Florida Legislature Passes Bill to End Sales Tax Exemption for Sub-100 MW Data Centers
The Florida legislature has passed a bill that would end the data center sales tax exemption for existing data centers with a critical IT load of less than 100 megawatts (MW), effective Aug. 1, 2025. This may materially impact existing sub-100 MW data center owners and tenants, in addition to developers who are currently developing and constructing sub-100 MW data centers.
HB 7031: Understanding the New 100 MW Threshold for Sales Tax Exemption
The Florida data center exemption currently allows the owner, tenants, and construction contractors to purchase necessary equipment and materials to construct, equip, and operate a data center free of the states’ 6% sales tax (plus local option tax of typically 1% to 1.5%). Whether it was the legislative intent to end the sales tax exemption for existing and under construction sub-100 MW data centers is unclear, but this appears to be the practical effect of HB 7031, the legislature’s 200-page 2025 tax bill.
This exemption’s termination as of Aug. 1, 2025, may materially impact continuing operations even though all of the data center equipment and components have been purchased tax-free prior to Aug. 1, because the sales tax exemption applies not only to construction and equipment purchases but also to ongoing purchases of electricity. Since the exemption was meant to be permanent, and the benefit thereof was intended to be passed through to data center tenants, the loss of the exemption for electricity may hinder landlords’ ability to keep existing tenants and attract new ones to their data centers. The loss of the exemption might also result in a material breach of the owner’s covenants under some existing leases with tenants and possibly their loan agreement with lenders, ultimately impacting the underwriting and valuations attributable to these assets.
The language would eliminate, as of Aug. 1, 2025, the exemption for existing sub-100 MW data centers because the exemption statute requires a data center owner to go through a review process every five years to maintain their permanent exemption certificate. As part of this review process, the owner must certify that the data center’s critical IT load is 100 MW or higher. This means that when a sub-100 MW data center goes through its five-year review process after the Aug. 1, 2025, effective date, it would not be able to provide this certification and lose the exemption. Furthermore, the statute provides that in the event of a sales tax audit, if tax-free purchases were made after the data center lost its eligibility for the exemption, then the owner and tenants must pay back taxes, penalties, and interest on a retroactive basis. Since the new 100 MW requirement takes effect Aug. 1, then all purchases that owners and tenants of sub-100 MW data centers make after the effective date would appear to be subject to sales tax. The amendment to the exemption statute provides no grandfather rule for existing sub-100 MW data centers.
Potential Implications for Existing Data Center Owners, Tenants, and Contractors
As for sub-100 MW data centers currently under construction, this change would also impact the contractors and subcontractors constructing the projects. The data center exemption law allows contractors to also use this sales tax exemption when purchasing materials to “construct, outfit, operate, support, power, cool, dehumidify, secure, or protect a data center and any contiguous dedicated substations.” Under Florida sales tax law – for most types of construction contracts – the contractor (including a subcontractor) is considered the ultimate consumer of the materials they purchase, and therefore the contractor must pay sales tax on their purchases to carry out their contract. As a result, a contractor on a data center project under construction may have priced their bid on the assumption that no sales tax would be paid on many of the items purchased to fulfill their contract. If this bill is signed into law, contractors may no longer be able to purchase items tax-free after Aug. 1, and new developments may see higher costs. Data center operators with projects currently under development in the state should review their construction agreements to determine who bears the risk.
This amendment did not become a part of HB 7031 until a few days before the legislature passed this 200-page bill on June 16, and there is no detail in the bill’s staff analysis. Furthermore, HB 7031 also repealed the sales tax on commercial leases in Florida, which tenants must pay on their data center lease payments (typically 3% – 3.5% of the lease payment, depending on the county), which might have been a justification for the legislature to terminate the data center exemption for equipment and electricity.
Key Takeaways
Even if the legislature addresses this concern in next year’s legislative session, this may leave sub-100 MW data centers in limbo until that occurs. If the lease agreement with a data center tenant provides that the loss of the sales tax exemption is a breach thereunder, some tenants might use that as a reason to terminate their lease or further amend to the terms thereof.
This data center exemption is a small portion of HB 7031. Because this tax bill is integral to the legislature’s budget bill, which must be enacted by July 1, it is included among several provisions that are expected to move forward. It is possible that, if concerns are raised, Gov. DeSantis might instruct the Department of Revenue to consider issuing guidance delaying the enforcement of the loss of exemption for existing sub-100 MW data centers until after the legislature has the opportunity to address this next year.
STIR(red) and SHAKEN: How McLaughlin is Changing TCPA and TRACED Act Enforcement
Well, well, well—McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson has truly stirred up the legal landscape—or better yet, shaken an imbalanced tower of FCC interpretations and court splits surrounding one of the most litigated federal statutes: our beloved TCPA. And TCPAWorld is no stranger to this ever-shifting landscape—or the tangled web of regulations that define both compliance and the defense of what has become a cash cow of litigation.
In McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson, the Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Rather district courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. And for companies navigating the FCC’s STIR/SHAKEN framework under the TRACED Act, that’s a big deal.
The TRACED Act (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act) was Congress’s response to the flood of illegal robocalls and spoofed caller IDs. It gave the FCC stronger enforcement tools and required STIR/SHAKEN (Secure Telephone Identity Revisited and Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs) protocols, which require voice service providers to digitally sign and verify caller ID information, making it harder for bad actors to disguise their numbers..
Until now, challenging the FCC’s interpretation of the TRACED Act or its implementation of STIR/SHAKEN was considered nearly impossible at the district court level. The Hobbs Act gave federal court of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review FCC orders, and many courts treated the agency’s interpretations as binding—regardless of context.
That’s where McLaughlin makes a difference because district courts now have greater freedom to evaluate how the FCC reads and applies the TRACED Act.
This shift is particularly important in litigation involving STIR/SHAKEN. McLaughlin opens the door to as-applied challenges in enforcement actions or private lawsuits. If you’re being sued, the district court can evaluate the FCC’s interpretation of the TRACED Act. Since the TRACED Act is a statute passed by Congress, it is not easily challenged unless there’s a constitutional issue. But how that statute is interpreted and enforced—especially through FCC rules like STIR/SHAKEN—is very much in play.
In the end, McLaughlin clarifies that courts have a duty to interpret statutes for themselves, not simply follow the agency’s lead. And in the TCPA landscape where regulatory rules can dictate millions in liability, it’s critical.
Understanding Cryptocurrency Forfeiture: A Guide to Digital Asset Seizure
Introduction
The rapid evolution of the digital economy has introduced new modes of value transfer, investment, and criminal activity, which has complicated the legal landscape of digital asset seizures. Federal, state, and local authorities have increasingly leveraged digital asset forfeiture as a tool to disrupt illicit activity, with the legal framework evolving rapidly—particularly following the establishment of the United States Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This policy shift, emphasizing the retention of forfeited cryptocurrency as a long-term government asset, is underpinned by updated legal frameworks, advanced blockchain intelligence, and a renewed focus on victim restitution and law enforcement funding.
The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve marks a significant departure from prior practices, in which seized digital assets were typically liquidated at auction. The current administration empowers the government to retain a portion of forfeited cryptocurrency, aligning asset management with broader national security and financial stability objectives. This development has far-reaching implications for market participants, including businesses, investors, and individuals subject to asset seizure or forfeiture proceedings.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the current administration’s approach to cryptocurrency asset forfeiture, including statutory and regulatory frameworks, investigative methodologies, and the integration of forfeited digital assets into government reserves. The discussion aims to elucidate the legal and procedural considerations shaping asset forfeiture in the digital economy, and to examine best practices for compliance, risk mitigation, and defense strategies relevant to legal practitioners and industry experts navigating this rapidly changing field.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The statutory framework governing federal asset forfeiture, particularly as it applies to digital assets, is evolving rapidly. The legal foundation for asset forfeiture in the United States is based on a complicated web of statutes, regulations, and case law that have been adapted to address the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. Foundational authorities remain central, but recent policy developments have clarified and expanded their reach, especially in light of the growing prevalence of digital assets in criminal investigations and enforcement actions.
