaaronfordstill.jpg","alt":"PodcastTitleSlide"},"description":"

In the first episode of our Public Policy & Regulation Group's \"Conversations with State Attorneys General\" podcast series, attorney Stephen Cobb talks with the 34th Attorney General of Nevada, Aaron Ford, about his background and demystifies what a state attorneys general job actually entails. General Ford shares what helps him drive to make changes in his community while giving us a glimpse at the man behind the law.

","link":{"label":"Podcast: A Conversation with Attorney General Aaron Ford","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-a-conversation-with-nevada-state-attorney-general-aaron-ford","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/podcast-a-conversation-with-nevada-state-attorney-general-aaron-ford","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/media_gold_offshore_wind_still.jpg","alt":"This Week in Wind"},"description":"

Partner Rich Gold spoke at the inaugural This Week in Wind webinar hosted by The Business Network for Offshore Wind. The session breaks down major developments in the offshore wind industry.

\n

Duration 24:08

","link":{"label":"This Week in Wind","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/this-week-in-wind","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/this-week-in-wind","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/media_newmanreuters_still.jpg","alt":"How COVID-19 is changing alcohol laws"},"description":"

Head of the firm's Alcohol Beverage Team Michael Newman spoke with Reuters about the impact of COVID-19 on alcohol laws and the potential long-term effects on the industry. The discussion focuses specifically on alcohol delivery services and how regulations in different states have shifted during the pandemic. 

\n

Duration 3:36

","link":{"label":"How COVID-19 Is Changing Alcohol Laws","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/how-covid19-is-changing-alcohol-laws","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/how-covid19-is-changing-alcohol-laws","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/02/media_israel_cannabis_tech_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"screenshot of zoom meeting with overlaid play icon"},"description":"

The Israel-America Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association of Israel, Deloitte Israel and Holland & Knight teamed up for the second of three online panel presentations on new business regulatory trends in the Biden Administration. This presentation covered \"What Israeli Cannabis-Tech Companies with U.S. Operations Need to Know.\"

\n

The moderator and panel, including Partners Meital Stavinsky and Ron Klein, discussed what Israeli cannabis-tech companies can expect from the Biden Administration in connection with regulatory hurdles as well as opportunities for collaboration between Israeli cannabis-tech companies and U.S. strategic partners.

\n

Duration: 48:59

","link":{"label":"New Business Regulatory Trends in the Biden Administration: What Israeli Cannabis-Tech Companies with U.S. Operations Need to Know","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/new-business-regulatory-trends-in-the-biden-administration","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/02/new-business-regulatory-trends-in-the-biden-administration","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/01/media_hottopicshighereducationstill.jpg","alt":"Hot Topics in Higher Education"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's Education Team and Public Policy & Regulation Group hosted a webinar titled \"Hot Topics in Higher Education: 2021 Edition.\" Our attorneys and policy advisors provided an overview and their insights into the legal and regulatory issues that will impact our nation's higher education system in the coming months. They also examined the immigration issues pertinent to colleges and universities.

\n

Additional topics included:

\n
    \n
  • What the incoming Biden Administration means for higher education
  • \n
  • What a Democrat-led government means for historically black colleges and universities
  • \n
  • Expectations for community colleges in the coming years
  • \n
  • When to expect U.S. Senate confirmation of a new education secretary
  • \n
  • Review and analysis of recently passed higher education bills
  • \n
\n

View the slides »

\n

Duration 56:38

","link":{"label":"Hot Topics in Higher Education: 2021 Edition","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/hot-topics-in-higher-education-2021-edition","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/hot-topics-in-higher-education-2021-edition","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Public Policy & Regulation Practice Group Leader Rich Gold joined The Advocacy Association for a webinar on navigating the transition to a new presidential administration. The first 100 days of the Biden Administration will be a key time for organizations as new challenges and opportunities for advocacy arise. Mr. Gold drew on his experience working with clients and industry groups through several administration changes to offer practical advice that will help organizations hit the ground running.

\n

Please note that registration is required to view the webinar.

