he U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that it is working on significant reforms of the country’s anti–money laundering (AML) framework. Rather than a single sweeping overhaul, the current reform effort consists of a series of interrelated rulemakings, delays, and targeted expansions that collectively signal a shift toward a more risk-based, sector-inclusive, and flexible regulatory regime.

At the center of this effort is FinCEN’s proposed reconsideration of its 2024 rule extending AML obligations to investment advisers. That rule, originally slated to take effect in January 2026, would have required certain registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers to establish AML programs, file suspicious activity reports (SARs), and comply with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements for the first time. However, in September 2025, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to delay implementation until January 1, 2028.

This delay, finalized in early 2026, is more than a procedural adjustment. Treasury explicitly stated that the additional time would allow regulators to revisit the substance of the rule and better tailor it to the “diverse business models and risk profiles” of the investment adviser sector. The move reflects industry concerns that the original rule was overly broad and potentially burdensome, particularly for smaller firms. At the same time, FinCEN emphasized that AML obligations for the sector are inevitable, underscoring a longer-term policy objective of closing perceived gaps in financial system oversight.

Parallel to this reconsideration is a broader conceptual shift in how AML compliance is structured. FinCEN has proposed modernizing AML/CFT program requirements to emphasize effectiveness and risk alignment over rigid procedural checklists. Under this approach, institutions would be expected to design compliance programs that are “risk-based” and “reasonably designed” to mitigate specific illicit finance threats, rather than simply meeting prescriptive regulatory requirements. This reflects a growing recognition that a one-size-fits-all compliance model may be ill-suited to the complexity of modern financial markets, particularly as new technologies and nontraditional financial intermediaries emerge.

“For too long, Washington has asked financial institutions to measure success by the volume of paperwork rather than their ability to stop illicit finance threats,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement. “Our proposal restores common sense with a focus on keeping bad actors out of the financial system, not burying America’s banks in more red tape.”

Another key pillar of FinCEN’s reform agenda is the expansion of AML obligations into historically under-regulated sectors—most notably residential real estate. A new nationwide reporting rule, which took effect in 2026 (with some implementation delays and legal challenges), requires reporting of certain non-financed residential property transfers involving legal entities and trusts. These transactions have long been viewed as a vulnerability in the U.S. AML regime, as illicit actors can use shell companies to purchase real estate without triggering traditional financial institution reporting requirements.

Beyond sector-specific reforms, FinCEN is also exploring structural changes to AML enforcement. According to reporting on Treasury’s internal proposals, the agency may seek a more centralized role in overseeing AML compliance across federal banking regulators. One proposal would allow FinCEN to review—or even veto—certain enforcement decisions made by other regulators under the BSA framework. While still in the proposal stage, such a shift could significantly alter the balance of authority among U.S. financial regulators and potentially lead to more consistent enforcement outcomes.

Among the most significant proposals and aims of AML reform are:

• Refocus compliance obligations and expectations on effectiveness by distinguishing between deficiencies stemming from program design and implementation
• Reinforce Treasury’s belief that financial institutions are best positioned to identify and evaluate their illicit finance risks
• Empower financial institutions to devote more attention and resources toward higher risks rather than toward lower risks
• Clarify expectations related to certain program requirements and functions—including independent testing and audit functions—to ensure that examiners and auditors do not substitute their subjective judgment in place of financial institutions’ risk-based and reasonably designed AML/CFT programs; and
• Affirm FinCEN’s central role in AML/CFT supervision, including through the introduction of a notice and consultation framework between Federal banking supervisors and FinCEN with respect to significant AML/CFT supervisory actions.

These reforms are unfolding against a backdrop of evolving enforcement priorities. Recent FinCEN actions—including expanded geographic targeting orders along the Southwest border and high-profile designations of foreign financial institutions—highlight a continued focus on combating drug trafficking, cybercrime, and transnational fraud networks. This suggests that while certain compliance burdens may be recalibrated, the overall intensity of AML enforcement is unlikely to diminish.

