Understanding Local Regulations

The newly released 2024 Dutch cannabis retail report, commissioned by the Scientific Research and Data Center (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice and Security and conducted by Breuer&Intraval, provides a data-driven view of the coffeeshop market and municipal policies across the Netherlands. Map: coffeeshop density by municipality, end-2024. Colors show residents per shop; grey = none. The Dutch cannabis retail landscape in 2024 shows regulatory stability with evolving challenges and opportunities. Key insights: • 556 tolerated coffeeshops open across 103 municipalities at end-2024, continuing a stabilizing trend since 2017. A new municipality joined the coffeeshop-hosting list for the first time since 2010. • By type: 66% consumption coffeeshops and 26% takeaway. • Municipal policies largely apply the AHOJGI criteria. The residents-only I-criterion appears in 79% of municipalities and is rarely monitored with high priority at 2%. • Enforcement uses graduated sanction ladders. The most common violation is exceeding the maximum trade quantity. In 2023–2024, authorities recorded 38 violations across 15 municipalities and imposed 16 sanctions in six of them. • External factors: 13% of municipalities reported effects from the smoking-room ban, noting coffeeshops are increasingly used as takeaway locations. The closed-chain experiment (EGC) was discussed in 21% of municipalities and influenced policy in 13%. Germany’s new rules were discussed in 7%, with 3% reporting consequences such as monitoring visitor flows and policy reflection. • About 31% of municipalities with coffeeshops, 32 in total, intend to revise licensing procedures toward more transparent and objective allocation systems. The Dutch market remains a case study in how a mature, legally tolerated cannabis sector maintains regulatory rigor while adapting to social and cross-border dynamics. Source: https://lnkd.in/dHMRHNqM

𝐀𝐈 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 & 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐀𝐈 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐬 Building GenAI Apps for a Global Audience?  Understanding Regional Data Protection and AI laws is not optional, it is foundational. Here is what you need to know: 1. UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL REGULATORY VARIANCE Building GenAI for a global audience requires understanding regional data protection and AI laws. Key Regulations by Region: • EU AI Act: Risk-based AI obligations for certain AI systems and transparency use cases • GDPR (EU): Transparency & Consent • DPDP (India): Digital Personal Data Protection • PIPL (China): Strict Data Localization • CCPA (California): Data Access & Opt-Out • LGPD (Brazil): Local Compliance Rules 2. IMPACT OF THESE REGULATIONS ON YOUR AI TRAINING DATA To build compliant GenAI apps,  Ensure that data used for training AI models follows the regional rules: Data Collection → Processing → Model Training → Deployment Three Core Requirements: a. User Consent: Obtain explicit consent for data collection and use b. Data Minimization: Collect only necessary data for the intended purpose c. Anonymization: Remove personally identifiable information from training data 3. MITIGATING AI ETHICS AND BIAS RISKS AI systems must be fair and ethical, particularly in high-risk areas: a. Fairness: Ensure your AI models don't discriminate, especially in areas like recruitment or finance. b. Bias Mitigation: Regularly test and adjust your models to reduce bias in the outputs. 4. ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN AI MODEL DEVELOPMENT Transparency is a cornerstone of compliance, especially when your AI impacts users directly: a. Explainability: Protect data in transit and at rest. b. Consent Management: Collect, track, and manage user consent. c. Privacy by Design: Embed privacy into every system layer. 5. MANAGING CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOW GenAI apps often rely on data from various regions, so it's critical to understand data sovereignty laws: a. Data Sovereignty: Follow local laws on where data is stored and processed. b. Data Transfer Agreements: Use SCCs or BCRs for compliant cross-border transfers. THE COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Before launching GenAI globally, verify: 1. Regional Compliance: • GDPR for EU? (Transparency & Consent) • DPDP for India? (Data Protection) • PIPL for China? (Data Localization) • CCPA for California? (Access & Opt-Out) • LGPD for Brazil? (Local Rules) 2. Training Data: • User consent obtained? • Data minimized? • PII anonymized? 3. Ethics & Bias: • Fairness tested? • Bias mitigation in place? 4. Transparency: • Explainability documented? • Consent management system? • Privacy by design? 5. Cross-Border: • Data sovereignty compliance? • Transfer agreements (SCCs/BCRs)? Each region has different requirements.  Build for the strictest, adapt for the rest. Which regulation applies to your GenAI app?

