Hunton Retail Law Resource

As retailers rapidly adopt AI across merchandising, labor, inventory, personalization, and supply chain operations, the legal, regulatory, and operational risks associated with these technologies are evolving just as quickly. Hunton helps retailers keep pace with confidence by delivering timely, practical legal analysis that enables clients to stay ahead of developments affecting the retail industry and the growing use of AI across retail operations.

To support this effort, Hunton has launched the interactive Enacted AI Law Tracker, an online resource designed to monitor state laws relevant to businesses that procure, deploy, or use artificial intelligence technologies.

Retailers continue to deploy AI throughout their enterprises, with particular emphasis on enhancing operational productivity. One area where AI can improve operational efficiency is predictive inventory and logistics planning. Yet the technology is not without risk, and businesses should understand both the challenges associated with deploying AI and the ways they can mitigate supply chain and logistics disruptions through insurance and other forms of risk transfer when the technology fails to perform.

National advertising campaigns of old required multi-day model shoots, multi-camera video productions, and multi-disciplinary graphic creation. Generative AI advertising, however, has opened a new chapter in marketing ideation and production. For retailers in particular, these tools make it faster and cheaper to create digital ads, seasonal promotions, product images, and social media content—often without involving traditional agencies or creative teams. Even old commercials and brand stories, once thought to be merely corporate history, are getting new life and are being reimagined and repurposed. While the speed-to-market and costs perspective advantages of AI generated advertising are adulated by their developers, the risks—and who bears the responsibility for those risks—are often understated. 

Recent product liability cases against A.I. companies are applying traditional product liability theories to a new technology. In February 2026, the California Superior Court for San Francisco County entered an order coordinating twelve cases pending against defendant OpenAI. See In re: ChatGPT Prod. Liab. Cases, Cal.Super. Ct., JCCP No. 5431. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI’s ChatGPT is unreasonably dangerous and caused psychological harm to plaintiffs or their family members by reinforcing delusional beliefs, endorsing suicidal ideation and providing information to decedents about how to harm themselves, and contributing to users’ psychological deterioration. 

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

New York recently passed legislation regulating the use of algorithmic pricing using personal data and the operation of AI companions.

Notwithstanding the FDA’s finding that “[c]urrent scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health,” the plaintiffs’ bar steadfastly continues to file class action lawsuits claiming otherwise.

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit of BBB National Programs (CARU) announced a decision involving Buddy AI, a program that touts itself as an “Early learning AI teacher.” According to CARU, which encountered Buddy AI as part of its routine monitoring efforts, the app and website did not comply with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) or CARU’s children’s privacy guidelines.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace has spread rapidly since President Trump left the White House in early 2021.  In recent years, retail employers have started using AI technology in a variety of ways from automating tasks, to implementing data-driven decision making, to enhancing customer experience.  Though the Biden administration started to grapple with the use of AI in the workplace, the second Trump administration could mark a dramatic shift in the federal government’s response to these issues.

In February 2024, we posted about the USPTO’s Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions and how that guidance might affect a retailer in New USPTO AI-Assisted Invention Guidance Will Affect Retailers and Consumer Goods Companies. With a year now having passed, it is likely you have questions about the guidance.

The FTC has penalized accessiBe Inc. $1 million for claiming its “AI-powered web accessibility solution” can make websites fully compliant with WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines).  According to the FTC’s complaint, accessiBe claimed its “one line of code” made a website compliant with 30% of WCAG’s requirements immediately and initiated an AI process that makes the website fully compliant with the remaining 70% of WCAG requirements within 48 hours.

The FTC has settled a case with a company operating an artificial intelligence-enabled “writing assistant” service. Among the use cases Rytr LLC offered was one that would craft testimonials and reviews, allowing users to select desired tone (e.g., “formal,” “funny,” “convincing”), keywords and phrases, level of creativity (e.g., “optimal,” “high,” “max”), and the number of reviews sought. Based on this user input, Rytr’s AI service would then generate genuine-sounding, detailed reviews quickly and with little user effort.

On August 2, 2024, Illinois amended its Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), curbing the potential for massive damages and modernizing the law’s written consent provisions. On their face, the amendments are not retroactive.  It remains unclear, however, whether this change in Illinois law will nonetheless be applied retroactively by the courts.