","link":{"label":"How To Navigate A New Presidential Administration and Hit The Ground Running","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/how-to-navigate-a-new-presidential-administration","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/how-to-navigate-a-new-presidential-administration","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2021/01/media_israelifintechcompanies_still.jpg","alt":"What Israeli FinTech Companies Need to Know still"},"description":"

The Israel-America Chamber of Commerce, Holland & Knight and Citi Israel co-hosted a panel discussion on what business regulatory trends Israeli FinTech companies can expect from the Biden Administration. Oded Rose, CEO of the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce, gave the introduction, and U.S. Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Financial Technology, delivered the keynote remarks. Holland & Knight Israel Practice Co-Chair Meital Stavinsky moderated the discussion with panelists Neil Corney, CEO of Citi Israel, and Ronald Klein, Holland & Knight Israel Practice Co-Chair, on how Israeli Fintech companies can boost innovation in the U.S. financial industry and overcome regulatory hurdles.

\n

This program was the first of three online panel presentations on new business regulatory trends in the Biden Administration.

\n

Duration: 49:46

","link":{"label":"New Business Regulatory Trends in the Biden Administration: What Israeli FinTech Companies with U.S. Operations Need to Know","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/what-israeli-fintech-companies-with-us-operations-need-to-know","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2021/01/what-israeli-fintech-companies-with-us-operations-need-to-know","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/12/media_postelectionbriefingprogram_still.jpg","alt":"Opening slide still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the growing role of State Attorneys General. Partner Stephen Cobb, the former deputy attorney general of Virginia, Partner Jim Schultz, the former senior associate White House counsel and Partner Bill Shepherd, Florida's former statewide prosecutor, share their unique perspectives as they take a look back on 2020 and the election results before drawing conclusions on what to expect going into 2021.

\n

View the presentation materials.
\n
\nDuration: 58:10

","link":{"label":"Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/post-election-briefing-state-attorneys-general","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/post-election-briefing-state-attorneys-general","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/12/mediabidenadministrationmexicorelationsstill.jpg","alt":"What Does a Biden Administration Mean for U.S.-Mexico Relations?"},"description":"International Trade Partners Francisco Sánchez, Carlos Véjar and Luis Rubio hosted an online panel presentation to discuss how the Biden Administration may impact U.S. and Mexico relations. They provide insights and likely scenarios on the expected approaches of an incoming Biden Administration regarding key issues and priorities related to U.S.-Mexico Relations. They also provide in-depth analysis regarding possible foreign policy implications as well as suggestions on how to best position your clients or company to prosper under a new administration.","link":{"label":"What Does a Biden Administration Mean for U.S.-Mexico Relations?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/what-does-a-biden-administration-mean-for-us-mexico-relations","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/what-does-a-biden-administration-mean-for-us-mexico-relations","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Immigration Partner Leon Fresco joined a Bloomberg Law podcast to review U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments about whether undocumented immigrants can be excluded from the 2020 U.S. Census count. He analyzes the arguments and discusses the potential outcomes of the case.

\n

Duration: 32:03 (Mr. Fresco's interview begins at 13:26)

","link":{"label":"Can Former Child Slaves Sue Chocolate Companies?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/can-former-child-slaves-sue-chocolate-companies","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/12/can-former-child-slaves-sue-chocolate-companies","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

International Trade Partner Nasim Fussell joined the AgriTalk radio show to provide her perspective on potential trade issues that a Biden Administration may face, including Phase One with China. Additionally, the interview discusses the the American Farm Bureau Federation's announcement of its participation in the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance. This group will be delivering more than 40 recommendations to Congress and the next presidential administration.

\n

Duration 46:28 (Ms. Fussell's portion begins at 13:23)

","link":{"label":"AgriTalk - November 17, 2020","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/agritalk-november-17-2020","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/agritalk-november-17-2020","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/11/media_bgov_still.jpg","alt":"2020 Post-Election Briefing with Bloomberg Government"},"description":"

*Click \"Register\" to access the full webinar*

\n

Bloomberg Government and Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group hosted a post-election webinar to discuss policy impacts from the 2020 elections.

\n

The panel conversations highlighted what to expect for 2021 and beyond in the areas of transportation, healthcare, energy and environment, and budget and appropriations. In addition, the panelists shared their thoughts and best practices on how to engage with the incoming administration and next Congress. 

