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.

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

The results of the 2024 U.S. election are expected to have significant implications for AI legislation and regulation at both the federal and state level. 

Like the first Trump Administration, the second Trump Administration is likely to prioritize AI innovation, R&D, national security uses of AI, and U.S. private sector investment and leadership in AI.  Although recent AI model testing and reporting requirements established by the Biden Administration may be halted or revoked, efforts to promote private-sector innovation and competition with China are expected to continue.  And while antitrust enforcement involving large technology companies may continue in the Trump Administration, more prescriptive AI rulemaking efforts such as those launched by the current leadership of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) are likely to be curtailed substantially.

In the House and Senate, Republican majorities are likely to adopt priorities similar to those of the Trump Administration, with a continued focus on AI-generated deepfakes and prohibitions on the use of AI for government surveillance and content moderation. 

At the state level, legislatures in California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, and others likely will advance AI legislation on issues ranging from algorithmic discrimination to digital replicas and generative AI watermarking. 

This post covers the effects of the recent U.S. election on these areas and what to expect as we enter 2025.  (Click here for our summary of the 2024 election implications on AI-related industrial policy and competition with China.)Continue Reading U.S. AI Policy Expectations in the Trump Administration, GOP Congress, and the States

On Tuesday, November 26, the FTC released a proposed settlement order with Evolv Technologies, a provider of AI-enabled security screening systems.  The FTC’s complaint in the matter alleged that Evolv violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making “false or unsupported claims” about the capabilities of an AI-enabled screening system that it provides to schools and other venues.  Specifically, the complaint asserts that Evolv misrepresented “the extent to which the system will detect weapons and ignore harmless items” more accurately and cost-effectively than traditional metal detectors. 

The FTC positioned its action against Evolv as a continuation of its work under the previously announced “Operation AI Comply,” which we discussed here, to “ensure that AI marketing is truthful.”  The complaint alleges that Evolv made “a very deliberate choice” to market its screening system as involving the use of AI, but that Evolv’s effort to position the screening system as a high-tech “weapons detection” system rather than a metal detector “is solely a marketing distinction, in that the only things that [the screening system’s] scanners detect are metallic, and its alarms can be set off by metallic objects that are not weapons.” Continue Reading FTC Settles Case Against Provider of AI-Enabled Security Systems

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

Last week, California’s telecommunications regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), adopted a new regulatory framework for providers of interconnected voice over Internet protocol (“iVoIP”) that marks a significant shift in regulation of a service that has long been lightly regulated both at the state and federal level.  Under the new rules adopted at Thursday’s CPUC meeting, iVoIP providers are now subject to registration and licensing requirements in California, which also will require that these companies notify the CPUC of – and in some cases, seek prior approval for – any transfers of control or assignments of their assets.

The new rules could have significant and far-reaching ramifications for carriers providing iVoIP services in the largest market in the United States.  For example, because the CPUC’s decision now requires at least some form of filing with the regulator before transfer of control of an iVoIP provider may occur, financial or strategic investors focused on the telecommunications space should take note that regulatory requirements may apply to any acquisition or investment in an iVoIP provider with operations in California.  In some circumstances, a transfer of control of a California iVoIP provider or assignment of iVoIP provider assets may require prior approval from the CPUC, a process that tends to be the lengthiest state regulatory approval process for communications transactions that require state review.

Substantively, the CPUC’s order concerns the creation of new utility classifications (and corresponding authorization types) for iVoIP providers, which are subject to different licensing or registration requirements depending on the nature of the iVoIP services they provide.  The following is a summary of the three new utility types and the key requirements for each from the CPUC’s order.

Continue Reading California PUC Adopts New Rules Implementing Sweeping Changes in Regulation of Interconnected VoIP Providers

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

On September 25, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it brought five actions against companies it accused of using “artificial intelligence as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers.”  These actions, which the FTC indicated are part of its new enforcement sweep called “Operation AI Comply,” reflect the FTC’s repeatedly stated intention to exercise its authority under the FTC Act and other rules in connection with AI-related products and marketing claims. 

The five actions rely on a range of FTC authorities and target several different forms of conduct. 

  • DoNotPay: The FTC brought an action against DoNotPay, which purports to offer automated legal services, on the theory that it violated the FTC Act by making false claims that its product could substitute for the expertise of a human lawyer.  A proposed settlement would require DoNotPay to pay $193,000, provide notices to past subscribers, and avoid making claims about its ability to substitute AI for professional expertise without proper evidence.

Continue Reading FTC Announces New Enforcement Actions on Marketing of AI-Enabled Products

On September 26, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a $6 million fine against political consultant Steve Kramer for “illegal robocalls made using deepfake, AI-generated voice cloning technology and caller ID spoofing to spread election misinformation to potential New Hampshire voters prior to the state’s January primary presidential election.”   The fine follows a $1

Continue Reading FCC Fines Political Consultant $6 Million for AI-based “Deepfake” Robocalls