Key statutes relevant to digital asset forfeiture include:
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C) (civil forfeiture of property involved in money laundering, fraud, and other specified unlawful activities). This statute allows the government to seize assets connected to a wide range of financial crimes, even in the absence of a criminal conviction, provided that the government can establish a preponderance of the evidence linking the property to illegal activity.
18 U.S.C. § 982(a) (criminal forfeiture following conviction for money-laundering predicates). Criminal forfeiture is typically pursued as part of a criminal prosecution, and requires a conviction on the underlying offense. The government may seek forfeiture of assets directly or indirectly involved in the criminal conduct.
21 U.S.C. § 853(p) (substitute-asset provisions allowing forfeiture of property unrelated to an offense when direct proceeds are beyond the court’s reach). This provision is particularly relevant in cases where digital assets have been transferred, dissipated, or otherwise rendered unavailable, allowing the government to pursue substitute assets of equivalent value.
31 U.S.C. § 9705 (Treasury Forfeiture Fund, authorizing agencies such as Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Secret Service to retain and deploy forfeiture proceeds, and to support the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve). The Treasury Forfeiture Fund plays a critical role in managing and distributing proceeds from forfeited assets, including digital currencies.
28 U.S.C. § 524(c) (Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Assets Forfeiture Fund, applicable to Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) and Drug Enforcement Administration matters and permitting retention of forfeited assets for government use). This fund supports a range of law enforcement activities and now includes provisions for the retention of digital assets as part of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
Recent executive orders and agency guidance confirm that digital assets—including cryptocurrencies and stablecoins—are treated as “property” for forfeiture purposes. The administration’s directive to retain forfeited cryptocurrency in the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, subject to statutory requirements for victim restitution and law enforcement funding, underscores the importance of understanding the evolving legal obligations and rights under these rules. Additionally, the government has issued guidance clarifying the treatment of digital assets under existing forfeiture statutes, and courts have increasingly recognized the applicability of these laws to a wide range of digital asset types, including non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) and decentralized finance (“DeFi”) tokens.
Congress and federal agencies continue to refine the legal framework governing digital asset forfeiture. Proposed reforms may further expand the government’s authority to seize and retain digital assets, while also introducing new procedural safeguards and transparency requirements.
Current Policy Drivers
The administration’s approach to cryptocurrency asset forfeiture is shaped by several key policy initiatives, each with direct implications for the legal and financial sectors. These policy drivers reflect a broader shift in the government’s strategy for managing digital assets, balancing the need for effective law enforcement with considerations of market stability, victim restitution, and due process.
Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.The government’s retention of forfeited Bitcoin and other digital assets as part of a national reserve, rather than immediate liquidation, is intended to preserve long-term value and support law enforcement operations. This policy shift necessitates careful analysis of the legal status and management of seized assets. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve is designed to serve as a hedge against inflation, a source of funding for future enforcement actions, and a tool for enhancing national security. By holding digital assets rather than selling them at auction, the government can avoid flooding the market and potentially depressing asset prices, while also benefiting from potential appreciation in value. This approach also aligns with international trends, as other countries explore similar strategies for managing seized digital assets.
Emphasis on Victim Restitution and Law Enforcement Funding.Executive orders and agency protocols mandate that forfeited assets be used first to compensate victims. Remaining assets may be allocated to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or used to fund law enforcement initiatives, including investments in blockchain intelligence tools and training. The government has established structured liquidation policies to ensure that a portion of seized assets is preserved in reserve, while only liquidating assets when necessary to meet operational funding needs or to provide restitution to victims. This approach creates a self-sustaining budget cycle for law enforcement, enabling agencies to reinvest proceeds from liquidated assets into ongoing investigations and capacity-building efforts.
Expansion of Blockchain Intelligence and Public-Private Partnerships.The administration’s investment in advanced blockchain analytics and partnerships with exchanges and stablecoin issuers has accelerated the identification, freezing, and seizure of digital assets. Public-private collaboration is critical to the success of these efforts, as exchanges, wallet providers, and other virtual asset service providers (“VASPs”) play a key role in detecting and reporting suspicious activity. The government has also worked closely with international partners, such as Europol and the Guardia Civil, to coordinate cross-border investigations and asset recovery efforts. These partnerships have led to the dismantling of major criminal networks and the recovery of substantial amounts of illicit digital assets.
Reform of Asset Forfeiture Laws and Structured Liquidation Policies.Recent reforms have amended DOJ and Treasury protocols to authorize long-term Bitcoin retention rather than immediate liquidation. The government has established secure custody solutions for holding seized assets and implemented policies that align liquidation with market conditions, ensuring strategic sales instead of default post-seizure liquidation. These changes are designed to maximize the value of seized assets, minimize market disruption, and enhance transparency and accountability in the management of government-held digital assets.
Investigative Tools and Enforcement Practices
Federal agencies employ a range of investigative techniques to trace and freeze cryptocurrency assets. Understanding these practices is essential for legal practitioners and industry experts, as the sophistication of law enforcement’s digital asset investigations continues to increase. The following is an overview of key investigative tools and enforcement practices currently in use:
Tracing Illicit Cryptocurrency Flows.Law enforcement relies on advanced blockchain analytics tools, such as Chainalysis Reactor, TRM Labs, and Elliptic, to trace digital assets across multiple blockchains, identify links to criminal activity, and map the flow of funds. These platforms integrate with sanctions lists, open-source intelligence, and proprietary databases, enabling the visualization of complex transaction patterns and the identification of wallets associated with illicit activity. Investigators can follow the movement of funds through mixers, tumblers, and privacy coins, often uncovering sophisticated money laundering schemes. Legal professionals and industry participants must assess exposure and respond to inquiries related to such investigations, including requests for information, subpoenas, and search warrants.
Freezing Assets via Exchanges and Stablecoin Issuers.When assets are traced to exchanges or stablecoin wallets, law enforcement may collaborate with these platforms to freeze funds. Centralized stablecoin issuers (e.g., Tether, Circle) can freeze or burn tokens associated with illicit activity, while exchanges may restrict withdrawals or transfers from accounts flagged as high risk. Legal practitioners often advise on compliance protocols, the risks of account freezes, and the legal remedies available, including challenging the basis for a freeze and seeking the release of legitimate funds. The development of internal policies for responding to law enforcement requests and managing reputational risks associated with asset freezes is also critical.
Legal and Procedural Steps.Law enforcement typically seeks seizure warrants from courts, presenting evidence of a nexus to criminal activity. Upon judicial authorization, assets are transferred to government-controlled wallets or frozen in place. The process may involve ex parte applications, emergency restraining orders, and coordination with multiple agencies. Practitioners must be familiar with the statutory process for contesting seizures and asserting the rights of potential claimants, including filing claims under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”) and pursuing motions to suppress evidence obtained through unlawful searches or seizures.
Physical Seizure of Cold Wallets.Agencies are increasingly adept at identifying and securing hardware wallets, seed phrases, and other cold storage devices during searches. Investigators may use digital forensics tools to extract wallet information from computers, mobile devices, and physical storage media. Best practices for safeguarding digital assets, maintaining secure backups, and responding to search warrants or subpoenas involving physical crypto storage are essential considerations. Legal implications of providing or withholding access to private keys and recovery phrases should also be carefully evaluated.
International Collaboration and Asset Sharing.Cross-border investigations and asset sharing with international partners are now routine. Law enforcement agencies frequently work with counterparts in Europe, Asia, and other regions to trace and recover digital assets linked to transnational crime. Mutual legal assistance treaties (“MLATs”), joint task forces, and information-sharing agreements facilitate the coordination of investigations and the repatriation of seized assets. Navigating the complexities of international enforcement and asset recovery requires attention to compliance with foreign legal requirements and the negotiation of asset-sharing agreements.
