Latest news with #compliance
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
2025 Gen AI Trends: Privacy, Adoption, And Compliance
In 2025, Gen AI adoption is transforming privacy, governance, and compliance frameworks across global industries. Here's what privacy counsels are saying about Generative AI and its regulatory impact. In 2025, Gen AI adoption is transforming privacy, governance, and compliance frameworks across ... More global industries. 2025 has already thrown plenty of curveballs, and AI governance is no exception, diverging sharply from what many predicted just a year ago. Though broad AI adoption remains in its early phases, sectors like education and mental health are seeing noticeable momentum, especially in individual-facing applications and services. But things are shifting quickly. 'Prior to the AI Act coming into force, AI governance was fractured,' said Caitlin Fennessy, Vice President and Chief Knowledge Officer at the IAPP, formerly known as the International Association of Privacy Professionals. 'Academics, civil society, and professional associations were involved, but they were often late to the conversation because there were no rules yet.' Today, the governance community has matured. The technology has advanced. Public engagement has surged. Since ChatGPT, AI is no longer just the domain of specialists. Friends and families are asking whether 'Deep Seek is the real deal.' At the IAPP's AI Governance Global conference (AIGG25) in Dublin, regulators, legal counsels, product leaders, and privacy professionals compared notes. Here's what the front lines of AI governance are revealing in 2025. AI no longer operates in a regulatory vacuum. In Europe, the EU AI Act came into force in August 2024 and is now rolling out in phases. As of February 2025, prohibitions on unacceptable-risk AI are in effect, alongside requirements for AI literacy. By August, obligations will apply to general-purpose AI providers, and national competent authorities must be appointed. Between 2026 and 2027, high-risk AI systems in sectors like healthcare, law enforcement, and infrastructure will be subject to extensive conformity assessments, documentation, and post-market monitoring. By 2030, some requirements will extend to large-scale government systems. Support comes from mechanisms like the AI Pact, a voluntary initiative inviting providers to implement provisions ahead of schedule, as well as ongoing guidance from the European Commission and the newly established AI Office. At the same time, EU officials have considered softening their approach. When asked whether the Commission was open to amending the AI Act, Kilian Gross said the first priority would be simplifying implementation, to make it easier for companies while still remaining effective. In contrast, the United States is exploring a deregulatory path. A proposed 10-year moratorium on state-level enforcement of AI-specific laws is under Congressional consideration. It would suspend enforcement of design, performance, documentation, and data-handling laws unless those apply across all technologies. 'Yes, there is a complex regulatory landscape for AI systems,' said Ashley Casovan, Managing Director of the IAPP's AI Governance Center. 'However, it's not insurmountable. For those who have started to navigate this web of rules, there are clear pathways for complying with overlapping requirements.' The message from the conference was consistent. AI governance cannot be owned by a single function. It requires coordination between legal, privacy, compliance, product, design, and engineering. Casovan described this shift as being highly dependent on use cases. The specific roles and responsibilities within governance teams vary by sector and application. But as the regulatory landscape becomes more complex and AI adoption expands, the need for people who can navigate and translate these obligations is growing. In highly regulated industries such as healthcare, finance, and education, governance efforts are advancing most rapidly. At a dedicated AI in Healthcare workshop, multiple speakers stressed that AI compliance must align with existing obligations in patient care, medical recordkeeping, and safety. One panelist described it as a 'complex web of laws, regulations, rules, standards, and industry practices.' Other sectors are adopting risk-based governance aligned with the AI Act's classification system, especially in use cases involving biometrics or automated decision-making in employment and HR. Many organisations are using the EU's framework globally as a benchmark rather than creating their own from scratch. AI governance is being embedded into existing privacy and compliance programs, leveraging what's already in place. In some jurisdictions, state-level legislation and sector-specific rules are shaping governance even further. In cities like New York, organisations are adopting more targeted mitigation strategies, aligning AI obligations with longstanding standards around data use and safety. All of this signals a shift. AI governance is becoming more mature, risk-aware, and integrated into broader organisational operations. Despite visible progress, several challenges remain. Innovation continues to outpace regulation. Product cycles are faster than rulemaking. There is still no agreement on when or how to intervene. There is also no consensus on a best-practice model. 