Covington is pleased to announce that it has revised and updated its comprehensive 50-state survey of pay-to-play laws for 2026.

Companies doing business with the federal government or state and local governments and companies operating in regulated industries are subject to a dizzying array of “pay-to-play” rules. These rules effectively…

Continue Reading Covington Announces Pay-to-Play Survey (2026 Edition)

On March 2, 2026, the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (“DSIT”) launched its consultation, titled “Growing up in the online world: a national conversation”. The consultation is open until 26 May 2026, after which the government will publish a summary of responses and its proposed approach. DSIT has indicated that it intends to move quickly on the consultation’s findings, drawing on newly granted powers that allow for accelerated implementation of online safety measures.

The consultation seeks views on a wide range of potential measures to strengthen children’s safety and wellbeing online, including more robust age‑assurance mechanisms, a statutory minimum age for social media, raising the UK’s age of digital consent, restrictions on certain features (such as livestreaming and disappearing messages), and new obligations for AI chatbots and generative‑AI services.

DSIT’s proposals could significantly expand regulatory expectations beyond the Online Safety Act 2023 (“OSA”)—including potential age‑based access limits (including differing safeguards as between teens and younger children), feature‑level restrictions, and enhanced duties for AI‑enabled services. Early engagement will be important to ensure that the government takes account of the views of affected service providers and understands the operational and technical implications of the measures proposed.Continue Reading UK Government Launches Consultation on Children’s Online Experiences, Including New Obligations for AI

With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, Democratic lawmakers in both the House and Senate have begun to return to an increasingly familiar tactic of the minority: firing off a flurry of document preservation letters that are a harbinger for the subpoenas to come.  These early letters signal that key Democrats intend to hold potential investigative targets accountable if they regain power, and that they will not look fondly on parties that dismiss their requests.  By urging federal agencies and private entities to secure records in advance, Democratic Ranking Members are making clear that they won’t wait idly to ensure relevant evidence is preserved. Continue Reading The Paper Trail Starts Now: Minority Document Preservation Letters and Preparing for Oversight to Come

On 4 March 2026, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published its proposal for a regulation establishing a framework for the acceleration of its industrial capacity and decarbonisation in strategic sectors (“Proposed Industrial Accelerator Act”, or “Proposed IAA”), accompanied by four annexes. The initiative is intended to strengthen the EU’s industrial base while accelerating decarbonisation in key manufacturing sectors considered strategically important (i.e., energy-intensive industries, net-zero technology manufacturing, and the automotive manufacturing ecosystem). These sectors currently represent less than 15% of EU GDP, and the Commission’s objective is to increase this share to 20% by 2035. The Proposed IAA was delayed three times before publication and underwent significant rewriting, which reflects both internal debates within the Commission and diverging reactions from Member States.  It also reflects the challenges posed by the broader geopolitical context, as the Commission aims to address economic security concerns through industrial policies whilst navigating international trade relationships and commitments.

The Proposed IAA introduces a regulatory framework combining three policy tools. First, it establishes demand-side measures designed to create “lead markets” for low-carbon and “Made in EU” industrial products through public procurement and certain public support schemes. Second, it introduces conditions for allowing certain foreign direct and indirect investments (“FDI”) in strategic sectors, aimed at maximising the industrial benefits of such investments within the EU. Third, it includes measures to streamline permitting procedures and facilitate industrial clustering, with the objective of accelerating the deployment of manufacturing projects.

This blog summarises the key aspects of each tool and their potential implications for companies active in the covered industries or looking to invest in the covered industries.Continue Reading European Commission Publishes the Proposed Industrial Accelerator Act

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down an extensive series of tariffs imposed last year by President Trump, holding that they were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).  And on March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade began the process of refunding certain of “the millions of entries that were subject to IEEPA,” through a process known in the international trade context as liquidating. 