Emerging Technologies and Future Trends.The landscape of digital asset enforcement is constantly evolving, with new technologies and investigative techniques emerging on a regular basis. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced data analytics are increasingly being used to detect patterns of illicit activity and predict future threats. The government is also exploring the use of blockchain-based evidence management systems and digital asset custody solutions to enhance the security and transparency of seized assets. Staying abreast of these developments is critical for legal and industry professionals to adapt to new enforcement practices and regulatory requirements.
Recent Representative Cryptocurrency Forfeiture Actions
Recent enforcement actions underscore the government’s increasing sophistication in tracing and recovering digital assets. These cases illustrate the practical application of investigative tools, the importance of public-private collaboration, and the evolving policies surrounding the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve:
Cryptocurrency Confidence Scams (2025).The DOJ last week seized more than $225.3 million in cryptocurrency linked to investment fraud and money laundering schemes. These funds are associated with “cryptocurrency confidence scams” that deceived victims into believing they were making legitimate investments. The cryptocurrency was part of a sophisticated money laundering network that executed hundreds of thousands of transactions to obscure the origins of the stolen funds. The FBI and U.S. Secret Service (“USSS”) played significant roles in tracing and seizing the illicit funds, marking the largest cryptocurrency seizure in USSS history. More than 400 suspected victims lost funds, with reported losses exceeding $5.8 billion in 2024 alone. The DOJ emphasized its ongoing commitment to protecting the public from cryptocurrency scams and recovering stolen funds for victims.
Colonial Pipeline Ransomware Recovery (2021).The DOJ traced and recovered approximately $2.3 million in Bitcoin paid as ransom, demonstrating the power of real-time blockchain analysis. Investigators were able to follow the movement of funds through multiple wallets, ultimately seizing the private keys associated with the ransom payment. This case set a precedent for the use of blockchain analytics in high-profile cybercrime investigations. These developments highlight the importance of strategic legal responses to investigations and asset recovery, including negotiation with law enforcement and the pursuit of civil claims for the return of seized assets.
Pig Butchering Scam Takedowns (2023-2024).U.S. law enforcement, in collaboration with stablecoin issuers and exchanges, froze and seized hundreds of millions of dollars in digital assets linked to large-scale scams. These operations involved the use of advanced analytics to identify fraudulent accounts, the rapid freezing of assets by centralized platforms, and the coordination of victim restitution efforts. Legal and compliance professionals play a key role in developing internal controls to detect and prevent fraud, contesting or mitigating the impact of asset freezes, and ensuring adherence to reporting requirements and best practices for cooperating with law enforcement.
Operation Spincaster and International Seizures (2024-2025).Joint operations with international law enforcement and blockchain analytics firms have dismantled global scam networks and resulted in significant cryptocurrency seizures. These cases often involve complex cross-border investigations, the use of mutual legal assistance treaties, and the negotiation of asset-sharing agreements between countries. Multi-jurisdictional enforcement actions require careful navigation of conflicting legal requirements and the protection of interests across multiple jurisdictions.
Spanish Guardia Civil Cryptocurrency Seizure (2025).In a landmark operation, Spanish authorities, supported by U.S. law enforcement and blockchain intelligence firms, seized more than EUR 27 million in cryptocurrency from a transnational criminal organization. The operation spanned multiple provinces and involved the freezing of assets on several major exchanges. This case highlights the growing importance of international collaboration and the role of advanced technology in asset recovery.
Other Notable Cases.Additional recent actions include the seizure of assets from darknet marketplaces, the recovery of funds from ransomware attacks targeting critical infrastructure, and the dismantling of money laundering networks operating through DeFi platforms. These cases demonstrate the government’s commitment to pursuing illicit actors across the digital asset ecosystem and the need for businesses to maintain robust compliance programs.
The DOJ last week seized more than $225.3 million in cryptocurrency linked to investment fraud and money laundering schemes. These funds are associated with “cryptocurrency confidence scams” that deceived victims into believing they were making legitimate investments. The cryptocurrency was part of a sophisticated money laundering network that executed hundreds of thousands of transactions to obscure the origins of the stolen funds. The FBI and U.S. Secret Service (“USSS”) played significant roles in tracing and seizing the illicit funds, marking the largest cryptocurrency seizure in USSS history. More than 400 suspected victims lost funds, with reported losses exceeding $5.8 billion in 2024 alone. The DOJ emphasized its ongoing commitment to protecting the public from cryptocurrency scams and recovering stolen funds for victims.
These cases highlight the importance of sophisticated legal analysis in navigating rapid, intelligence-driven seizures and the evolving policies surrounding the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Experience in handling high-profile forfeiture actions is essential for providing strategic advice and effective representation in complex cases.
Procedural Mechanics of Crypto Seizure and Forfeiture
The procedural mechanics of crypto seizure and forfeiture involve a combination of technical investigation and legal process. The process typically begins with the identification of suspicious activity, often through the use of blockchain analytics tools that trace funds to specific wallet addresses. Investigators may follow assets through multiple transactions, exchanges, and privacy-enhancing technologies, building a comprehensive picture of the flow of funds and their connection to alleged criminal activity.
Once sufficient evidence is gathered, law enforcement may seek to freeze assets by working with exchanges, stablecoin issuers, or other virtual asset service providers. This can be accomplished through court-ordered seizure warrants, emergency restraining orders, or compliance protocols that enable rapid restriction of high-risk accounts. In some cases, stablecoin issuers may freeze or burn tokens associated with illicit activity, while exchanges may restrict withdrawals or transfers from flagged accounts.
Prosecutors typically seek judicial authorization—through a Rule 41 warrant, civil forfeiture complaint, or other legal process—detailing the evidence and technical methods for securing assets. The government must demonstrate probable cause or a preponderance of the evidence linking the assets to criminal conduct, depending on the type of proceeding. Legal professionals play a critical role in responding to such actions, asserting rights throughout the process, and challenging the basis for seizure when appropriate.
After assets are seized or frozen, the government is required to provide notice to potential claimants. This may be accomplished through blockchain messaging, publication in official channels, and direct service to known parties. Claimants have a statutory period to contest forfeiture under the CAFRA or other applicable laws. The process may involve filing claims, participating in administrative proceedings, and litigating contested issues in court.
Following adjudication or default, assets may be returned to victims, liquidated, or retained in the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The government’s structured liquidation and custody protocols are designed to ensure transparency, maximize asset value, and protect the interests of victims and legitimate owners. Contesting forfeiture, seeking asset return, negotiating settlements, and navigating the complexities of government asset management policies are key areas of focus. Experience in high-stakes forfeiture proceedings, compliance with strict notice and claim requirements, and the development of strategies for recovering or protecting digital assets are essential for effective legal practice in this area.
Possible Legal Defenses to Cryptocurrency Forfeiture
A range of legal challenges may be asserted in cryptocurrency forfeiture proceedings, including constitutional, statutory, and procedural defenses. The unique characteristics of digital assets present both opportunities and challenges for claimants seeking to protect their property rights. Key defenses include:
Fourth Amendment Challenges.Clients may contest seizures as unreasonable searches, particularly where warrants are based on probabilistic blockchain analysis or lack specificity regarding private keys. The use of advanced analytics and artificial intelligence in tracing digital assets raises novel questions about the reliability and admissibility of evidence. While courts often uphold the use of blockchain analytics, lawyers continue to litigate issues related to overbroad warrants, lack of particularity, and the protection of privacy interests in digital wallets and private keys. There have been successful challenges to the scope of search warrants and the methods used to access encrypted devices and storage media.
Eighth Amendment Proportionality.The forfeiture of highly appreciated digital assets can be challenged as an excessive fine, especially when asset values far exceed alleged criminal proceeds. The volatility of cryptocurrency prices and the potential for significant appreciation between the time of seizure and forfeiture raise important questions about proportionality and fairness. Developing proportionality arguments, presenting expert testimony on asset valuation, and navigating the evolving case law in this area are critical. Recent court decisions have recognized the need to consider the relationship between the value of the forfeited assets and the gravity of the underlying offense.