\n

Speakers

\n

Arielle Elliott  |  President, Bloomberg Government
\nJack Fitzpatrick  |  Senior Reporter, Bloomberg Government
\nMiranda Franco  |  Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight
\nMichael Friedberg  |  Partner, Holland & Knight
\nRich Gold  |  Partner, Holland & Knight
\nLauri Hettinger  |  Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight
\nDimitrios Karakitsos  |  Partner, Holland & Knight
\nKellie Lunney  |  Senior Reporter, Bloomberg Government
\nHeather Rothman  |  News Director, Bloomberg Government
\nCourtney Rozen  |  Reporter, Bloomberg Government
\nAlex Ruoff  |  Senior Reporter, Bloomberg Government
\nBeth Viola  |  Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight
\nShawna Watley  |  Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight
\nMichael Werner  |  Partner, Holland & Knight
\nDavid Whitestone  |  Partner, Holland & Knight

\n

Duration: 1:28:49

","link":{"label":"2020 Post-Election Briefing with Bloomberg Government","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/2020-post-election-briefing-with-bloomberg-government","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/2020-post-election-briefing-with-bloomberg-government","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/11/media_cato_institute_still.jpg","alt":"Cato Institute webinar still image"},"description":"International Trade Partner Nasim Fussell participated in a Cato Institute webinar discussion of the Biden Administration's potential approach to trade policy. During this webinar, speakers reviewed how the Trump Administration made changes to U.S. trade policy and discussed what kinds of decisions Biden will face when he takes office. They answered questions about the extent to which the administration will want to or can return to the trade policy that existed prior to the Trump presidency, what can be done about the tariffs enacted under Trump and how the administration will approach relationships with U.S. allies.
\n
\nDuration: 1:02:55","link":{"label":"Trade Policy in a Biden Administration: Back to Normal, or into the Great Unknown?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/trade-policy-in-a-biden-administration-back-to-normal","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/trade-policy-in-a-biden-administration-back-to-normal","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/11/media_witawebinar_still.jpg","alt":"WITA webinar still image"},"description":"International Trade Partner Nasim Fussell participated in a WITA webinar discussion of the implications of the 2020 presidential elections on U.S. trade policy. Ms. Fussell joined a bipartisan panel of professionals who served in senior roles in Congress for the discussion.
\n
\nDuration: 1:09:35","link":{"label":"WITA Post-Election Analysis with The Trade Insiders","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/wita-postelection-analysis-with-the-trade-insiders","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/wita-postelection-analysis-with-the-trade-insiders","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/11/media_post_election_briefing_still.jpg","alt":"Holland & Knight and Quorum Post-Election Analysis "},"description":"

Holland & Knight and Quorum co-hosted a virtual post-election briefing on November 6, 2020. Public Policy & Regulation Group members Rich Gold, Kathryn Lehman, Jim Schultz and Beth Viola discussed the implications of the election results, including what to expect from the 117th Congress and how to engage the administration and Congress in 2021.

\n

Duration: 2:34:23

","link":{"label":"Post-Election Briefing","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/post-election-briefing","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/11/post-election-briefing","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/mediaimpactofuselectionsonlatinamericastill.jpg","alt":"Impact of U.S. Elections on Latin America still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight hosted an online panel presentation offering insights on the expected approaches of a first-term Biden Administration or second-term Trump Administration regarding key issues and priorities for Latin America. Partners Francisco Sánchez, Nasim Fussell and Jim Davis, along with Senior Policy Advisor Scott Mason, discussed areas including tariffs, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as well as possible scenarios under each administration.

\n

View the presentation materials.
\nPlease note: The Cook's Report Electoral College Ratings included in the PowerPoint slides has been updated since this webinar to provide the most recent information.

\n

View a transcript of the recording.

\n

Duration: 56:04

","link":{"label":"Impact of U.S. Elections on Latin America","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/impact-of-us-elections-on-latin-america","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/impact-of-us-elections-on-latin-america","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_preelectionseriesnationalsecurity_still.jpg","alt":"Election 2020 Potential Impacts National Security and Defense still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the policy implications of the upcoming 2020 elections. The final program in this series focused on national security and defense.

\n

National Security, Defense and Intelligence Team Leader Jason Klitenic moderated a discussion with fellow team members Mary Beth Bosco and Tom Davis offering insights on the expected approaches of a first-term Biden Administration or second-term Trump Administration in this area. Their discussion explored potential approaches to the defense budget, the impact of international relations on national security initiatives, perspectives on government contracting activities and expected views on emerging technologies. They also covered what to expect from the possible incoming House and Senate majorities and minorities.