For financial institutions and other affected sectors, the implications are significant. Firms must prepare for an expanded AML landscape that encompasses new industries and transaction types, while also adapting to evolving expectations around program design and effectiveness. At the same time, the regulatory uncertainty created by ongoing revisions may complicate compliance planning in the near term.

FinCEN’s insists its current reform initiative does not represent a rollback of AML regulation, but rather a strategic reconfiguration. By combining expansion, flexibility, and structural reform, Treasury is attempting to build a more comprehensive and adaptive AML regime—one that is better equipped to address the complexities of modern illicit finance while balancing the operational realities faced by regulated entities. 

The post FinCEN Proposes Broad Reforms in AML Enforcement and Rulemaking appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he Commissioner for Competition at the European Commission, Teresa Ribera, warned that political influences are in danger of corrupting competition enforcement decisions. Ribera argues that antitrust must stay strong against politics and its pressures to ensure impartial and evidence-based enforcement policies. In a statement, she emphasized independence from political pressures and emphasized a willingness to consider industrial policy goals in merger reviews, potentially allowing more leniency for European companies compared to her predecessors.

“I have not got any type of interference on the political bias approach on how we need to deliver. We are bound by the law. We have been developing our own update on how we may assess the different cases, and we have always been quite respectful, and that is my case as commissioner, but also the case of my predecessors in the role of commissioner,” said Ribera during a press conference.

These stances were taken in response to growing pressures to change how competition policy is handled, with antitrust authorities in some regions facing pushback to clear mergers or drop investigations in favor of national economic threats, as stated by MLex. Last November, Ribera also accused the United States of “blackmail” on tech regulation, emphasizing the EU competition policy would not change to accommodate U.S. political pressure or threats of tariffs, according to an article in Politico. 

The post EU Official Says Antitrust Must ‘Stay Strong’ Against Politics appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he FTC chairman, Andrew Ferguson, has instructed the FTC staff to create a special health care task force intended to better protect patients, healthcare workers, and taxpayers. The FTC said, in a statement, that the task force will create a coordinated, competitive, and innovative approach to how the agency regulates health care organizations.

In a memorandum, Chairman Ferguson directed the FTC’s Bureaus of Competition, Consumer Protection, and Economics, as well as the Office of Policy Planning and Office of Technology, to form the health care task force.

According to Ferguson, the task force will help the agency to “share knowledge, resources, third-party sources, market intelligence, case leads, and relationships with other agencies and stakeholders.”

The Health Care Task Force will:

• Lead targeted enforcement and advocacy initiatives focused on key priorities;
• Devise coordinated agency-wide strategies on investigations;
• Take a proactive and strategic approach to identifying amicus and statement of interest opportunities; and
• Identify emerging issues and new priority areas for enforcement and advocacy.

The task force will also seek to expand its membership to include other agencies and law enforcement partners, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice. 

The post FTC Launches Health Care Task Force appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

arlier this month, the Department of Justice announced a new “department-wide” corporate criminal enforcement policy that it says will promote uniformity, predictability, and fairness in how it pursues corporate wrongdoing. The policy, which it labeled the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure policy, is intended to incentivize companies to self-disclose wrongdoing and hold employees responsible in exchange for potential non-prosecution.

The core aspects of the new DOJ corporate enforcement policy (CEP) are individual accountability, voluntary self-disclosure, a standardized approach, aggravating factors, and incentives. The policy emphasizes that the corporate cooperation credit requires that all facts regarding individuals involved in the misconduct be revealed and provided. Companies that self-disclose can avoid criminal prosecution, unless the circumstances are extreme. The CEP applies to all company criminal matters handled by the department, excluding antitrust violations, and it replaces the inconsistent component-specific policies. However, aggravating factors like any involvement with senior management or pervasive misconduct may result in a declination of prosecution. Companies that self-disclose and cooperate regardless of whether they meet all the criteria may receive reductions in fines as high as 75 percent.

