Photo of Andrew Longhi

Andrew Longhi

Andrew Longhi advises national and multinational companies across industries on a wide range of regulatory, compliance, and enforcement matters involving data privacy, telecommunications, and emerging technologies.

Andrew's practice focuses on advising clients on how to navigate the rapidly evolving legal landscape of state, federal, and international data protection laws. He proactively counsels clients on the substantive requirements introduced by new laws and shifting enforcement priorities. In particular, Andrew routinely supports clients in their efforts to launch new products and services that implicate the laws governing the use of data, connected devices, biometrics, and telephone and email marketing.

Andrew assesses privacy and cybersecurity risk as a part of diligence in complex corporate transactions where personal data is a key asset or data processing issues are otherwise material. He also provides guidance on generative AI issues, including privacy, Section 230, age-gating, product liability, and litigation risk, and has drafted standards and guidelines for large-language machine-learning models to follow. Andrew focuses on providing risk-based guidance that can keep pace with evolving legal frameworks.

Contact:Read more about Andrew LonghiEmail

On March 12, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice to announce it is seeking comment on whether any FCC rules, regulations or guidance documents should be removed due to the stated purpose of “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”  The FCC opened the new “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, GN Docket No. 25-133, to receive filings from interested parties.

This action follows a number of recent actions by the Trump Administration focused on deregulation, such as the “Executive Order on Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” which established new restrictions on the federal contracting process.

The Public Notice requests that commenters consider the following policy factors when responding:

  • Cost-benefit considerations – what cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken by the Commission in determining whether the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit it brings to society.   
  • Experience gained from the implementation of the rule – whether the application of a given rule, either as currently interpreted or otherwise, reasonably supports the conclusion that the rule is “unnecessary or inappropriate.”

Continue Reading FCC Announces “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” Docket in Support of Deregulatory Agenda

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 advisory opinion could potentially play…

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:”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 the following:

  • A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking input on proposed updates to 10-year-old service specific AWS-3 bidding rules to fulfill the agency’s “statutory obligation to initiate an auction of licenses for the AWS-3 spectrum in the Commission’s inventory by June 23, 2026.”  Proceeds from the auction will support the program that reimburses advanced communications service providers for the cost of removing and replacing Huawei Technologies or ZTE Corporation equipment and services in their networks.
  • A Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the potential for freeing up additional mid-band spectrum in the Upper C-band for new services, including whether authorization and transition mechanisms similar to those used in the successful 3.7 GHz Service transition could be applied.  The NOI will solicit comments on the parameters for new opportunities in the Upper C-band, the potential need for amending the U.S. Table, and the current and future needs of existing operators while considering the impact on aviation radio altimeters.  It also will invite detailed proposals on transition mechanics and structure, and requests technical and economic data on the costs and benefits of authorizing new services in the Upper C-band.

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 Register (the ‘OFR’), until a…

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

On January 3, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it reached a settlement with accessiBe, a provider of AI-powered web accessibility software, to resolve allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act concerning the marketing and stated efficacy of its software. Continue Reading AI Accessibility Software Provider Settles FTC Allegations

On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order, which had attempted to reclassify broadband access as a regulated “telecommunications service” and adopted net neutrality regulations.  As we previously covered here, a different panel of the Sixth Circuit had previously stayed that Order pending outcome of the litigation against it.   The decision means that the FCC will not generally have a direct role in regulating at-home or mobile broadband service, absent action by Congress.

The three-judge panel held that broadband internet service providers offer only an “information service” as that key term is defined by the Communications Act, “and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service’ provision” under Title II.  In a related finding, the Sixth Circuit found that mobile broadband is a “private” mobile offering and thus it too cannot be regulated as a common carrier offering such that it can “then similarly impose net-neutrality restrictions on those services.”Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Strikes Down FCC Net Neutrality Rules

On December 3, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it reached a settlement with IntelliVision Technologies Corp. (“IntelliVision”) to resolve allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making certain claims concerning its AI-powered facial recognition software. 

The FTC’s complaint alleged, among other things, that IntelliVision made certain inaccurate or insufficiently supported claims about its facial recognition software, including with regard to its accuracy as it pertains to gender, race, and ethnicity detection and bias.

To resolve these and other allegations, the FTC and Intellivision entered into a proposed consent order that places restrictions and obligations on IntelliVision with respect to its facial recognition technology.

Among other restrictions, the proposed consent order requires that IntelliVision not make misrepresentations about the accuracy or efficacy of its technology, including concerning “the comparative performance … with respect to individuals of different genders, ethnicities, and skin tones, or reducing or eliminating differential performance based on such factors” and detecting spoofing or determining “Liveness” (defined to mean “that a living subject is present at the point of capture”).Continue Reading IntelliVision Settles FTC Allegations Regarding its Facial Recognition Technology

This quarterly update highlights key legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments in the third quarter of 2024 related to artificial intelligence (“AI”) and connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”).  As noted below, some of these developments provide industry with the opportunity for participation and comment.

I.     Artificial Intelligence

Federal Legislative Developments

There continued to be strong bipartisan…

Continue Reading U.S. Tech Legislative, Regulatory & Litigation Update – Third Quarter 2024

On October 23, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) seeking comment on potential initiatives to address customer service concerns among regulated communications service providers. 

The FCC stated that the goal of the NOI is “to ensure that consumers have appropriate access to the customer services resources they require to interact with their service provider in a manner that allows them to efficiently resolve issues, avoid unnecessary charges, and make informed choices regarding the services they obtain from service providers.”  The inquiry is specific to regulated cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, voice service providers, and broadband service providers (collectively referred to as “service providers”).Continue Reading FCC to Examine Customer Service Issues in the Communications Industry