Innocent-Owner Claims (CAFRA).Third parties may assert lack of knowledge or involvement in criminal conduct. The distributed and pseudonymous nature of crypto custody can complicate these claims, particularly with multi-signature wallets, custodial arrangements, and DeFi platforms. Developing and presenting robust innocent-owner defenses, including documenting the source of funds, demonstrating lack of control over tainted assets, and challenging the government’s tracing methodologies, is essential. Practitioners should also be aware of the procedural requirements for asserting innocent-owner claims and the potential for negotiated settlements.
Procedural and Technical Defenses.Challenging government tracing methodologies, contesting the timeliness of proceedings, and disputing the identification of tainted assets is critical. As blockchain investigations become more sophisticated, it is important to ensure that procedural and technical rights are fully protected. Experience in challenging the admissibility of digital evidence, contesting the use of proprietary analytics tools, and advocating for greater transparency in government investigations is increasingly important. The use of expert witnesses, preservation of digital evidence, and development of technical defenses based on the unique features of blockchain technology are also key considerations.
Other Potential Defenses.Additional defenses may include challenges based on lack of jurisdiction, violations of due process, the improper application of forfeiture statutes to novel digital asset types, or the statute of limitations has expired. Identifying all available defenses and developing comprehensive strategies for protecting interests in forfeiture proceedings is a critical aspect of legal practice in this area.
Policy Considerations for Practitioners and Lawmakers
The evolving landscape of digital asset forfeiture raises several policy considerations relevant to practitioners, lawmakers, and the broader legal community. As the legal and regulatory framework continues to develop, it is essential to consider the broader implications of current policies and to advocate for reforms that promote fairness, transparency, and efficiency.
Balancing Enforcement, Victim Restitution, and Due Process.While rapid asset freezes are vital for disrupting criminal networks and preventing the dissipation of illicit funds, they must be balanced with procedural safeguards and prompt opportunities for claimants to contest forfeiture. The government’s emphasis on victim restitution is commendable, but it is equally important to ensure that innocent owners and legitimate businesses are not unfairly deprived of their assets. Ensuring due process at every stage—including timely notice, access to judicial review, and the opportunity to present evidence and challenge the government’s case—is essential.
Strategic Asset Management and Custodial Risk.The government’s retention of large cryptocurrency reserves introduces market and security risks, including the potential for price volatility, hacking, and mismanagement. The implications of custodianship, staking rewards, airdrops, and structured liquidation policies must be carefully considered. The development of secure custody solutions, transparent asset management protocols, and independent oversight mechanisms is essential to mitigate these risks and to maintain public confidence in the government’s handling of digital assets.
Funding Law Enforcement and Avoiding Improper Incentives.The use of forfeited assets to fund law enforcement raises transparency and conflict-of-interest concerns. While self-sustaining budget cycles can enhance the effectiveness of digital asset investigations, they may also create incentives for overzealous enforcement and the pursuit of revenue at the expense of due process. The impact of these funding mechanisms should be critically assessed, with support for fair and transparent processes and reforms that promote accountability and the responsible use of forfeiture proceeds.
International Coordination and Best Practices.As cross-border investigations increase, harmonizing doctrines and adopting best practices—such as enhanced judicial oversight, victim claims portals, and standardized asset-sharing agreements—are essential. The complexity of international asset recovery requires close collaboration between governments, private sector partners, and civil society organizations. International coordination requires navigating conflicting legal requirements, negotiating asset repatriation agreements, and advocating for the adoption of global standards for digital asset forfeiture.
Future Directions and Legislative Reform.Ongoing legislative and regulatory reforms are likely to further shape the landscape of digital asset forfeiture. Proposed changes may include enhanced procedural protections for claimants, greater transparency in asset management, and the development of new tools for tracing and recovering digital assets. Active engagement in policy discussions and advocacy for reforms that balance the needs of law enforcement, victims, and legitimate asset holders are essential for the continued evolution of the legal framework.
Conclusion
As the legal landscape for digital asset forfeiture continues to evolve, the integration of digital assets into national policy, the expansion of investigative tools, and the retention of forfeited assets in government reserves all present new challenges and opportunities for the financial ecosystem and legal profession.
Remaining at the forefront of legal developments is essential for protecting property rights, asserting effective defenses, and adapting to the rapidly changing digital economy. A comprehensive approach includes compliance with evolving statutory and regulatory frameworks, the development of robust internal controls, effective responses to law enforcement inquiries, and the litigation of complex forfeiture proceedings. Strategic guidance on risk management, asset recovery, and the development of best practices for digital asset custody and management is increasingly important.
Looking ahead, continued innovation in both technology and policy is anticipated, with new tools and legal doctrines emerging to address the unique challenges of digital asset enforcement. Legal and industry professionals must remain vigilant and informed to navigate the future of digital asset forfeiture with confidence and clarity.
Department of Labor Reverses Course on Crypto Guidance for 401(k) Plans
On May 28, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2025‑01 (the 2025 Release), formally rescinding Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 (the 2022 Release) that had urged fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” before offering cryptocurrencies in 401(k) plans. This rescission marks a shift from placing higher security on plan fiduciaries that offered cryptocurrencies to a more neutral approach towards plans that offer this digital investment option.
The DOL’s 2022 Release
In March 2022, the DOL issued the 2022 Release, in which the agency cautioned plan fiduciaries against offering cryptocurrencies in 401(k) plans. This guidance warned fiduciaries that adding crypto options — whether coins, tokens, or any crypto-linked derivatives — could raise serious ERISA concerns due to digital assets’ volatility, valuation challenges, inexpert plan participants, custodial and recordkeeping risks, and evolving regulations. Although non-binding, the guidance conveyed that fiduciaries may breach their fiduciary duties if they fail to exercise “extreme care” when offering cryptocurrencies in 401(k) plans and further indicated the potential for investigations of plans that invested in cryptocurrencies.
The DOL’s 2025 Release
On May 28, 2025, the DOL issued the 2025 Release, which rescinded the “extreme care” fiduciary interpretation and reaffirmed that plan fiduciaries must continue to satisfy ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty when selecting investment options. The 2025 Release explained that the “standard of ‘extreme care’ is not found in [ERISA]” and is beyond ERISA’s ordinary fiduciary principles. The 2025 Release further underscored that the DOL is returning to its “historical approach by neither endorsing nor disapproving of plan fiduciaries who conclude that the inclusion of cryptocurrency in a plan’s investment menu is appropriate.”
The DOL’s Revised Fiduciary Standard
Moving forward, when evaluating any particular investment type, including cryptocurrencies, a plan fiduciary’s decision must generally satisfy ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty, should “consider all relevant facts and circumstances,” and will “necessarily be context specific.” Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 425 (2014).
Florida Closes the Door on “Quiet Hour” Email Claims Under the FCCPA
Over the past few years, we’ve seen a wave of consumer lawsuits filed under Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), many of them alleging violations of the law’s “quiet hours” provision based solely on the timing of emails. That legal loophole has now been closed.
The End of FCCPA “Quiet Hour” Email Claims
On May 16, 2025, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 232 (SB 232) into law. The amendment to Fla. Stat. § 559.72(17) clarifies that the quiet hours rule — which prohibits communications between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. — does not apply to emails.
This change is significant. Previously, the statute didn’t specify which types of communications were covered. Plaintiffs seized on that ambiguity, arguing that emails sent during quiet hours violated the statute. Hundreds of suits followed, with many styled as putative class actions.
Conflicting Court Rulings
The Florida courts were split on the issue. Some judges agreed that the quiet hours rule applied only to calls, reasoning that emails are passive, like postal mail. Others accepted the broader interpretation, citing the FCCPA’s general definition of “communication” and drawing comparisons to the FDCPA’s federal counterpart, which arguably covers after-hours emails.
That uncertainty — and the litigation risk that came with it — prompted the Florida Legislature to act.
What SB 232 Actually Says
SB 232 adds the following clarifying language to § 559.72(17): “This subsection does not apply to an e-mail communication that is sent to an e-mail address and that otherwise complies with this section.” In its commentary, the Legislature noted that the original statute was adopted before email became widely used and noted that emails are “less invasive and less disruptive than telephone calls.”