“This Department of Justice is committed to transparency and fairness, and our first-ever Department-wide corporate enforcement policy is yet another example of that,” said deputy attorney general Todd Blanche. “This policy draws on decades of experience across the Department and creates incentives for companies to come forward and do the right thing when misconduct occurs so that we may hold accountable the individual wrongdoers. Well-intentioned businesses know that, across the department, they will be rewarded when they self-disclose wrongdoing, cooperate with our investigations, and remediate the misconduct. But for those that do not, make no mistake — we will not hesitate to seek appropriate resolutions against companies and individuals alike that perpetrate white collar offenses that harm American interests.”

According to the DOJ, the main requirements for companies are prompt disclosure, remediation, and cooperation for the DOJ to deal with corporate crime in a consistent, transparent, and predictable environment. 

The post New DOJ Enforcement Policy Emphasizes Individual Misconduct appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that they have agreed to work more closely and collaborate more on regulatory issues and enforcement. The agencies say the agreement, documented in a “memorandum of understanding,” will allow the agencies to better support lawful innovations, uphold market integrity, reduce regulatory overlap, and protect investors and customers.

The agreement is a formal, non-binding document that outlines a plan to collaborate between the two agencies, which also details roles, responsibilities, and goals without creating legally enforceable obligations.

“The MOU shows the agencies’ commitments to provide fair notice to market participants, respect individual liberty, and foster lawful innovation with the minimum amount of regulation to enhance U.S finance competitiveness,” the SEC says. The main intention was to resolve the conflict between the agencies and provide a framework of cooperation, particularly on cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

In conjunction with the MOU, the agencies have created what they are calling a “joint harmonization initiative” to advance coordinated oversight and promote regulatory clarity in areas of common regulatory interest. The initiative will support coordination across the policymaking, examination, and enforcement functions of each agency, particularly for joint applications and shared policy efforts, including:

• Clarifying product definitions through joint interpretations and rulemakings.
• Modernizing clearing, margin, and collateral frameworks.
• Reducing frictions for dually registered exchanges, trading venues, and intermediaries.
• Providing a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for crypto assets and other emerging technologies.
• Streamlining regulatory reporting for trade data, funds, and intermediaries.
• Coordinating cross-market examinations, economic analyses, risk monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement.

“America’s financial markets are the envy of the world because they scale and adapt to meet investor demands. Like our markets, the CFTC’s and SEC’s regulatory frameworks must also evolve and modernize to accommodate the needs of our market participants,” said CFTC Chairman Michael Selig. “This Memorandum of Understanding solidifies the agencies’ commitment to harmonize regulatory frameworks to provide comprehensive and seamless financial market oversight. By working together, we’ll eliminate duplicative, burdensome rules and close gaps in regulation for the benefit of all Americans and usher in a golden age of American finance.” 

The post SEC and CFTC Agree to Greater Collaboration Between the Agencies appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he Securities and Exchange Commission’s director of the Enforcement Division, Margaret Ryan, stepped down this week after only a little more than half a year on the job. Sam Waldon, who served as head of enforcement before Ryan, will return to the role as acting director.

During her time in the office, Ryan oversaw what the SEC calls a “course correction” within the division, which it says enabled it to refocus on prioritizing cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity, rather than technical rule violations with no charges of investor harm. She also allocated division staff toward addressing misconduct such as fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust, emphasizing holding individuals accountable for their wrongdoings, promoting stronger deterrence, and better safeguarding investors, according to the SEC.

“I extend my thanks to Chairman Atkins, the Commission, and the staff of the Enforcement Division for the opportunity to continue my public service in a different role,” said Ryan. “As I recently said, I did not seek the role of Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Rather, this role found me. And for that, I am grateful. I am confident that the foundation I helped to shape—working together with Chairman Atkins—will continue to serve investors and the markets well.”

