Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Cathy Mulrow-Peattie was selected by Crain’s New York Business for its 2026 Notable Women in Law.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Hinshaw partners James (Jim) Sandy and Scott Seaman have been ranked as Top Authors in the 2026 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that the Campaign for Greener Arbitrations has appointed Mohamed Sweify to serve a two-year term, starting in 2026, as the Co-Chair of its Outreach & Events Task Force on the Global Steering Committee. 

Read a Law360 “Expert Analysis” by Hinshaw partner John Kimble examining the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) regulatory and enforcement priorities for 2026.

Read an AccountsRecovery.net column by Hinshaw partner Justin Penn analyzing the significance and key takeaways of a recent FCRA ruling, which dismissed most claims against a defendant accused of improperly reporting mortgage delinquencies during COVID-19 forbearance periods.

Read a new AccountsRecovery.net column by Hinshaw partner Colin Winkler, who examines a recent Minnesota district court decision that largely denied a motion to dismiss in a pro se Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, despite the plaintiff’s reliance on sovereign citizen-style arguments. 

Hinshaw partners Lauren Campisi and Brian McGrath will present at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Servicing Solutions Conference and Expo in Dallas, Texas, from February 16 to 19, 2026.

Partners Dustin Alonzo and Leslie Meredith will serve as panelists on November 20, 2025, at the Fall Conference of Consumer Finance Law (CCFL) in Fort Worth, Texas.

Hinshaw partners Laura Cannon and Tessa Vorhaben will both present separate CLE panels at the Big Easy Bootcamp for Young Lawyers, hosted by the New Orleans Bar Association (NOBA) on October 29, 2025, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Hinshaw partner Vaishali Rao is scheduled to co-present a webinar titled "What is on State Radars for 2026," on January 21, 2026.

Hinshaw partner Justin Penn will co-present an AccountsRecovery.net webinar titled “The Pro Se Litigation Playbook” on January 20, 2026. 

Hinshaw's Jack Shadid will present an ABA CLE webinar on December 12, 2025, covering new regulations on cryptocurrencies and digital assets in secured transactions.

Read our blog post examining the FTC's recent lawsuit against an online Q&A service for its alleged deceptive subscription practices. This case highlights the importance of transparency in subscription models and provides key compliance obligations for businesses marketing goods and services online. 

Read how the US Supreme Court is set to define “consumer” under the VPPA, reshaping tracking‑tool class actions and signaling broader compliance risks for the consumer financial services industry.

Read how a Hinshaw legal team led by partners Ellis Oster and Robert Bailey recently helped secure the first-ever appellate-level ruling in New York addressing sanctions for the misuse of generative AI in legal submissions.

In this November edition of Hinshaw’s Privacy, Cyber and AI Decoded, in celebration of the US Thanksgiving holiday, we are recommending that our readers Keep Calm as they are faced with a new surge of legal requirements, regulations, and enforcement actions, and Gobble On. 

Explore compliance implications of California’s finalized CCPA rules and Colorado’s new regulations, including insurance privacy requirements, ADMT notices, risk assessments, and phased cyber audits.

Explore key compliance strategies from Hinshaw partner Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and industry experts on AI-driven cyber risks and regulations, as covered in our alert with takeaways from the Q3 2025 FinCyber Femmes Meeting.

The US Supreme Court issued a decision that President Trump's 2025 IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional and unlawful, holding that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs. 

Learn how the New York AVOID Act significantly changes third-party practice and the key compliance steps to prepare for the law taking effect on April 19, 2026.

Read part one, "A Bronx Tale: A New York State Trial Judge Calls Out New York State's Long-Standing Heightened Standard of Proving the Making of an Agreement to Arbitrate," about the trial court's decision in Wu v. Uber Tech., Inc.

Illinois Supreme Court Finds That TCPA Is a Remedial and Not Punitive StatuteIn Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay, --- N.E.2d ---, 2013 WL 2253203 (Ill. May 23, 2013), the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is a remedial and not a punitive statute, and thus liquidated damages of $500 per violation do not constitute uninsurable punitive damages.In June 2009, plaintiff fax recipient brought a class action against defendant insured in the Circuit Court of Madison County, alleging violations of the TCPA. The fax recipient and the other plaintiffs sought the TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation and injunctive relief. The insured tendered its defense to its insurer, which had issued to the insured a commercial general liability insurance policy and a primary business owners’ liability insurance policy.In July 2009, the underlying action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and on September 18, 2010, the district court entered a final order approving the class certification and settlement. The judgment against the insured was for $1,737,500, plus costs. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the fax recipient would seek satisfaction of the judgment only from the insurance policies of the insured; the insured assigned to the fax recipient all of its claims against, and rights to payment from, the insurer. In July 2010, the insurer filed a complaint and alleged, in relevant part, that TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation constitute punitive damages, which “are not insurable as a matter of Illinois law and public policy.” Finding that the insured was not covered, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court’s finding that TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation constitute punitive damages, which “are not insurable as a matter of Illinois law and public policy and are not recoverable from [the insurer].” The Court explained: “Whether we view the $500 statutory award as a liquidated sum for actual harm, or as an incentive for aggrieved parties to enforce the statute, or both, the $500 fixed amount clearly serves more than purely punitive or deterrent goals.”Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay, --- N.E.2d ----, 2013 WL 2253203 (Ill. May 23, 2013)Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Assignee of Security Deed Can Conduct Nonjudicial Foreclosure Sale Without Holding or Owning the Underlying Promissory NoteThe Supreme Court of Georgia decided questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia regarding state nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. In the district court, the borrowers challenged, inter alia, the authority of the holder of the security deed to exercise the power of sale in that deed without also holding the promissory note. The Court held that state law does not require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed securing debt to also hold the promissory note evidencing the underlying debt. The Court noted that no such requisite existed in the statute, and highlighted the legislature’s refusal to specifically define the term “secured creditor.” In further support of its holding, the Court highlighted the long-standing practice surrounding nonjudicial foreclosures that recognizes the ability of a deed holder to exercise its rights under the deed, apart from the note. In addition, the Court gleaned no evidence from which to conclude that the legislature intended to make substantive changes to this law through subsequent amendments. The Court also rejected the borrowers’ argument that the secured deed was a negotiable instrument governed by Article 3 of Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code. It further held that the statute’s notice provision did not require that the secured creditor be identified in the notice of default to the debtor unless the secured creditor is the individual or entity with full authority to negotiate and modify the terms of the mortgage. Thus, identifying only a loan servicer in a foreclosure notice meets the statutory requirement as long as the servicer has authority to modify the terms of the loan and deed.You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., --- S.E.2d ---, 2013 WL 2152562 (Ga. May 20, 2013)Debtor’s Writ of Garnishment Is Quashed After He Refuses to Provide Tax Info and Tries to Collect Judgment from Debt Collector