What About the FDCPA?
The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does contain a similar quiet hours provision (15 U.S.C. § 1692c), and the CFPB has suggested it could apply to emails. However, the FDCPA is narrower in scope than the FCCPA, as it applies only to third-party debt collectors, lacks punitive damages, and has a shorter statute of limitations. In short, a similar wave of email-based claims under the FDCPA is unlikely.
Final Thoughts
SB 232 cuts off a major line of exposure for creditors and original lenders who’ve been targeted under the FCCPA for sending after-hours emails. While the retroactivity of the law remains an open question, this amendment is a welcome development for any business communicating with Florida consumers.
Listen to this post
A SHARP DISSENT: A Review Of The Dissent’s Take On The Supreme Court’s Ruling In McLaughlin.
Let’s Get You Up To Speed
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136 (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court determined that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to adopt an agency’s interpretation of a statute. Rather, district courts must make their own determinations under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. According to the Supreme Court, the phrase “determine the validity” merely bars a district court from striking down the agency order outright– it does not prevent them from applying a different rule of law where the agency’s interpretation is deemed inapplicable.
As a result, the Supreme Court applied a “default rule” which permits district courts to review and depart from agency action when appropriate.
The Dissent
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.
“Ship first, litigate later… [A]s the majority sees things, the Act ‘does not preclude district courts’ from declaring a rule or order invalid years after it issued, at the behest of a party who declined to seek judicial review in the first instance.”
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136, at *13 (U.S. June 20, 2025).
The dissent highlights a simple idea: when Congress has created a framework – like the Hobbs Act – for how and when to challenge agency interpretations, courts should yield to that structure. Under the Hobbs Act, agency orders must be challenged directly and timely in the court of appeals. If nobody does, the interpretation stands.
According to the dissent, the majority fumbled a matter of basic statutory interpretation. “The text of the Hobbs Act makes clear that litigants who have declined to seek pre-enforcement judicial review may not contest the statutory validity of agency action in later district-court enforcement proceedings.” Id. at *14. The dissent views the majority as sidestepping the Hobbs Act’s natural meaning by inventing a brand-new “default rule”—one that says Congress must use specific words or build in redundancy to bar future challenges. In doing so, the majority effectively guts the Hobbs Act and jeopardizes the predictability and effectiveness of administrative enforcement.
The Hobbs Act gives federal courts of appeals the exclusive power to review and invalidate certain agency rules and orders. The core question is whether that exclusivity bars someone from later challenging an agency’s action in a district court enforcement case, long after the action was issued and reviewed. The dissent argues this question is answered by the text of the statute.
“[T]he Hobbs Act gives courts of appeals exclusive authority to ‘determine the validity’ of specified agency actions. ‘Exclusive,’ of course, means courts of appeals alone, not district courts.”
Id. at *14. Thus, if a district court rejects an agency order, the district court is doing what the Hobbs Act expressly forbids: “determin[ing] the validity” of that rule. This undermines the Act’s exclusive-review structure and allows litigants to sidestep Congress’ clear division of judicial power.
The dissent further criticizes the majority’s interpretation of “determine the validity” to mean “issue a declaratory judgment determining the validity.” Nothing in the Hobbs Act limits the term to the majority’s narrow interpretation and Congress is more than capable of saying so if that’s what it intended. The majority has essentially rewritten the statue by adding language Congress didn’t intend to include.
According to the dissent, history, precedent, and common sense all point to one conclusion: the Hobbs Act was meant to prevent exactly the kind of late-stage challenge to agency orders the majority now allows. The dissent cites a century’s worth of case law – Venner, Yakus, Port of Boston, etc…—to show that when Congress gives appellate courts “exclusive jurisdiction” to determine the validity of agency action, that language precludes district courts from challenging those orders later on. Congress legislated against the backdrop of these decisions, and the Supreme Court’s past interpretations have consistently upheld the exclusivity of appellate review.
The dissent argues that the “default rule,” requires Congress to take a “belt and suspenders” approach—adding a redundant “we mean it too” sentence—whenever it intends for an exclusive jurisdiction provision to vest review solely in the courts of appeals. The majority offers two reasons for this approach: (1) the presumption of judicial review of agency action and (2) the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The dissent challenges both.
Presumption of Judicial Review of Agency Action
The dissent agrees that there is a basic presumption of judicial review for agency actions, however, it argues that the presumption isn’t as radical as the majority claims. Congress often channels judicial review into a specific forum without eliminating it entirely. Citing past cases like Thunder Basin and Axon, the dissent argues that when Congress provides an exclusive structure for judicial review, the presumption of district court review doesn’t apply. Here, because the Hobbs Act offers a centralized appellate review structure, the default presumption of district court review should not be triggered.
Administrative Procedure Act
Further, the dissent argues that the APA, specifically Section 703, does not support the majority’s “default rule.” It emphasizes that Section 703 explicitly carves out an exception when Congress provides a “prior, adequate, and exclusive” path for judicial review—precisely what the Hobbs Act does. Thus, district courts must determine in each case whether Congress had the intent to preclude or permit judicial review of agency action in enforcement proceedings, and not defer to a “default rule.” In essence, the APA calls for statutory interpretation, not its avoidance as the majority does by deferring to a “default rule.”
Consequences of the Majority’s Misreading of the Hobbs Act (According to the Dissent)
The majority’s misreading of the Hobbs Act undermines its core purpose: to ensure finality and prevent disruptive, belated challenges to agency action. By allowing parties to contest agency decisions without first notifying the government, the ruling threatens the stability of administrative frameworks and invites legal uncertainty. It may also discourage prompt compliance with lawful regulations, even in areas where Congress prioritized immediate enforcement.
The Court’s ruling undermines the Hobbs Act’s which relies on a strict 60-day window to bring challenges to agency actions. After the 60 days are up, those interested are meant to have clear rules to be guided by. But by allowing future challenges, the majority opens the floodgates of indefinite disruption, threatening stability with nothing being ever truly settled.
Further, this decision strips the government of its right to defend agency orders. Normally, challengers must sue the United States and notify both the agency and the Attorney General, ensuring the government has a chance to respond. Now, however, district courts may invalidate agency orders in private suits. As a result, agency decisions can be reversed without the FCC or other agencies having any opportunity to object.
Finally, Congress deliberately structured the Hobbs Act to prevent regulated entities from treating compliance with agency orders as options, and gambling on a more favorable outcome in the future. The Hobbs Act ensures compliance by requiring early judicial review, not post hoc challenges.
“The Hobbs Act gives the courts of appeals “exclusive jurisdiction” to “determine the validity” of covered agency action. Those words mean what they say, or anyway should. They mean that, because the appellate courts’ jurisdiction is exclusive, district courts have no power to make the determination anew.”
Id. at *20. The majority has effectively gutted the framework of the Hobbs Act and gave regulated actors too much leeway to disregard agency orders.
The Hidden Risk Factor: Vendor Contracts in the Cyber Insurance Era
In today’s digital world, data breaches due to vendor failures are becoming increasingly common, often resulting in costly fallout. While insurance can provide a safety net, the interaction between cyber insurance and vendor contracts is crucial for effective recovery and risk management. Vendor contracts should not be treated as mere formalities but as vital frameworks that contain specific, detailed provisions regarding data security obligations to ensure accountability and minimize vulnerabilities.
Attempts to recoup costs from vendors following cybersecurity events increasingly underscore the critical importance of detailed contracts that clearly define cybersecurity obligations and responsibilities. This issue is also becoming a focal point during cyber insurance policy renewals. Weak subrogation cases, where insurers have covered policyholders for incidents caused by vendors but later struggle to recover those costs, have prompted insurers to adopt more aggressive underwriting practices and heightened scrutiny during renewals. Insurers are now asking about contracts between policyholders and their third-party vendors as part of the underwriting process, making inquiries to assess potential exposure. Consequently, policyholders must prioritize precise and enforceable contractual provisions with vendors—not only to enhance their chances of recovering costs after an incident but also to facilitate smoother cyber insurance renewals and potentially secure more favorable policy terms.
