Photo of Yaron Dori

Yaron Dori

Yaron Dori has over 25 years of experience advising technology, telecommunications, media, life sciences, and other types of companies on their most pressing business challenges. He is a former chair of the firm’s technology, communications and media practices and currently serves on the firm’s eight-person Management Committee.

Yaron’s practice advises clients on strategic planning, policy development, transactions, investigations and enforcement, and regulatory compliance.

Early in his career, Yaron advised telecommunications companies and investors on regulatory policy and frameworks that led to the development of broadband networks. When those networks became bidirectional and enabled companies to collect consumer data, he advised those companies on their data privacy and consumer protection obligations. Today, as new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) are being used to enhance the applications and services offered by such companies, he advises them on associated legal and regulatory obligations and risks. It is this varied background – which tracks the evolution of the technology industry – that enables Yaron to provide clients with a holistic, 360-degree view of technology policy, regulation, compliance, and enforcement.

Yaron represents clients before federal regulatory agencies—including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Commerce (DOC)—and the U.S. Congress in connection with a range of issues under the Communications Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and similar statutes. He also represents clients on state regulatory and enforcement matters, including those that pertain to telecommunications, data privacy, and consumer protection regulation. His deep experience in each of these areas enables him to advise clients on a wide range of technology regulations and key business issues in which these areas intersect.

With respect to technology and telecommunications matters, Yaron advises clients on a broad range of business, policy and consumer-facing issues, including:

Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things;
Broadband deployment and regulation;

IP-enabled applications, services and content;
Section 230 and digital safety considerations;
Equipment and device authorization procedures;
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA);

Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) requirements;

The Cable Privacy Act
Net Neutrality; and
Local competition, universal service, and intercarrier compensation.

Yaron also has extensive experience in structuring transactions and securing regulatory approvals at both the federal and state levels for mergers, asset acquisitions and similar transactions involving large and small FCC and state communication licensees.

With respect to privacy and consumer protection matters, Yaron advises clients on a range of business, strategic, policy and compliance issues, including those that pertain to:

The FTC Act and related agency guidance and regulations;
State privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act, the Colorado Privacy Act, the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, and the Utah Consumer Privacy Act;
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA);
Location-based services that use WiFi, beacons or similar technologies;
Digital advertising practices, including native advertising and endorsements and testimonials; and

The application of federal and state telemarketing, commercial fax, and other consumer protection laws, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), to voice, text, and video transmissions.

Yaron also has experience advising companies on congressional, FCC, FTC and state attorney general investigations into various consumer protection and communications matters, including those pertaining to social media influencers, digital disclosures, product discontinuance, and advertising claims.

In 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines to four major telecommunications carriers—Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile—for allegedly failing to protect the geolocation data of their subscribers, which the FCC claimed violated its Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”) rules. To challenge the action, all four carriers had to first pay the fines, which they did.  They then petitioned for review of the FCC’s decision in various U.S. courts of appeals, arguing that the FCC’s procedure for adjudicating monetary fines violated their right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. Verizon sought relief in the Second Circuit, T-Mobile (which had merged with Sprint) sought relief in the D.C. Circuit, and AT&T sought relief in the Fifth Circuit.

The Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit held in favor of the FCC, rejecting the carriers’ argument that the FCC violated their Seventh Amendment rights. But the Fifth Circuit reached a different conclusion, holding that the FCC’s procedure did in fact violate AT&T’s right to a jury trial. The FCC (which lost in the Fifth Circuit) and Verizon (which lost in the Second Circuit) each has filed a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court.

With a 2-1 federal circuit split and two certiorari petitions pending, some are predicting that there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will decide to consider the appeals. The dispute raises a fundamental question about the FCC’s authority to impose monetary penalties through its in-house administrative enforcement procedures. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, it will be called upon to determine whether the Communications Act violates the Seventh Amendment by authorizing the FCC to order the payment of monetary penalties for violations of the Act, without guaranteeing the right to a jury trial. The resolution of this dispute thus could have significant implications for how the FCC enforces the law against telecommunications carriers and other entities subject to its jurisdiction.

Both petitions for certiorari have been distributed for a January 9, 2026 conference.Continue Reading FCC Privacy Enforcement May Face More Constitutional Scrutiny: Supreme Court Review of FCC CPNI Fines Sought Amid Circuit Split

Earlier this month, the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) proposing to eliminate or modify various broadband label rules for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).  The FCC’s primary rationale for these proposed changes is that the rules are cumbersome for ISPs to implement and

Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comment on Proposed Changes to Broadband Label Transparency Rules

At the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) Open Meeting in late October, the agency unanimously adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to end certain legacy interconnection obligations of Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) to accelerate the transition to all Internet Protocol (IP) networks.

Currently, certain LECs are required to

Continue Reading FCC Proposes Rule Changes to Accelerate Transition to IP Networks

On October 29, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released its Second Report and Order (the “R&O”) and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) concerning changes to its equipment authorization rules.  The R&O and FNPRM continue the FCC’s ongoing efforts to update the agency’s equipment authorization rules to “protect

Continue Reading FCC Modifies Equipment Authorization Rules to Address National Security Concerns

Earlier this month on September 8, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it was taking an initial set of actions to address threats posed by so-called “bad labs.”  “Bad labs” consist of test labs that review and approve radio frequency emitting devices for use in the U.S. but are

Continue Reading FCC Takes Action on Certain “Bad Labs”

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released the final text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) aimed at identifying FCC regulated entities that are controlled by a “foreign adversary.”

This development, along with a separate action recently taken by the FCC to adopt new rules that prohibit the use

Continue Reading FCC Looks to Identify Telecom Investments by Foreign Adversaries

Recent reports suggest that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may be considering issuing an advisory opinion on Section 230 of the Communications Act.  Section 230, among other things, provides immunity to a provider of an “interactive computer service” from civil liability for third-party content posted on the provider’s site.  An

Continue Reading FCC Reportedly Considering Advisory Opinion on Section 230

Yesterday, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” (the EO).  The EO asserts Presidential authority over independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  While the precise impacts remain to be seen, overall the EO will likely result in greater involvement by the White House in policymaking at independent agencies, both in substance and process.

OIRA Review of Agency Regulations.  The EO amends the Clinton Administration-era Executive Order 12866, which established a review process for regulations promulgated by executive branch departments and agencies but excluded independent agencies from that process.  The process includes requirements that departments and agencies submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before publication in the Federal Register.  Executive Order 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” to mean “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:”

  1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
  2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
  3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
  4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.

Yesterday’s EO revises the definition of “agencies” to remove an exemption for “independent regulatory agencies.”  The amended definition includes an exemption for the Federal Reserve “in its conduct of monetary policy.”

Performance Standards and Management Objectives.  The EO directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to “establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads” and “report periodically to the President on their performance and efficiency in attaining such standards and objectives.”Continue Reading Trump Administration Asserts Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the agenda for its February Open Meeting, which is scheduled for February 27, 2025.  This is the first agenda released by the FCC under new Chairman Brendan Carr.  The agenda items on which the commissioners will vote at the meeting will include

Continue Reading FCC to Tackle Robust Agenda at February Open Meeting

On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration released a memorandum, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” to halt agency rulemaking processes (the “EO”).

The EO orders all executive departments and agencies to “not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal

Continue Reading Trump Administration Releases “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” Executive Order