\n

View the presentation materials.

\n

Duration: 48:27

","link":{"label":"Election 2020: Potential Impacts Series - National Security & Defense","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-national-security-and-defense","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-national-security-and-defense","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_preelection_series_trade_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Pre-Election Series: Trade webinar still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the policy implications of the upcoming 2020 elections. The sixth program in this series focused on trade policy implications as a result of the elections.

\n

Partner Francisco Sanchez, the former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Trade, and Partner Nasim Fussell, the former Senate Finance Committee Chief International Trade Counsel, shared insights on the expected approaches of the first-term Biden Administration or second-term Trump Administration regarding key issues and priorities in this area. They also discussed what to expect from the possible incoming House and Senate majorities and minorities.

\n

View the presentation materials.

\n

Duration: 49:19

","link":{"label":"Election 2020: Potential Impacts - Trade","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-trade","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-trade","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/mediapoliticalbootcamppart4still.jpg","alt":"Webinar title slide with speakers"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group and Sagac Public Affairs are pleased to offer a four-part Political Engagement Boot Camp to help clients determine if their political activities are where they should be, make updates as necessary or create a plan if one doesn't exist. Our experienced attorneys and professionals will discuss information via four webinars intended for public policy decision makers and political affairs leads.
\n
\nIn Part 4: Fireside Chat – How to Leverage PAC Dollars, Rich Gold, Kathryn Lehman, Tom Davis, Jim Davis and Thomas Reynolds discuss:

\n
    \n
  • Future of campaign finance
  • \n
  • Why it matters: from the candidates' perspectives
  • \n
  • Importance of lobbyists to educate on issues that members are not proficient in
  • \n
  • Handicapping the election and how the outcome will impact political plans and giving in the next cycle/administration
  • \n
\n
Duration: 1:03:28
\n

More Presentations in this Series

\n","link":{"label":"Political Engagement Boot Camp Series - Part 4: Fireside Chat – How to Leverage PAC Dollars","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/political-engagement-boot-camp-series-how-to-leverage-pac-dollars","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/political-engagement-boot-camp-series-how-to-leverage-pac-dollars","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_elecciones_en_estados_unidos_still.jpg","alt":"Elecciones en Estados Unidos still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight and the Colombian-American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham Colombia) co-hosted a webinar titled \"Elections in the United States: What to Expect?\" In this webinar, Bogotá Executive Partner Enrique Gómez-Pinzón and International Practice Co-Chair Francisco Sánchez discussed the U.S. elections and their implications for Colombia.

\n

Duration: 51:46

","link":{"label":"Elections in the United States: What to Expect?","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/elecciones-en-estados-unidos-que-esperar","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/elecciones-en-estados-unidos-que-esperar","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_preelection_series_healthcare_recording_still.jpg","alt":"Pre-Election Webinar Series: Healthcare recording still"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the policy implications of the upcoming 2020 elections. The fifth program in this series focused on healthcare and life sciences.

\n

Partner Michael Werner focused on issues affecting drug and biotech companies such as those relating to possible regulation of drug prices, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and regulatory reforms.

\n

Partner Lisa Hawke addressed the potential for major changes to the healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act following the election, impacts on our public health, emergency preparedness and safety-net systems resulting from COVID-19, and the effects of all of these possible changes on healthcare providers and patients.

\n

View the presentation materials.

\n

Duration: 1:00:38

","link":{"label":"Election 2020: Potential Impacts Series - Healthcare & Life Sciences","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-healthcare","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-healthcare","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_pac_webinar_3_still.jpg","alt":"Political Engagement Boot Camp Series - Part 3: PAC Operations and Fundraising – Legal and Compliance Issues"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group and Sagac Public Affairs are pleased to offer a four-part Political Engagement Boot Camp to help clients determine if their political activities are where they should be, make updates as necessary or create a plan if one doesn't exist. Our experienced attorneys and professionals will discuss information via four webinars intended for public policy decision makers and political affairs leads.