The Blackbaud 2020 ransomware incident illustrates the significant challenges policyholders may face in cyber incident disputes when vendor contracts are vague or poorly defined, limitations that can severely restrict recovery options and hinder efforts to recoup losses. In this case, several nonprofit and higher education organizations insured by Travelers and Philadelphia Indemnity incurred substantial costs related to investigating and mitigating the incident. While the insurers initially covered these expenses, they later filed lawsuits against Blackbaud to recover the amounts paid, alleging breach of contract and negligence in an effort to recover their payments.
However, in Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud Inc., C.A. No. N22C-12-130 KMM and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Blackbaud Inc., C.A. No. N22C-12-141 KMM, the insurers were ultimately unable to recover from Blackbaud. The court dismissed their claims, finding that the insurers failed to provide sufficient factual detail to support allegations of breach of contract or negligence. Specifically, the court noted that the insurers did not clearly identify the contractual provisions within the vendor contracts that would establish a direct link between the ransomware incident and Blackbaud’s obligation to indemnify the policyholders for their incurred costs.
To prevent these risks, policyholders should focus on enhancing recovery by considering the following proactive measures:
Contract Review: Include specific, enforceable cybersecurity standards in vendor contracts.
Indemnity Provisions: Ensure vendor contracts require the vendor to cover costs incurred by the company related to the breach.
Breach Notification: The vendor contracts should contain clear timelines, cooperation clauses, and audit rights as it pertains to notifying a breach.
Cyber Insurance Alignment: Consult with an insurance professional to understand coverage obligations under cyber insurance policy and vendor agreements to confirm there are no gaps in coverage or ambiguous language as to what is covered.
It is equally important for policyholders to understand the measures to take after a breach. Following a breach, policyholders must take decisive action to support insurance claims and facilitate recovery from vendors. This involves meticulously documenting all aspects of the incident, including keeping detailed records of:
Incident Response Steps: record the action taken as a result of the breach, including the timing for such response.
Third-Party Communications: maintain comprehensive logs of all interactions with vendors and third parties involved in the breach.
Costs Incurred: compile detailed records for all expenses related to legal fees, IT services, forensic analysis, notification processes, and credit monitoring efforts to maximize recovery.
Cyber risk is a shared responsibility between cyber policies and vendor or third-party contracts. However, the legal system may not always hold third parties accountable. Thus, policyholders should not rely solely on insurance or vendors. Rather, the focus should be on proactive risk management and reactive risk management which put the insured in the best position for coverage.
China Newsletter | Q1 2025/Issue No. 63
In This Issue
This China Newsletter provides an overview of key Q1 2025 developments in the following areas:
1.
Antitrust
China Unveils Anti-Monopoly Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Sector
2.
Compliance
China Formally Finalizes First Anti-Corruption Guidelines for the Health Care and Life Sciences Industry
3.
Corporate
China Streamlines Company Registration: Key Changes Effective February 2025
4.
Data Privacy & Cybersecurity
China Issues Personal Information Compliance Audit Rule
China Issues Regulation for Facial Recognition Technology Applications
China Issues Measures for Labeling AI-Generated and Synthetic Content
5.
Foreign Investment
China Publishes 2025 Action Plan for Stabilizing Foreign Investment
6.
International Trade
China Promulgates Regulations for Implementing Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law
Read the Full Newsletter Here
BLURRY LINE: Court Suggests Gold Seller’s Calls to “Inform” About the Value of Gold Might Not Be A Solicitation Message
Interesting one here.
So a small company that apparently pitches gold as an investment to consumers was sued in a TCPA class action.
They didn’t show up in time to defend themselves and a default was entered against it.
In time, however, they got their act together and hired a lawyer who moved to set aside the default.
In assessing whether or not to lift the default the court had to determine whether the defendant had any meritorious defenses worthy of allowing it to proceed in the case.
While the defendant proffered several, one was particularly eye opening.
The Defendant argues that it has “adhered to the TCPA regulations by refraining from sending solicitation messages” and instead “provided courtesy messages to the general public, which contain informative, yet publicly available, communications related to [G]old.” Defendant maintains… the messages contained “information to individuals, enabling them to make better investment choices.”
Hahahah what?
I have to tell you a call from a gold seller “informing” you that gold is a super awesome investment is DEFINITELY a solicitation in the eyes of most courts, even if the message doesn’t say “buy it from me right now!”
It is the intent of the message that matters and one can easily infer this message was intended to sell gold.
Still the result here isn’t too surprising, courts bend over backward to give people their day in court and that’s all that happened here I suspect.
But one to keep an eye on.
The case is Hoffman v. Reagan Gold 2025 WL 1725139 (W.D. Wash June 20, 2025).
Mastering the Art of the Follow-Up: How to Turn Events into Real Business Development Opportunities
You spent weeks or months planning the event. You invited the right people, chose a strong format and created the kind of setting where real conversations could happen. Maybe it was a cocktail reception. A panel. A small dinner. What matters is that you brought people together with intention.
But too many companies (and people) stop there. They let the energy die down. They wait too long to follow up or send the same message to everyone. That’s where the opportunity slips.
The follow-up is where the impact really happens. It’s how you turn a moment of connection into something more. A next step. A new matter. A stronger relationship.
This article walks through how to follow up the right way to build relationships, visibility and business. It covers what companies should do, what individuals should do, how to handle no-shows and how to use LinkedIn to keep things going. It also includes how to become a connector for others and why that’s one of the most effective ways to add value to your network.
What Your Company Should Do After the Event
Companies often spend most of their energy on planning. But if you don’t build a plan for what happens after, you’re leaving so much value on the table. The follow-up is how you extend the life of the event, bring people closer to your brand and give your team tools to move relationships forward. Here’s how to make sure your firm (and you) get the most out of the experience.
Send a thank-you message that adds something: A generic note won’t make an impression. Recap the purpose of the event and highlight a few moments that stood out. If there was a strong quote or a key takeaway, include it. Add a photo if it feels appropriate. Segment your outreach. Senior contacts should get a different message than junior professionals or peers. One size never fits all.
Post about the event on LinkedIn with intention: Skip the photo dump and vague caption. Share a real insight from the event, something that sparked conversation or prompted a new question. Keep it useful and brief. Tag people only when it makes sense. Make it about the substance, not the optics.
Turn the event into content worth reading: If the event focused on a timely issue or trend, create a short article or blog post based on what was discussed. Include your firm’s perspective. Focus on what clients need to know, not a recap. This content should reinforce your value and expertise, not repeat the agenda.
Equip your people to follow up quickly and well: Don’t assume everyone will know what to do next. Share the attendee list, notes from key conversations and follow-up templates. Identify high-priority contacts and offer talking points or next steps. Make it easy to take action. Most people won’t unless you give them the tools.
Update your tracking systems immediately: Add every attendee to your CRM or tracker. Note who they spoke with, what was discussed and what needs to happen next. Flag high-value targets for additional follow-up. If you don’t track this, it gets lost. Follow-up doesn’t work if it’s based on memory.
What Individuals Should Do After the Event
If you spent time talking to people at the event, the next step is on you. This is where most people hesitate. They tell themselves they’ll get to it later and then never do. I’ve seen it happen too many times and I’ve been guilty of it myself. Years ago I went to a packed industry dinner where I met someone who could have opened doors for a big opportunity. We had a great conversation, exchanged cards and promised to stay in touch. But I didn’t follow up until three weeks later and by then the moment had passed. I wasn’t top of mind anymore. That experience stuck with me.
The truth is, it doesn’t need to be perfect or overly polished. It just needs to be done. If you wait too long you risk losing the momentum. If you overthink it you’ll talk yourself out of reaching out. You’ve already made the connection. Now build on it while it’s still fresh. Send the note. Make the call. Keep the door open. It’s that simple.