“The cloud is just someone else’s computer… sitting on someone else’s land, drinking someone else’s water.” Google’s decision to withdraw its $2 billion data centre project from Indianapolis stayed with me. Not because projects get cancelled, but because of what it revealed. Digital convenience has a physical footprint. The cloud may feel weightless. Its infrastructure is anything but. Local reporting pointed to environmental concerns from water usage, electricity demand, & community pushback. Even one of the world’s most efficient technology companies could not make the economic, environmental, & social math add up. I am not anti-data centre. I am thinking aloud about the scale, limits, & trade-offs we gloss over when we talk about “digital” growth. Take water. Data centres need intensive cooling. Water cooled systems are more energy efficient than air cooling, but the numbers are sobering. A single hyperscale facility can consume three to five million gallons a day, roughly what a small town uses. In drought prone regions, this has already triggered conflict. The question sharpens quickly: scarce water for servers, or for citizens? Then there is energy. The IEA estimates global data centre electricity use could double by 2026, driven by AI workloads. A hyperscale facility can draw as much power as a large industrial plant. In India, where grids already juggle agricultural, industrial, & urban demand, this is not abstract. Add capacity without planning, & we risk instability or deeper dependence on coal. There is also heat. Data centres do not just consume energy; they expel it. In warmer geographies, this becomes a liability. Systems designed for “cool efficiency” often end up warming neighbourhoods. Land adds another layer. Data centres promise jobs but create few permanent ones relative to the land they occupy. Communities are questioning what they give up, farmland, housing, green space, in exchange for high security campuses with limited spillover benefits. India is one of the fastest growing data centre markets, fuelled by AI, fintech, gaming, & digital public infrastructure. These questions are urgent, not theoretical. Where will the water come from? Can we meet power demand sustainably? Will communities benefit meaningfully? This is not about slowing ambition. It is about aligning ambition with ecology. Google walking away feels less like a corporate decision & more like a signal. The digital world is hitting physical limits. Every message leaves a trace. The cloud is not magical. It is material. Sharing this as part of my thinking aloud series, questions, not conclusions. Where are we underestimating the real costs of “digital” growth? What trade offs are we still unwilling to name? #Cloud #Data #Technology #Innovation #Ai

Even without a state privacy law - New York is coming after your website tracking (and so can other states). Key points from a new advisory by the Office of the New York State Attorney General based on an investigation of websites: As we've been telling clients - Even without a state privacy laws, businesses’ privacy-related practices and statements are subject to a state's consumer protection laws that prohibit businesses from engaging in deceptive acts and practices. Mistakes to avoid: 🔹 Make sure that your cookie management tool does not leave uncategorized or miscategorized tags/cookies. 🔹 Make sure your cookie management tool works well with your tag management tool. (disabling tracking in one disables the other too). 🔹 Make sure your marketing or advertising tags work as described and DO NOT remain active even after visitors try to disable them using the sites’ privacy controls. 🔹 Ensure even tags that are hardcoded to the website get deactivated by the cookie management tool. 🔹 Do not rely on contract based restrictions like limited data use (LDU - Meta) or Restricted data processing (RDP - Google) in states where they don't actually work. 🔹 Before deploying a new tag, understand what data the tag collects and how the data may be used or shared. 🔹 Address NON cookie based sharing Things to do: Configuration of trackers: 🔹 Designate a qualified individual (or individuals) with appropriate training to be responsible for implementing and managing website-tracking technologies. 🔹 Before deploying a new tag or tool, or changing how an existing tag or tool is used, take appropriate steps (including active due diligence) to identify the types of data collected and how the data will be used and shared. 🔹 When deploying a new tag or tool, or changing use, ensure that it is appropriately categorized and configured. 🔹 Conduct appropriate testing (regularly and following a change) to ensure that tags and tools are operating as intended. 🔹 Conduct reviews on a regular basis to ensure tags and tools are properly configured Disclosure and interface: 🔹 Make sure that your representations on the website about privacy controls (whether express or implied through privacy controls configuration) are accurate 🔹 Avoid language that creates a misleading impression of how your website handles tracking and choice [Don't say "by clicking accept cookies" you accept - if the cookies deploy by default] 🔹 Ensure the user interface is not misleading - beware of dark patterns (e.g a faded gray color, and without any visual indication that the words could be clicked); ambiguous buttons. 🔹 If you can agree with a single click you should be able to opt out with single click. 🔹 Make the interface accessible (e.g. allow navigation of privacy controls with a keyboard to tab) 🔹 Don't use large blocks of text or complicated language #dataprivacy #dataprotection #privacyFOMO https://rb.gy/bei7cu