Fake reviews and testimonials for services and products have been under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for decades. With the proliferation of online bots and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, reviews and testimonials have been even easier to fake in recent years. On August 14, 2024, the FTC announced the Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, prohibiting fake reviews and testimonials from being sold or purchased by businesses. Importantly, the Final Rule enables the FTC to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.

In February, we posted about the USPTO’s Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024), and how that guidance might affect a retailer in New USPTO AI-Assisted Invention Guidance Will Affect Retailers and Consumer Goods Companies.

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs recently announced it completed an investigation into Kidgeni, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) art creator website designed for children. CARU’s determined that Kidgeni is directed to children under 13 and is not in compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) or CARU’s Privacy Guidelines.

What if courts used artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the plain meaning of undefined terms, including terms in insurance policies? Eleventh Circuit Judge Newsom ponders that very question in his concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, decided May 28, 2024. In a recent Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog post discussing the intersection of AI and insurance, insurance coverage partner Michael S. Levine and associate Alex D. Pappas unpack Judge Newsom’s concurring opinion. In doing so, they not only discuss the pros and cons of using AI to discern the plain meaning of certain words and phrases, but they discuss whether AI can answer a vexing question on the minds of insurers and policyholders alike: what is AI and how should it be defined?

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of BBB National Programs issued a new compliance warning aimed at addressing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in advertisements and data collection efforts targeted at children. The warning emphasizes that CARU will “strictly enforce” its Advertising and Privacy Guidelines for advertisers, brands, influencers and manufacturers that utilize AI in marketing and data collection involving children. The warning specifically highlights CARU’s concerns about the risks of AI in connection with the susceptibility of children to marketing that fails to distinguish between what is real and what is not.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is often touted as the latest transformative technology set to revolutionize the commercial real estate industry. This may seem like grandstanding, but the hype is real. AI is already being implemented by law firms and their clients to streamline business processes. AI, however, is ultimately a tool and whether tools make our lives easier or harder often depends on if we use them safely. This blog post examines some of the ways in which AI is used in commercial real estate and potential pitfalls with broad implementation.

In a speech before the Yale Law School February 2024, SEC Chair Gary Gensler had AI top of mind. Interrupted only by a colorful collection of movie references, Chair Gensler focused almost the entirety of his remarks on AI and the SEC’s corresponding regulatory duties. Chair Gensler addressed the risks associated with AI while cautioning reporting companies to avoid “AI washing” and making boilerplate AI disclosures that are not particularized to the company. The speech nicely underscores the SEC’s two-fold, and at times juxtaposed, concerns about the important emerging technology.

In our client alert, A Brief Explanation of the USPTO’s Useful New AI-Assisted Invention Guidance, we discuss the Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024), recently released by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The guidance provides inventors and patent applicants with a framework regarding AI-assisted inventions and how inventorship of such will be judged at the USPTO. Why should a retailer care?

Our 2023 Retail Industry Year in Review provides a comprehensive overview of recent developments, issues, and trends impacting retailers, as well as a look ahead at what to expect in 2024. We hope you will take a few minutes to review our new publication released last week.

Continue Reading

The metaverse is a new way to engage with computers through artificial intelligence (AI), widespread connectivity, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). Instead of interacting with a two-dimensional application or website via screen and keyboard, the metaverse adds a figurative “third dimension” for users to explore in an intuitive, realistic manner. The metaverse is also an opportunity for a new digital economy. Users can buy and sell goods, services, and property, and even attend events virtually. Like the Internet before it, the metaverse is expected to lay a foundation for the creation of business, art, and technology.

During his 2020 campaign, now President Biden promised to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, something progressives have long been proposing.  The Democratic-held House of Representatives introduced and passed the Raise the Wage Act in 2019, but the bill never reached a vote in the then-GOP controlled Senate.

Innovation and developments in technology bring both opportunities and challenges for the retail industry, and Hunton Andrews Kurth has a sophisticated understanding of these issues and how they affect retailers. On January 23, 2020, our cross-disciplinary retail team, composed of over 200 lawyers, released our annual Retail Industry Year in Review. The 2019 edition, Spotlight on Technology, provides an overview and analysis of recent developments impacting retailers, as well as what to expect in 2020 and beyond. Topics discussed include: braille gift cards as the next wave of ...