Send a personal message within a day or two: Mention something you talked about. Keep it short and friendly. You’re just picking up where you left off.
Connect on LinkedIn: Consider including a personal note. Remind them where you met and thank them for the conversation. If you had a real exchange, this will feel natural.
Keep the relationship warm: Send a useful article, a relevant invite or just check in. Do it in a way that fits your relationship. The goal isn’t to pitch. It’s to stay in touch.
Track your outreach: Make a quick note to remind yourself when and how you connected. Set a calendar reminder to follow up again in a few weeks or months.
Be a super connector: Look for ways to bring people together. If someone you met at the event would benefit from knowing someone else in your network, make the introduction. It doesn’t have to be a big production. A quick email or message is often all it takes. When you make thoughtful connections, it shows you’re paying attention and thinking beyond your own relationships. It also signals that you’re someone people can trust to make smart, relevant introductions.
Speaking of Super Connectors…
One of the most valuable things you can do after an event isn’t about your own follow-up. It’s about helping other people. Introducing two smart contacts to each other can be more impactful than anything you say about yourself. And it leaves an impression that lasts.
You don’t have to be the most senior person in the room or have the biggest network. You just need to be thoughtful. When you connect people in ways that feel personal and intentional, you become someone others want to stay close to.
Here’s how to do it well:
Look for unmet needs: Pay attention to what people are working on. Is someone hiring? Are they trying to grow their presence in a certain market? Are they struggling with visibility or new business? Think about who you know who could help with that.
Make your introductions clear and specific: Don’t just say, “You two should know each other.” Explain why. Share a sentence or two about each person and what they’re focused on. Set the context. Make it easy for them to see the value in connecting.
Cross networks and roles: Great connections often happen outside the usual circles. Introduce people across industries, seniority levels or backgrounds. A founder might need a lawyer. A private equity partner might need a branding expert. Think big.
Stay organized: Keep track of who you’ve introduced and when. Follow up with each person later to see if the conversation happened. It shows you care and that you’re not just making connections to check a box.
Don’t overdo it: Every introduction should feel intentional. Quality matters more than quantity. You want to be known for sending the right names at the right time, not for flooding inboxes with random connections.
Being a connector shows people you’re paying attention. It also proves you’re not only thinking about yourself. That’s rare. And that’s the kind of person people want in their corner.
How to Handle No-Shows
An RSVP means something. Even if someone didn’t attend, they were interested. Maybe the topic spoke to them, or they knew someone hosting. They took the time to register, and that gives you a reason to follow up.
But what happens too often? Nothing. They get overlooked. They don’t hear from anyone. That’s a mistake. These are people who already signaled some level of connection. Now it’s your job to pick it back up and find a way to bring them back in. With the right outreach, you can restart the conversation and turn a missed event into a new opportunity.
Start with a prioritized list: Pull a list of no-shows and focus on the contacts who align with your goals. That might include clients, prospects, alumni or industry relationships. Don’t treat this as a mass outreach project. Be selective and strategic.
Make the outreach matter: A generic recap won’t do much. Think about what would be useful to them based on their role or industry. If a specific topic came up that’s tied to their business, start there. You don’t need to mention that they missed the event. Focus on what they would find helpful now.
Tie the follow-up to a next step: Share a relevant article or client alert. Invite them to a future event. Suggest a time to connect one-on-one. The goal isn’t to rehash what already happened. It’s to move the relationship forward from where it is now.
Assign outreach to the right people: If there’s an existing relationship, the message should come from that person. If not, choose someone who can speak with authority about the topic or the space the contact works in. The outreach should feel intentional, not random.
Track and follow through: Add these contacts to your internal tracking. Note what was sent and when. Identify who responded and what the next action should be. This isn’t just post-event housekeeping. It’s an extension of your business development strategy.
Connect with them on LinkedIn: If you’re not already connected, send a short note with your request. Mention the event briefly and let them know you’d like to stay in touch. This gives them an easy way to learn more about you and makes future outreach feel more natural.
Stay visible over time: If they’re not already in your LinkedIn network, send a connection request with a short, professional note. Continue to post and engage on topics that reinforce your expertise. Make sure your activity supports the outreach that’s already happened.
Think long term: Just because someone didn’t attend this time doesn’t mean they won’t engage next time. Keep the line open. Pay attention to what matters to them. Invite them to something more targeted. Stay consistent.
When it comes to this audience, also consider:
Debrief with your internal team: Identify which no-shows are worth a second look. Share relevant context and make sure there’s a clear owner and plan for each contact.
Loop in colleagues where it makes sense: If a no-show would be better served by another lawyer or team, pass the contact along thoughtfully. Make sure there’s follow-through.
Turn it into a check-in opportunity: If the contact is a current or former client, use the moment to reach out and ask what they’re seeing in the market or what’s on their radar.
Use no-show patterns to improve your invites: If the same people always RSVP and cancel, reconsider the format or content. They may be better served by a different kind of outreach.
The missed event doesn’t matter as much as what you do next. A thoughtful follow-up is often where the real relationship starts.
Using LinkedIn to Keep the Conversation Going
LinkedIn is one of the most effective ways to continue building relationships after an event. It helps people understand what you care about, how you think and where you show up. It also keeps you visible to the people you met without being intrusive. That visibility matters. When someone is deciding who to refer or hire, they often check LinkedIn first. What you do there reinforces everything you said in person.
Here’s how to use LinkedIn to build lasting connections after the event:
Connect with the people you met: Send a connection request within a few days while the conversation is still fresh. Always include a short note that reminds them where you met and what you discussed. A personal message makes the interaction feel intentional and thoughtful. Avoid sending a blank request or something overly generic. That small extra effort builds trust.
Post something thoughtful about the event: Choose one takeaway that stood out. This could be a quote, a topic that sparked strong reactions or a trend that came up in multiple conversations. Keep the post short and focused. Share your perspective. If you tag others, make sure there is a clear reason to do it. A good post extends the life of the event and gives your network something useful to think about.
Comment on posts from other attendees: When others post about the event, don’t ignore it. Add a meaningful comment or share it with your own thoughts. This helps you stay visible without writing something from scratch. More importantly, it shows you are engaged and paying attention. It’s also a good way to support your contacts and stay on their radar.
Share something relevant to the conversations you had: If your firm has a client alert, article or podcast episode that relates to something discussed at the event, share it privately or as a post. Explain why it’s helpful. This makes you a resource rather than someone trying to sell. Even if the person doesn’t respond, you’ve shown you listened and followed through.
Stay active in the days and weeks that follow: Many people will visit your profile after connecting with you. If you are posting and engaging with others, it gives them a better sense of who you are and how you think. You don’t need to post every day. A few consistent actions help build familiarity and make it easier for people to remember your strengths when opportunities come up.
Use your activity to reinforce your credibility: Your posts, comments and shares should align with the kind of work you want to be known for. If you’re in private equity, talk about trends you’re seeing. If you work with founder-led businesses, comment on news about those companies. The more your activity reflects your focus, the more likely it is that your connections will think of you when something relevant comes their way.
Follow up privately with content or a next step: LinkedIn doesn’t always need to be public. If you had a strong conversation with someone at the event, follow up with a short message that includes something of value. That could be a relevant article, an introduction or a quick note suggesting a future conversation. This helps you move from online visibility to actual relationship-building.
Watch for their updates and engage consistently: Staying in touch doesn’t require a big move. Watch for their updates, promotions, job changes or published content. Comment when it makes sense. A short, relevant response to one of their posts can be just as powerful as a full outreach email. It reminds them of who you are and keeps the connection alive.
LinkedIn works best when it’s used consistently and with intention. It shouldn’t replace your direct follow-up, but it plays a major role in keeping you visible, credible and connected. When done well, it turns a quick exchange at an event into a long-term relationship.
Make Follow-Up Part of the Plan
You can’t rely on good intentions to make follow-up happen. It needs to be built into the planning process from the start. Otherwise it gets delayed, rushed or forgotten.