Under Ryan, enforcement actions at the SEC reached multi-year lows in the 2025 fiscal year, following the leadership transition from SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Paul Atkins. The SEC filed 313 new enforcement actions in 2025, a 27 percent decrease from fiscal year 2024 and the lowest in a decade. Actions against public companies and subsidiaries dropped 30 percent from 2024, with 93 percent of the year’s total actions initiated during the first quarter under Gensler.

Only four actions against public companies were initiated after January 2025 under the new administration, the lowest since 2013. Total monetary settlements for public companies declined by 45 percent, the lowest since 2012. Additionally, the SEC initiated only 10 accounting and auditing actions, a 68 percent decrease from 2024. The main reasons for the decline include leadership changes, new strategies, staffing adjustments, reorganization, and case dismissals. Despite the overall decrease, the SEC says Atkins is prioritizing retail investor protection, cross-border fraud, AI washing, and insider trading. 

The post Head of SEC Enforcement Resigns After Seven Months in Position appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

almart has agreed to a $100 million judgment to settle allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and 11 states that the company caused delivery drivers to lose earnings, by deceiving them about the base pay, incentive pay, and tips they could earn. The FTC estimates that Walmart delivery drivers lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings due to the deception.

The proposed order also imposes significant changes to Walmart’s business practices to ensure that Walmart “never engages in such behavior again.” The injunction prohibits Walmart from modifying offers after a driver has accepted the offer, unless one of six exceptions applies. It also prohibits Walmart from making or assisting others in making similar misrepresentations to drivers or customers in the future.

Joined by Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin, the FTC alleged in its complaint that Walmart lured drivers into its Spark Driver delivery program with inflated base pay and tip prospects. The complaint claims Walmart deceived customers by falsely proposing that 100 percent of customer tips would go to drivers.

“Labor markets cannot function efficiently without truthful and non-misleading information about earnings and other material terms,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Today’s settlement reflects the Trump-Vance FTC’s focus on ensuring a healthy labor market for American workers, which is critical to the nation’s success.”

The FTC says the enforcement action against Walmart  is a result of it’s Joint Labor Task Force which was created by the cross-agency Labor Task Force to “root out and prosecute deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers.” It also said the it’s dual consumer-protection and competition mandate makes the agency uniquely well-suited to address these worker harms. “Chairman Ferguson’s Labor Task Force harnesses expertise from the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning.”

Walmart uses its Spark Driver service to deliver goods to customers using gig workers via the Spark Driver app, similar to Door Dash or Uber Eats. Those workers decide whether to accept “offers” to deliver orders, based on Walmart’s statements about the base pay and tips that a driver can expect to receive if they complete the work.

Details of allegations against Walmart.

The complaint alleges that Walmart engaged in several deceptive practices related to its Spark Driver service, including:

• Deceiving drivers about the number of tips they will receive from an order— the company failed to notify drivers that, unlike the payment for the goods being delivered, the payment for the advertised tip amount had not been preauthorized, and therefore drivers would not receive that amount if the customer was unable to cover the cost of the tip or if the charge otherwise failed. The company also failed to inform drivers that it would split tips when a customer’s delivery was split across multiple drivers.
• Deceiving drivers about the amount of base pay and tips they will receive when Walmart modifies “batched” offers— the company failed to inform drivers that it will reduce their base pay and/or tips when it removes orders from “batched orders,” which involve delivering goods to multiple customers during one trip. In many instances, Walmart either failed to notify drivers at all about the change in base pay and tips or only notified them of the change in their earnings after they completed the delivery.
• Misrepresenting the incentive pay drivers can earn in exchange for completing certain tasks— the company failed to disclose all the conditions that must be met to earn the promised incentive pay for completing certain tasks and denied the promised earnings on the basis that drivers failed to meet all the conditions.
• Deceiving consumers that “100% of tips go to the driver.” — despite this promise, Walmart, on multiple occasions, failed to provide collected tips to drivers as promised and did not refund the tip to customers either.