Imagine a future in which Artificial Intelligence (AI) does the recruiting and hiring at US companies. Every new hire will be the uniquely perfect candidate whose skills, personality, presence, temperament and work habits are a flawless match for the job. Performance management and poor performance become extinct, relics from an age in which humans brought primitive instincts, biases and flawed intuition to hiring and employment decisions. While there are risks and challenges to employers in introducing this technology, manufacturers of AI software say that some version of that future may not be too far off. AI software such as Mya, HireVue and Gecko are among the numerous platforms that retail employers are now leveraging to hone in on and hire the best candidates more quickly. Generally speaking, AI interviewing products combine mobile video interviews with game-based assessments. The AI platform then analyzes the candidate’s facial expressions, word choice and gestures in conjunction with game assessment results to determine the candidate’s work style, cognitive ability and interpersonal skills.

On January 17, 2019, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s retail industry team, composed of more than 200 lawyers across practices, released their annual Retail Industry Year in Review publication.

The 2018 Retail Industry Year in Review includes many topics of interest to retailers, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), ITC investigations, product recall insurance, antitrust enforcement in the Trump Administration, the collection and storage of biometric data, consumer privacy, SEC and M&A activity in 2018, the #MeToo movement and the impact of cashierless stores.

Brick and mortar retailers are rapidly diversifying checkout and payment methods to combat the erosion of sales to online channels and provide an improved shopping experience for consumers. From self-checkout kiosks, to store-specific mobile applications for payment, scan-as-you-go devices, and even ‘just walk out’ models, retailers are reinventing consumer’s notions of the traditional checkout line by going cashierless. Some estimates predict that these automated technologies could account for 35% of retail sales in the next 20 to 30 years.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

“Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil” Case Dismissed Against Trader Joe’s

On August 30, 2018, the Southern District of New York dismissed class action claims for consumers who purchased Trader Joe’s “Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil.” The complaint alleged that the product label contained the words “black truffle” in large black letters, with the words “flavored” and “extra virgin olive oil” in smaller cursive letters underneath. However, DNA testing revealed that the oil did not contain actual truffle, but rather 2,4-dithiapentane, a petroleum-based synthetic injection that imitates the taste and smell of truffles.

The retail industry has seen a rapid adoption of chat robots, or “chatbots,” by retailers looking to deploy new technologies to more effectively engage consumers and drive sales on their e-commerce platforms. So what exactly are chatbots? Chatbots are interactive software that can converse and interact with end users, much like a customer service representative would, by leveraging the power of artificial intelligence.

San Francisco is the latest jurisdiction to pass a law that prohibits employers from inquiring about prior salary history during hiring. New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and New Orleans already have similar laws, and in a concerning trend for employers, 26 states are currently considering such legislation.

The San Francisco city ordinance went into effect on July 1, 2017, and restricts employers from (1) considering an applicant’s salary history in determining whether to make an offer of employment or the amount of salary to offer; (2) inquiring about salary history; (3) retaliating against an applicant that declines to provide salary history; and (4) releasing a current or former employee’s salary history to a prospective employer without written authorization. Notably, the restrictions in the San Francisco ordinance, like similar laws in New York City and New Orleans, prohibit an employer from conducting a search of publicly available records to obtain salary history information.

On April 18, 2017, the state of Washington passed House Bill 1493 (“HB 1493”), which sets forth requirements for businesses who collect and use biometric identifiers for commercial purposes. Under HB 1493, a biometric identifier includes a fingerprint, voiceprint, retina, iris or other unique biological pattern or characteristic used to identify a specific individual. Commercial use includes “a purpose in furtherance of the sale or disclosure to a third party for the purpose of marketing of goods or services when such goods or services are unrelated to the initial transaction in which a person first gains possession of an individual’s biometric identifier.” This bill comes after several other states have passed similar legislation regulating the commercial use of biometric identifiers, including the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14) (“BIPA”) and the Texas Statute on the Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §503.001). 

As with other areas of the law, the recent presidential election will present both challenges and opportunities for retailers concerned with financial and securities regulation. While President-elect Trump did not articulate his views on financial services regulation on the campaign trail in any detailed manner, he did suggest that the Dodd-Frank Act should be repealed as it has increased costs for businesses, impeded economic growth and severely reduced lending without any clear benefits to investors or consumers.