\n

In Part 3: PAC Operations and Fundraising – Legal and Compliance Issues, Charles Borden, Samuel Brown and Rachel Provencher discuss:

\n
    \n
  • Federal campaign finance basics
  • \n
  • PAC contributions and expenditures
  • \n
  • Do's and Don'ts of PAC fundraising
  • \n
\n

Duration: 58:36

\n

More Presentations in this Series

\n","link":{"label":"Political Engagement Boot Camp Series - Part 3: PAC Operations and Fundraising – Legal and Compliance Issues","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/political-engagement-boot-camp-series-pac-operations-and-fundraising","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/political-engagement-boot-camp-series-pac-operations-and-fundraising","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/2020/10/media_preelection_fs_webinar_still.jpg","alt":"Election 2020: Potential Impacts Series - Financial Services Still Image"},"description":"

Holland & Knight's experienced lobbyists and attorneys are focusing on the policy implications of the upcoming 2020 elections. The fourth program in this series focused on financial services and what to expect in consumer financial services, mortgage finance, cryptocurrency and securities regulation, as well as retail and investment banking. The primary focus was on federal legislative and regulatory policy and consideration of the impact that state regulations will have on the same. Partners Kara Ward and Ron Klein, along with Senior Policy Advisor Scott Mason, provide insights on the expected approaches of the first-term Biden Administration or second-term Trump Administration regarding key issues and priorities. They also discuss what to expect from the possible incoming House and Senate majorities and minorities.

\n

View the presentation materials.

\n

Duration: 1:00:45

","link":{"label":"Election 2020: Potential Impacts Series - Financial Services","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-financial-services","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/election-2020-potential-impacts-series-financial-services","target":"","rel":""}},{"image":{"url":"/-/media/images/insights/media-entities/media_audio_still.jpg","alt":"sound waves"},"description":"

Immigration Partner Leon Fresco discussed a fast-tracked case before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the Trump Administration can exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 U.S. Census count in a Bloomberg Law podcast. The court had previously ruled against the Administration's attempt to include a citizenship question in the Census. Mr. Fresco answers questions about how a person's undocumented status could be determined without the citizenship question, among other practical issues, as well as the potential implications of the court's decision.

\n

Duration: 28:59 (Mr. Fresco's interview begins at 11:33)

","link":{"label":"Conservatives Step Up Attack on Affirmative Action","url":"/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/conservatives-step-up-attack-on-affirmative-action","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/media-entities/2020/10/conservatives-step-up-attack-on-affirmative-action","target":"","rel":""}}]">
显着显眼第1集
播客:我们对FTC狗万软件高级律师Michael Ostheimer采访的见解
有蓝天的白色房子在背景中
播客:关于数字经济和DST的更新
狗万软件社区项目资助网络研讨会的见解与展望
狗万软件社区项目的见解与展望(耳机)资金
拜登管理的前100天 - 第2集:数字经济和税收
播客:数字经济和税收
有红色眼镜和黑褐色头发的妇女在白色书架前面
隐私和身份保护:直接从FTC听到
声波
FDACS妇女的历史月播客与统治尼基炒
章程:与法定谈话和PP&R练习领导者富金
播客 - 耳根:与法定谈话和PP&R练习领导者富金
声波
丰富的黄金对美国救援计划,返回题字,更重要的是
与州律师的对话一般 - 第2集:新墨西哥首席副司法部长Tania Maestas和Vermont律师将军TJ Donovan
播客:与首席副委员会的谈话Tania Maestas和司法部长TJ Donovan
面部在屏幕上,覆盖播放按钮
拜登政府的新商业监管趋势:以色列智能城市科技公司,与美国运营需要了解
前100天标题幻灯片
播客:医疗保健优先事项和景观
与在网络研讨会期间的戏剧按钮的Anthony Diresta
社交媒体广告:听取FTC
PodcastTitleslide.
播客:与律师公司Aaron Ford的谈话
本周在风中
本周在风中
Covid-19如何改变酒精法
Covid-19如何改变酒精法
屏幕截图与覆盖播放图标的缩放会议
拜登政府的新商业监管趋势:以色列大麻科技公司,与美国的运营需要了解
高等教育的热门话题
高等教育的热门话题:2021年版
声波
如何浏览新的总统管理并击中地面运行
以色列金融经公司需要知道什么
拜登政府的新商业监管趋势:以色列金融科技的公司与美国运营需要了解
仍然打开幻灯片
选举后简报 - 州律师将军
拜登政府对美国墨西哥关系的意思是什么?
拜登政府对美国墨西哥关系的意思是什么?
声波
前儿童可以奴隶苏巧克力公司吗?
声波
Agritalk - 2020年11月17日
2020年选举后彭博政府介绍
2020年选举后彭博政府介绍
Cato Institute网络研讨会静态图像
拜登政府的贸易政策:返回正常,或进入伟大的未知?
WITA网络研讨会静止图像
与贸易内报的威丽选举分析
荷兰骑士和骑士和仲裁次选举分析
选举后简报
美国选举对拉丁美洲的影响仍然存在
美国选举对拉丁美洲的影响
选举2020潜在影响国家安全和防守仍然存在
选举2020:潜在影响系列 - 国家安全和国防
选举前系列:交易网络研讨会仍然存在
选举2020:潜在的影响 - 贸易
网络研讨会标题与扬声器幻灯片
政治参与训练营系列 - 第4部分:炉边聊天 - 如何利用PAC元
elecciones en estados unidos仍然
美国选举:预期什么?
选举前网络研讨会系列:医疗保健录音仍然
选举2020:潜在影响系列 - 医疗保健和生命科学
政治参与训练营系列 - 第3部分:PAC运营和筹款 - 法律和合规问题
政治参与训练营系列 - 第3部分:PAC运营和筹款 - 法律和合规问题
选举2020:潜在影响系列 - 金融服务静态图像
选举2020:潜在影响系列 - 金融服务
声波
保守派加强攻击肯定行动