The FTC alleges that these practices violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act—by obtaining drivers’ bank and other financial information while deceiving them about the amount base pay and tips they will earn from Spark Driver deliveries—as well as laws of the agency’s state partners.

As part of the proposed order, Walmart is:

• Required to implement an earnings verification program to ensure drivers are paid the promised earnings and tips.
• Prohibited from modifying an offer for base and incentive pay or tips after the initial offer except under limited circumstances such as when the driver fails to provide the required service or the customer cancels an order.
• Banned from misrepresenting the earnings and other information included in the delivery offers it makes to Spark drivers.

If Walmart fails to obey this injunction, the Commission can return to Court in contempt proceedings. 

The post Walmart to Pay $100 Million to Settle FTC Deception Charges on Delivery Service appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

axful, an online virtual currency trading platform, will pay a criminal penalty of $4 million after pleading guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act, promoting illegal prostitution, and knowingly transmitting funds derived from criminal offenses.

From 2015 to 2019, Artur Schaback, the operator of Paxful, allowed customers to open accounts and trade cryptocurrencies without having sufficient know-your-customer (KYC) information. He also presented fake anti-money laundering policies to third parties that were never implemented, and failed to file a suspicious activity report, despite knowing that Paxful customers were using this platform for criminal activity. According to the Justice Department, Paxful became a hub for romance scams, money laundering, human trafficking, sanctions violations, and other illegal activity.

“Paxful profited from moving money for criminals that it attracted by touting its lack of anti-money laundering controls and failure to comply with applicable money-laundering laws, all while knowing that these criminals were engaged in fraud, extortion, prostitution, and commercial sex trafficking,” said assistant attorney general A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Crimes like this are a high priority for the Criminal Division because criminal money transmitters facilitate so many other crimes like money laundering, prostitution, fraud, romance scams, extortion and human trafficking. This sentence shows that companies will be held accountable when they create safe havens for criminal activity.”

Paxful knowingly transferred virtual currency on behalf of its customers, including Backpage, an online advertising platform for illicit prostitution and similar sites. In various criminal proceedings, Backpage and its owners and operators admitted that Backpage advertised and profited from illegal prostitution, including illegal sex work depicting minors. Paxful’s founders boasted about the “Backpage Effect,” which enabled the business to grow.

“By putting profit over compliance, the company enabled money laundering and other crimes. This sentence sends a clear message: companies that turn a blind eye to criminal activity on their platforms will face serious consequences under U.S. law. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to protect victims and ensure that the cryptocurrency ecosystem is not exploited by criminals,” said U.S. Attorney Eric Grant for the Eastern District of California.

“Paxful’s deliberate disregard for anti-money laundering requirements and its role in promoting illegal prostitution and other criminal schemes enabled the movement of illicit funds at scale. This case sends a clear message: platforms that choose profit over compliance will face serious consequences and be brought to justice,” said Special Agent in Charge Linda Nguyen of the IRS-CI Oakland Field Office.

Considering how Paxful was marketed, Paxful knew its platform was used as a vehicle for prostitution, fraud, romance scams, and extortion schemes enforcement agencies stated. Paxful pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Travel Act; conspiring to operate an unlicensed MTB; and conspiring to violate the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) anti-money laundering (AML) program requirement.

The Justice Department reached its resolution with Paxful based on several factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offenses, which involved Paxful’s processing of millions of dollars of illicit transactions and allowing its platform to be used for criminal activity. 

The post Online Trading Platform to Pay $4 Million for Promoting Criminal Activity appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released an online voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) portal for disclosure of potential violations of U.S sanctions earlier this month. The VSD portal will replace the current system, where organizations voluntarily disclose potential violations over email. The VSD portal provides a more secure and user-friendly method of self-disclosure.

OFAC says the improved system will provide a faster acknowledgement of violation submissions and better communication with the agency. While the method of reporting is changing, nothing about the underlying requirements for self-disclosure will change. OFAC continues to offer the potential for a 50 percent reduction in penalties for qualifying self-disclosures.