Everyone thinks employment law changes gradually. I disagree. This year proved employment legislation can reshape payroll costs overnight. 28 more reforms are scheduled that will fundamentally alter people management across the UK. What already happened while most teams were focused elsewhere: The Minimum Wage Reality: → National Living Wage jumped £0.77 to £12.21/hour (21+) → 18-20 year olds received £1.40 increase to £10.00/hour (biggest increase ever) → 3.2 million workers affected immediately The Tax Calculation Changes: → National Insurance rate: 13.8% → 15% → Earnings threshold dropped from £9,100 to £5,000 → Typical cost increase: £2,100-£2,270 per full-time NLW employee New Family Support Requirements: → Neonatal care leave launched with day 1 entitlement → Up to 12 weeks leave for NICU parents → Statutory pay requires 26 weeks' service + £125/week minimum earnings → 60,000+ families now eligible annually Restructuring Process Changes: → Fire & rehire penalties increased 25% on unfair dismissal compensation → Maximum punishment: 112.5 days uncapped pay per person → Tribunal process overhauled with digital-only filing requirements The 28 reforms approaching include: → Day 1 unfair dismissal rights (subject to parliamentary approval). → Mandatory guaranteed hours contracts. → Extended tribunal claims timeline (3→6 months to file). These aren't isolated policy adjustments. Each change builds towards a completely different employment landscape where flexibility costs more and compliance requirements multiply. Organisations treating these as individual updates rather than systematic transformation will face significant gaps when the Employment Rights Bill provisions take effect. The mathematics of being unprepared: → One improper dismissal under new penalties = 112.5 days compensation maximum. → One payroll miscalculation with new NI thresholds = potential HMRC scrutiny. → One missed neonatal leave entitlement = tribunal exposure and operational disruption. Which of these 2025 changes has created the biggest adjustment challenge for your organisation?

Chicago’s hemp regulatory path just took a significant turn. Yesterday, Mayor Brandon Johnson vetoed the City Council’s ordinance that would have expressly regulated and permitted hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including beverages, within the City of Chicago. In his veto letter, the Mayor cited two primary concerns: • Timing: He characterized the ordinance as “premature,” emphasizing the importance of aligning Chicago’s approach with forthcoming federal guidance. • Regulatory balance: He noted the need for a comprehensive framework that protects public health, supports small businesses, and ensures enforceability without creating unnecessary disruption. This veto leaves Chicago in a familiar’but challenging position: a rapidly expanding hemp marketplace operating without clear, tailored municipal rules. For operators, retailers, and investors, several key implications follow: 1. Continued uncertainty: The absence of a clear local regulatory framework prolongs ambiguity around the legality and treatment of hemp-derived cannabinoid products, particularly beverages. 2. Federal developments remain pivotal: The City is explicitly signaling that forthcoming federal action, whether through appropriations, FDA guidance, or legislative changes, will shape its ultimate approach. 3. Potential Council override or revised ordinance: The City Council retains the ability to override the veto or introduce a modified regulatory framework. 4. Near-term operational status quo: Businesses currently operating in Chicago should assume continued regulatory ambiguity rather than immediate formal authorization or prohibition. This moment reflects a broader national dynamic: jurisdictions are increasingly hesitant to lock in hemp regulatory frameworks while federal policy remains unsettled. For companies operating in the hemp beverage and cannabinoid space, this reinforces the importance of closely monitoring federal developments and maintaining flexible compliance strategies. Chicago remains one of the most important markets in the country. How and when it ultimately regulates hemp-derived cannabinoids will have ripple effects far beyond the city. I’ll continue tracking developments closely.

Today, I graduate with a PhD at the Mzuzu University. It has been a tough last couple of years but that is a story for another day. Today, I want to share a synopsis of my research. My study explored the political economy of mining in Malawi, focusing on governance structures, community participation, and labour issues within the sector. Despite the government’s strategic emphasis on mining, alongside agriculture and tourism, as a driver for economic transformation, significant challenges persist in realising the sector's potential for socio-economic development. The research gap was in the insufficient understanding of the dynamics between political power, mining governance, and the role of community and labour in shaping the industry’s outcomes. The study thus aimed to analyse the interplay between politics and mining, specifically examining how governance, community participation, and labour issues affect the mining sector’s development in Malawi. Using a sample of 157 mining stakeholders, a mixed-methods approach was employed, utilising both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. The study used both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The findings indicate that while the government holds substantial decision-making power, international non-governmental organisations and private mining companies exert greater influence in the sector. Additionally, the study revealed a lack of adequate governance structures to ensure meaningful community participation, despite mining communities bearing the negative externalities of mining operations. Furthermore, there is a significant skills gap within the labour market, with no coherent strategy to develop the necessary workforce to support the growing mining sector. The study concludes that the current political framework merely channels taxes, grants, and aid, without fostering sustainable sector development. The study thus recommends that the government take a more proactive role in the sector by significantly operationalising the Mining Company and the Mining Authority to address the power imbalances that hinder economic growth. Additionally, to enhance Malawi’s global competitiveness, it is crucial to focus on developing the labour and skills sector. The study’s findings are valuable for government agencies, private sector stakeholders, and mining researchers aiming to improve the sector’s governance and socio-economic impact. I have already published three papers from this study whose links I will share in the comment section but suffice to say that I shall be sharing a policy brief on an Effective Governance Framework for Malawi’s Mining Sector as a result of this study.