Start by working follow-up into your event timeline. Think through what will happen after, who’s responsible and what tools they’ll need. Create a shared document that includes the full attendee list, who invited whom, who they spoke with and what kind of follow-up makes sense. Assign owners for key contacts. Don’t leave it vague.
Draft the follow-up materials in advance. That means thank-you emails, social media copy, LinkedIn templates and talking points. Also decide what content to share, whether it’s a blog post, a relevant client alert or an invitation to a future event. Having those pieces ready will make it easier for people to take action in a timely way.
It’s all about the follow up. Your follow-up doesn’t need to happen immediately, but it should happen within a few days while the event is still fresh. Block time on calendars if needed. Set internal reminders. Give your team what they need to reach out without having to start from scratch.
A few days later, check in. Who followed up. Who got a response. Who might need a second touchpoint. This is where marketing and BD can step in again to help think through what’s next.
Also pay attention to the people who RSVP’d but didn’t attend. Reach out to them. Send a quick note, a summary of what they missed or a link to a relevant resource. The interest was there. Don’t waste it.
If you want your events to lead to something more, you have to treat follow-up as part of the strategy. Not an extra task. Not something you’ll get around to when you have time. The real value of the event is built after it ends. That’s the part too many people skip.
Don’t Let the Event Be the End
Getting the right people in the room is only the beginning. What you do next is what matters.
The real value of an event is in what happens afterward. The conversations you continue. The relationships you deepen. The opportunities you create by staying visible and following through.
Make sure your colleagues know who they met and what steps to take next. Reach out while the connection is still fresh. Personalize every interaction. And don’t wait for someone else to do it.
This is where business gets done. Quietly. Thoughtfully. Intentionally.
Because the event might be over, but the window to make something real from it is just opening.
STRAIGHTFORWARD: BPO Firstsource Solutions Trapped in TCPA Class Action As Court Denies Effort to Dismiss
TCPA cases are dangerous and difficult to defend. Everyone knows that.
But sometimes results are predictable and simple.
For instance in Barry v. Firstsource Solutions, the Plaintiff alleged BPO Firstsource made a series of illegal prerecorded calls without consent.
Firstsource moved to dismiss arguing the Complaint did not allege facts showing it actually made the calls or that the calls were prerecorded.
The Court responded with the judicial equivalent of an eyeroll.
As to “who made the call” the Complaint alleges that the calls’ speaker self-identified as calling from Firstsource and that the voice message directed the recipient to Firstsource’swebsite. That what plenty good enough for the court.
As to whether the calls were prerecorded in nature, the allegations were “the calls seemed to be artificial or prerecorded in nature because the tone and intonation of the caller were unnatural and did not reflect live speech” plus “Oliver’s name was said in a distinct manner that sounded different than the rest of the prerecorded message.” Again the Court said this was fine– a “higher” standard of pleading than necessary.
Full order here: Barry v. First Source
So one take away here, I suppose, is not to waste money on motions that can’t possibly win I think the bigger takeaway is how easy it is for a BPO to end up trapped in a very serious class action. BPO’s generally call only for brands and at their specific instructions, but as the maker of the call they can be directly sued.
ASIC Appeals Full Federal Court’s Finding in Favour of Block Earner: Key Takeaways for Crypto Companies
The crypto-asset industry has undergone unparalleled expansion and growth in recent years, leaving regulators globally grappling with how to keep up and enforce the existing regulatory frameworks. In Australia, the crypto-asset industry has been preparing for the impending regulation of crypto-assets, with the Government consulting on changes to the existing regulatory framework that will create additional licensing requirements for providers of services (such as exchanges and custodians) in respect of crypto-assets (previously discussed in our post). In addition, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is consulting on changes to its own Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225), which provides guidance on the circumstances in which a crypto-asset related offering may be a financial product.
Against this backdrop, ASIC continues to pursue enforcement action against crypto-asset providers, most recently, seeking special leave from the High Court of Australia (HCA) to appeal the Full Federal Court’s recent decision. On 22 April 2025, the Full Federal Court in ASIC v Web3 Ventures (Block Earner) found in favour of Block Earner, reversing aspects of the primary judgment which had found in favour of ASIC in some respects.
The Full Federal Court’s decision was noteworthy for other cryptocurrency exchange and digital asset providers, given the clarity provided by the court regarding the characteristics of “managed investment schemes”, “facilities through which a person makes a financial investment”, and derivatives.
This decision may have implications for ASIC’s proposed updates to INFO 225, as it had been relying in part on the primary judge’s findings in this case as one of the justifications for needing to update INFO 225.
However, ASIC has now sought special leave to the High Court. If leave to appeal is granted, ASIC may use the appeal as a ‘test case’ for clarifying the definitions of a variety of products in the market. In these circumstances, even if the Full Federal Court’s decision is overturned, Block Earner is likely to seek to ensure that the penalty relief granted in the Federal Court remains.
Background
Block Earner provided two main “products” or “services” known as the “Earner” and “Access” products. The Access product was not considered by the Federal Court to be a financial product. The Earner product allowed customers to “loan” specified cryptocurrency in return for interest paid at a fixed rate. Block Earner was then able to use the loaned crypto assets to generate income by lending the cryptocurrency to third parties. At the end of the loan, users received their AUD calculated by reference to the price of the relevant cryptocurrency plus the fixed rate of return.
Customers were bound by the Terms of Use upon opening an account with Block Earner. Imperatively, under the Terms of Use, Block Earner was required to pay the fixed interest rate to users regardless of the amount of income it earned (if any) in relation to the cryptocurrency which was the subject of the loan.
The Full Federal Court’s Decision (22 April 2025)
The Full Federal Court found that the Earner and Access products were not “financial products” under the Corporations Act for reasons which are detailed below. On this issue, the Full Federal Court overturned the finding of the primary judge.
Managed Investment Schemes
In assessing whether there was a managed investment scheme, the Full Federal Court emphasised the need to assess the Terms of Use and some key provisions in it. In particular, the Terms of Use explicitly stated that the loaned cryptocurrency would not be used to generate a financial benefit for the users.
The Full Federal Court consider that what Block Earner did with the loaned crypto assets was entirely at its own discretion and customers had no right to benefits produced by those activities.
The primary judge had found that, although the Terms of Use did not mention pooling for any common benefit, it was sufficient that Block Earner had represented that contributions would be pooled in order to generate a financial benefit for users.
The FCAFC rejected this notion, instead finding that the clauses within the Terms of Use should be taken literally and objectively, as they were unambiguous.
The court also distinguished this case from cases where the court has gone beyond the terms of the loan agreement; where specific representations are made outside of and contrary to terms of loan and where there were specific commitments to use the funds in particular ways for the benefit of investors. Here, the Block Earner customers had no exposure to the benefits of whatever activities Block Earner undertook once it had borrowed cryptocurrency from those users.
Facility for Making a Financial Investment
The Full Federal Court also held that the Earner product was not a facility for making a financial investment under section 763B of the Corporations Act. The primary judge considered that money was being used to generate revenue to then pay a fixed yield back to customers, and therefore the users were making a financial investment. On the contrary, the Full Federal Court found that Block Earner had used the profit generated for itself, and to benefit itself, rather than ‘for’ the investors. The Full Federal Court again emphasised that users were bound by the Terms of Use which clearly indicated their fixed yield entitlement.
Key Takeaways
The Full Federal gave emphasis to the Terms of Use – and their literal interpretation – as opposed to what ASIC considered the terms to have “conveyed”.
Terms or other representations should be unambiguous and explicit, and not overly long or complex. This ensures that the terms are unable to be construed in any other way than how the business intends.
The legal relationship between the business and its customers should be clearly defined.
Conclusion
Further developments at the High Court are being watched closely, given their potential impact on digital asset businesses.
In the meantime, the Full Federal Court’s judgment provides clarity on the characteristics of managed investment schemes, facilities through which a person makes a financial investment and derivatives.
There may be implications for Information Sheet 225 as a result of the judgment, but this remains uncertain ahead of ASIC’s special leave request. We will provide further updates if there are any developments.