A VSD is a self-initiated notification to the OFAC of a potential sanctions violation that can earn cooperation credit, should the following OFAC investigation find a violation. Compliance experts warn of the importance of self-reporting, since if caught, there could be severe repercussions like civil penalties (fines of over $1 million for each violation), criminal prosecutions ($20 million in fines for each violation and up to 30 years in prison), and administrative actions, among others.

The main features of the new online portal include the two-step disclosure process and disclosure timeline. The two-step disclosure process includes an initial submission regarding the potential violation which prompts the start of the disclosure timeline, and a final submission which is a detailed report after the completion of the entity’s internal investigation. The disclosure timeline will not change, with OFAC expecting companies to submit a follow-up report within 180 days of the initial notification. Additionally, the new portal allows multiple documents to be filed with OFAC at once efficiently. All other underlying procedures and requirements will stay the same.

The new VSD portal took effect early February. 

The post OFAC Launches New Online Voluntary Self-Disclosure Portal appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he California Attorney General’s office has announced a settlement with the Walt Disney Co., resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to answer consumers’ requests to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data across all devices and streaming services associated with consumers’ Disney accounts. Under the settlement, Disney must pay $2.75 million in civil penalties and must implement opt-out methods that fully stop Disney’s sale or sharing of consumers’ personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s investigation into Disney stems from a January 2024 investigative sweep of streaming services for potential CCPA violations. Effective opt-out is one of the requirements of complying with CCPA. The investigation found that Disney’s opt-out processes did not allow a consumer to completely opt-out of and stop all sale or sharing of their data, in violation of the CCPA.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights. Today, my office secured the largest settlement to date under the CCPA over Disney’s failure to stop selling and sharing the data of consumers that explicitly asked it to,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s nation-leading privacy law is clear: A consumer’s opt-out right applies wherever and however a business sells data — businesses can’t force people to go device-by-device or service-by-service. In California, asking a business to stop selling your data should not be complicated or cumbersome.”

The investigation found that each of the methods Disney provided had gaps that allowed Disney to continue to sell and share consumers’ data, including:

Opt-Out Toggles: If a user requested to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data via an opt-out toggle in Disney’s websites and apps, Disney only applied the request to the specific streaming service the user was watching, and often only the specific device the consumer was using. This meant that in most instances, using the toggle would not stop selling or sharing from other devices or services connected to the consumer’s account.

Webform: If a user opted out using Disney’s webform, Disney only stopped the sharing of personal data through the company’s own advertising platform and offerings. However, Disney continued to sell and share consumer data with specific third-party ad-tech companies whose code Disney embedded in its websites and apps. Disney also failed to provide an in-app, opt-out method in many of its connected TV streaming apps, instead directing consumers to its webform, effectively leaving consumers with no way to stop Disney’s selling and sharing from these apps.

The Global Privacy Control: For consumers who opted out via the Global Privacy Control (GPC), Disney limited the request to the specific device the consumer was using, even when the consumer was logged into their account. The GPC is an easy-to-use ‘stop selling or sharing my data switch’ that is available on some internet browsers or as a browser extension.

About the California Consumer Protection Act

The CCPA has opened up a whole new world of privacy protection and increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. The CCPA vests California consumers with control over the personal information that businesses collect about them, including the right to request that businesses stop selling or sharing their personal information.

Today’s settlement represents the seventh enforcement action under the CCPA. The Attorney General’s office has also announced settlements with Sephora and DoorDash as well as mobile app gaming company, Jam City; streaming service, Sling TV; website publisher, Healthline.com; and entertainment company, Tilting Point Media. In order to monitor the businesses’ compliance with the CCPA, Attorney General Bonta has conducted investigative sweeps related to location data, streaming apps and devices, employee information, and surveillance pricing. 

Joseph McCafferty is editor & publisher of Compliance Chief 360.

The post Disney Settles ‘Opt-Out’ Privacy Case with California for $2.75 Million appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.