狗万软件

The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law"],"link":{"label":"FAA Releases Two Final Rules to Advance Drone Integration","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/05/faa-releases-two-final-rules-to-advance-drone-integration","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/05/faa-releases-two-final-rules-to-advance-drone-integration","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"May-June 2021","readingtime":"","source":null},{"metaData":["Asuntos Legales"],"link":{"label":"Toward a New Model of Regulation","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/hacia-un-nuevo-modelo-de-regulacion","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/hacia-un-nuevo-modelo-de-regulacion","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 16, 2021","readingtime":"","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Biden Administration's Made in America Tax Plan: Interaction with OECD Inclusive Framework","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-interaction-with-oecd","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-interaction-with-oecd","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 15, 2021","readingtime":"16 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["International Tax Watch, Taxes"],"link":{"label":"Location, Location, Location and Foreign Tax Credits","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/location-location-location-and-foreign-tax-credits","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/location-location-location-and-foreign-tax-credits","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 2021","readingtime":"","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Alert"],"link":{"label":"Biden Administration's Made in America Tax Plan: Procedural Aspects","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-procedural-aspects","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/biden-administrations-made-in-america-tax-plan-procedural-aspects","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 8, 2021","readingtime":"6 Minutes","source":null},{"metaData":["Holland & Knight Cybersecurity and Privacy Blog"],"link":{"label":"Looking Ahead to Comprehensive State Privacy Bills in 2021 and Beyond","url":"/en/insights/publications/2021/04/looking-ahead-to-comprehensive-state-privacy-bills-in-2021-and-beyond","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/insights/publications/2021/04/looking-ahead-to-comprehensive-state-privacy-bills-in-2021-and-beyond","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":null,"alt":null},"image":{"url":null,"alt":null},"date":"April 7, 2021","readingtime":"4 Minutes","source":null}]">

新闻和头条新闻

Reuters","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Why Biden's Infrastructure Plan has Big Law Firms Licking their Chops","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/why-bidens-infrastructure-plan-has-big-law-firms-licking-their-chops","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/why-bidens-infrastructure-plan-has-big-law-firms-licking-their-chops","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":null,"date":"April 13, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","Latin America Advisor, The Dialogue","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Is a Proposed Rail Merger Good for North America?","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/is-a-proposed-rail-merger-good-for-north-america","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/04/is-a-proposed-rail-merger-good-for-north-america","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/transportation/train.png","alt":"Train"},"image":null,"date":"April 1, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null},{"metaData":["","Politico","In the Headlines"],"link":{"label":"Biden's Infrastructure Push Sets off Feeding Frenzy in Washington","url":"/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/03/bidens-infrastructure-push-sets-off-feeding-frenzy-in-washington","AbsoluteUrl":"//www.efaxnow.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2021/03/bidens-infrastructure-push-sets-off-feeding-frenzy-in-washington","target":"","rel":""},"icon":{"url":"/-/media/images/icons/capital.png","alt":"Capital Building"},"image":null,"date":"March 31, 2021","readingtime":null,"source":null}]">