These recent decisions by the Supreme Court and Court of International Trade may prompt federal contractors to consider seeking refunds of tariffs paid to import goods required to perform under their government contracts.  As we covered in a previous post, government contracts may contain clauses allowing for price increases following the imposition of a new federal tax.  These clauses can also work the other way and require a price decrease (or a credit to the Government under a cost-reimbursement contract) in the event of an after-relieved tax.  Continue Reading Tariff Takedown:  Implications of Tariff Refunds for Government Contractors

In 2018, Covington published the original version of its widely read primer on the Foreign Agents Registration Act, “FARA: A Guide for the Perplexed.” We have updated this primer periodically. This week, the firm released the latest edition of the primer, featuring new analysis of recent Department of Justice…

Continue Reading Covington Releases Updated Version of “FARA:  A Guide for the Perplexed”

On March 6, 2026, the Administration released “President Trump’s Cyber Strategy for America” alongside an Executive Order (entitled “Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens”) and accompanying Fact Sheet.  The framework set forth in the Strategy document is significantly shorter and higher-level than the prior National Cybersecurity Strategy issued in March 2023.  We have summarized below the highlights of the Strategy document (Part I) and the Executive Order (Part II), along with key takeaways from each and areas to watch going forward. Continue Reading White House Releases New National Cyber Strategy and Executive Order

On February 10, 2026, federal district court Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled from the bench in the Southern District of New York that the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine did not protect legal strategy materials that a criminal defendant generated using a generative AI tool, when he used a public version of the tool and was not instructed by his attorney to generate these materials.  On February 17, 2026, the court issued a written memorandum explaining its reasoning.  

The question presented – an issue of first impression – was: “whether when a user communicates with a publicly available AI platform in connection with a pending criminal investigation, are the communications protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine?”  The court’s answer was no given the unique circumstances of the case – namely, that no lawyer was involved in the back-and-forth with the AI tool, and the tool itself was a public (i.e., non-confidential) version. 

Below, we summarize the background of the case, the decision, and key takeaways on AI and Legal Privilege.Continue Reading AI and Legal Privilege: Key Takeaways from US v. Heppner

On January 17th, 2026, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (“BBNJ”) Agreement, also known as the “High Seas Treaty”, entered into force.  For the first time, companies that use marine genetic resources (“MGRs”) and digital sequence information (“DSI”) originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction may be required to share monetary and non-monetary benefits at a global level.

This marks a significant expansion of access and benefit-sharing (“ABS”) obligations for companies.  Until now, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”) and its Nagoya Protocol, ABS obligations applied only to genetic resources originating within national jurisdictions.  The BBNJ Agreement fundamentally changes this landscape: companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, cosmetics, food and feed that rely on marine-derived compounds, microorganisms or genetic data may now face new reporting and annual payment obligations.

Companies should not assume a long transition period.  Implementation is already advancing.  The European Commission has published a draft Directive (“draft EU Directive”), and the United Kingdom adopted the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 (“UK Act”) on February 12th, 2026. Companies should therefore assess now whether their R&D pipelines, data use practices, or product portfolios fall within scope.

In this blog, we examine how the BBNJ Agreement and its EU and UK implementation could affect companies using MGRs and DSI, and identify the key compliance risks and strategic questions for in-house counsel and senior management.Continue Reading Navigating the new UN High Seas Treaty: Key Compliance Risks for Life Sciences Companies

On 10 February 2026, the EU released the agreed compromise text of the new Regulation on the screening of foreign investments in the EU (the “New FIR Regulation”).  The three EU institutions (Commission, Parliament and Council) reached the compromise on the text in December 2025 (see our blog) following several months of trilogues (see our blog).  The text, while not yet officially published, is expected to remain unchanged.  The New FIR Regulation will repeal and replace the current FDI Screening Regulation (EU) 2019/452 (the “2019 FDI Regulation”).  The New FIR Regulation further integrates the EU’s investment screening framework into the EU’s economic security strategy.

Against the backdrop of rising geopolitical friction, the New FIR Regulation aims to address the risk that investors structure transactions to get access to the EU market by anchoring their investments in Member States with lighter FIR controls.  To do so, the New FIR Regulation establishes a unified minimum screening framework across the Member States (e.g., through mandatory national screening mechanisms, harmonised review timelines, and strengthened cooperation obligations), whilst preserving Member States’ ultimate sovereignty on matters of national security.  This will be a major evolution from the 2019 FDI Regulation, which was limited to establishing an information-sharing mechanism while leaving Member States wide discretion as to whether and how to screen foreign investments.

This post discusses the five major areas of change for prospective investors, before offering a few forward-looking considerations.Continue Reading New Foreign Investment Screening Regulation – Key Takeaways from the Agreed Compromise Text