The standard data center siting model—with its sketchy promises of local economic development—is breaking down. Local leaders are questioning Big Tech’s claims of spillover benefits, even as frustration grows over rising electricity demands--and bills. Which is why it’s time to rethink the hundreds of data center siting deals still to come. As outlined in new work at The Brookings Institution by my colleagues Daniel Goetzel, Shriya Methkupally, and myself, developers, regions, and states need a more mutualistic approach. They need one that links massive data center projects to real investments in regional tech ecosystems. Here's our post: https://lnkd.in/eDhaneiu Today, data centers’ local economic contributions remain modest, despite extravagant promises. Under the standard model, long-term employment is limited once the construction phase ends. The ChatGPT era, however, is disrupting this model. AI firms’ race to scale ever-larger models has driven unprecedented demand for computing infrastructure, forcing rapid deal-making with communities—often amid growing concerns about energy use, noise, and other impacts. These pressures are shifting the balance of power. Regions with land, electricity, water, and permitting authority now have leverage to shape AI-focused data center deals to be more beneficial. And so regions should seize that leverage, and work harder to align deals with ambitious agendas for tech development, R&D, innovation, and entrepreneurship. They should ask for more. And developers facing site scarcity, backlash, and fierce competition may find they need to give more to get the deals done. Given that, we suggest a playbook for higher-order deal-making with hyperscalers and AI upstarts, including: 📈 Structuring negotiations to unlock regional economic development 🏭 Creating regional testbeds with universities, startups, and operators (e.g., CoreWeave, Microsoft, Princeton University, The Johns Hopkins University, University of Wisonsin/Madison) 💵 Converting AI investment into local wealth creation through shared-prosperity models (e.g., @O.H.I.O. Fund, Emerson Collective) 💡 Turning AI energy demand into a regional R&D focus in energy, grids, and emerging technologies (e.g., EmeraldAI Technologies, Fervo Energy, Thintronics®, ComEd) Can it work? We believe it can. Regions are rediscovering that their land, infrastructure, water, approvals, and electricity are precious. They should insist these resources be shared only through grand bargains that deliver lasting, high-value development in return--and they may find their AI partners eventually agree. The Brookings Institution Michael Hicks Paul Kedrosky Maria Messick Joe Parilla Mayu Takeuchi Sanjay Patnaik Amy Liu Karen Hao Brad Henderson Jason Hall Liat Krawczyk Francesca Gabriella Ioffreda

Resale and the Future of Luxury: Control, Collaboration, or Both? Resale is no longer a side story in luxury. It is a structural channel that clients increasingly use to validate value, manage wardrobes, and access icons. Brands are split on the response. Some are litigating to tighten rules and curb counterfeits. Others are building certified routes that bring authentication, repair, and pricing discipline under their umbrella. Scale first. Secondhand fashion and luxury is estimated at 210 to 220 billion dollars in 2025, with a projected climb to 320 to 360 billion dollars by 2030, growing roughly three times faster than first-hand. This is where value perception is now measured in public, by resale prices and liquidity, not only by launch price and waitlists. Playbooks are diverging. ROLEX’s certified pre-owned program shows what control can look like when the brand owns authentication, service, and guarantees via approved retailers. On the other side, CHANEL’s ongoing litigation with platforms like The RealReal and the recent judgment against What Goes Around Comes Around highlight a rights-enforcement path focused on trademarks, advertising claims, and provenance. Regulators are active, too. The EU’s recent fines over resale price maintenance remind everyone that channel control must stay within competition law. What to do in 2026: 1) Treat resale as a branded service. Build certified pre-owned or partner programs with clear standards, pricing logic, and repair capacity. 2) Use resale data to steer product and pricing. High repeat value should inform core assortment and price architecture. 3) Tighten authenticity and IP enforcement, but harmonize with client-friendly policies for repairs and returns. 4) Design for longevity. Materials, modular repairs, and digital passports turn aftercare into loyalty. 5) Align compliance early. Map antitrust and cross-border rules before scaling any buy-back or Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) model. If your brand is exploring how to integrate resale into its strategy or strengthen control across global markets, I can help. My work focuses on building coherent strategies that connect brand equity, pricing, and client experience, while adapting to new consumption models such as certified pre-owned. Contact me if you want a pragmatic, globally consistent plan that turns these shifts into measurable growth. #LuxuryStrategy #Resale #BrandManagement #Clienteling #Sustainability Picture courtesy of The RealReal

Historic move from 🇨🇴 Colombia. The government has approved Decree 1138 of 2025, officially allowing the sale of medical cannabis flower in pharmacies, drugstores, and even for veterinary use. The new framework prioritizes small and medium growers for the next two years and expands research opportunities, signaling a more inclusive approach to regulation. As Camila Berriex reports for HIGH TIMES, this isn’t just a health policy; it’s a strategic economic shift toward fairness, access, and science-backed cannabis reform. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/eX2nwams