'We haven't seen [the] best practice structure for AI governance yet,' said Ronan Davy of Anthropic. 'Company-specific contexts—risk management, size, style, use cases—all need to be considered.' The diversity of organisational needs makes a universal framework difficult to establish. Fragmentation across jurisdictions continues to challenge multinationals. But many organisations are adapting. They are building jurisdiction-specific playbooks and aligning AI oversight with established sectoral requirements. The field is still young, drawing from disciplines including privacy, compliance, safety engineering, IT risk, and ethics. Building internal capability, and external networks, is now central to AI governance work. Casovan emphasized the organisational change underway. The EU AI Act intersects with more than 60 other legislative instruments, especially in areas like financial regulation and product safety. Companies are responding by creating new governance roles such as Chief AI Officer, Head of Digital Governance, and hybrid roles like Chief Privacy and AI Officer. These titles reflect a demand for leadership that can span legal, technical, and operational responsibilities. In the US, privacy continues to fill the gap in the absence of comprehensive AI laws. Fennessy pointed to an earlier pattern. The US privacy profession outpaced Europe not because of regulation, but because of market pressure and consumer trust. She sees a similar dynamic playing out in AI. 'Organisations can't afford to conduct ten different risk assessments,' she said. 'We're seeing a shift toward integrating privacy, security, and ethics into a single framework. This helps surface the most critical issues and elevates them to the board.' Trustible CEO Gerald Kierce challenged the idea that governance slows down innovation. 'We've seen this firsthand,' he said. 'One of our customers saw a 10x increase in use cases in just one year after adopting a robust governance framework.' Before implementing governance, they lacked clear processes and tools. Once structure was in place, they were able to responsibly scale. 'There's a false narrative that governance slows things down,' said Kierce. 'That's only true when it's approached as a checkbox exercise. In reality, governance enables progress by creating clarity, trust, and accountability.' AI governance is becoming cross-functional by necessity. Legal interpretations must be converted into operational controls that governance and compliance teams can manage. Companies are integrating AI risk into familiar tools like DPIAs and cybersecurity protocols. Casovan reinforced the foundation: 'Start with your inventory. Know what AI systems you have, how they're being used, and who is responsible.' Rather than start from zero, most organisations are building on existing governance structures: privacy programs, ethics boards, safety reviews. 'Don't reinvent the wheel,' said Casovan. 'Follow governance practices you already have in place.' The goal is to adapt known systems to meet new demands, not duplicate effort. Fennessy underscored the need for a unified model. Fragmented approaches don't scale. 'That integrated governance approach is what enables organisations to manage AI risks holistically,' she said. Privacy, security, and ethics are converging, not diverging. Organisations are consolidating impact assessments, surfacing the most critical risks, and aligning AI oversight with strategic goals. The work is complex, but the direction is clear - and necessary.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pharma packaging meets tough regulations
In the highly regulated pharmaceutical industry, packaging plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety, efficacy, and compliance of medications. It is not just about containing the drug; it serves as a barrier between the product and external factors, such as contaminants, moisture, light, and air. But packaging in the pharmaceutical sector is far more than a protective covering—it must adhere to a stringent set of regulations that vary across countries. These regulations are designed to protect consumers, maintain product integrity, and prevent fraud. As the pharmaceutical sector grows, so too do the complexities surrounding its packaging requirements. Understanding the importance of pharma packaging is vital for manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers alike. For decades, packaging design, materials, and labelling have had to evolve to keep pace with increasing regulatory demands, new drug innovations, and changing consumer expectations. In this article, we'll explore the key regulations governing pharmaceutical packaging and examine how manufacturers are adapting to meet these tough standards. Pharmaceutical packaging is one of the most regulated areas in the entire manufacturing industry. The regulations that govern packaging are designed to ensure that products are safe for use and remain unaltered until they reach the consumer. These regulations focus on various aspects of packaging, including materials, labelling, and traceability. Most importantly, they protect against the risk of counterfeit drugs, a growing concern globally. In the European Union (EU), the regulations for pharmaceutical packaging are primarily governed by the EU's Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidelines. These guidelines cover the entire lifecycle of a drug, from manufacturing to packaging, and require manufacturers to use packaging that maintains the drug's stability, safety, and efficacy. One of the most stringent regulations involves child-resistant packaging. This is required for products that could pose a poisoning risk, such as medicines containing high doses of analgesics, paracetamol, or opioids. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plays a central role in overseeing pharmaceutical packaging regulations. The FDA enforces regulations concerning the packaging materials used in pharmaceuticals, ensuring that packaging does not interfere with the drug's quality. Similarly, the FDA's Drug Approval Process includes extensive testing for packaging to ensure that it meets requirements for tamper-evidence, labelling accuracy, and stability. Countries outside the EU and the US also have their own regulatory frameworks. Japan, for example, mandates that drug packaging must feature detailed instructions and warnings in both Japanese and English. Packaging regulations in China focus on the durability of materials, while India's packaging requirements include anti-counterfeit measures like holographic seals and track-and-trace systems. Navigating the complexity of these varying standards presents a challenge for global pharmaceutical companies. With the rise in global drug counterfeiting, pharmaceutical packaging has evolved to include several security features designed to protect consumers and ensure product authenticity. Packaging plays an instrumental role in preventing tampering, ensuring that medications reach consumers in their original, unaltered state. Tamper-evident features are a critical component of pharmaceutical packaging. These features make it apparent if a product has been opened or altered in any way. Common tamper-evident mechanisms include seals, shrink bands, breakable caps, and special adhesive labels. For instance, a bottle with a tamper-evident seal will show visible signs of damage if someone tries to open it. These features are essential to preventing fraud, which can lead to serious public health risks, including the distribution of counterfeit or substandard drugs. Beyond tamper evidence, the growing concern over counterfeiting has led to the incorporation of high-tech security features such as holograms, QR codes, and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags. These innovations not only serve as a deterrent to counterfeiters but also allow for the traceability of medications from manufacturing to the point of sale. The track-and-trace system, mandated in some regions, enables regulators and pharmaceutical companies to trace a drug's path along the supply chain, ensuring that the product is authentic and has been stored and handled appropriately. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to face growing pressure to reduce its environmental impact, packaging is one area where significant improvements are being made. Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly exploring ways to reduce waste, lower carbon footprints, and use more sustainable materials while maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements. One of the primary concerns regarding the environmental impact of pharmaceutical packaging is the excessive use of plastic. Packaging waste, particularly from single-use plastic bottles and blister packs, contributes to environmental pollution. In response, many companies are now adopting eco-friendly alternatives, such as recyclable or biodegradable packaging materials. Some companies have even moved towards using plant-based plastics, which reduce reliance on fossil fuels and contribute less to pollution. In addition to choosing sustainable materials, manufacturers are focusing on improving packaging designs to minimise waste. For instance, reducing the size of packaging or opting for more compact designs helps to lower material consumption and the energy needed for production and transport. The growing use of minimalist packaging also aligns with broader sustainability trends and consumer demand for greener products. Regulations governing the environmental impact of packaging are already in place in many regions. The EU, for example, has introduced the Waste Framework Directive, which aims to reduce packaging waste and encourage the use of recycled materials. The directive is part of a broader effort to transition towards a circular economy, where resources are reused and recycled rather than disposed of. Pharmaceutical companies must navigate these regulations while ensuring that their packaging continues to meet safety and compliance standards. Pharmaceutical packaging is a critical part of ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and compliance of medications. From tamper-evident features to sustainable packaging solutions, pharmaceutical companies must adhere to an array of regulations that vary by region and product. These regulations are designed not only to protect consumers but also to ensure that drugs maintain their integrity from the manufacturer to the patient. As the global demand for medicines continues to grow, the pharmaceutical industry will face new challenges in packaging. However, with innovations in materials, security features, and sustainability, the industry is likely to evolve in ways that continue to prioritise both consumer safety and environmental responsibility. With regulatory bodies remaining vigilant and the rise of technology offering new solutions, pharmaceutical packaging will undoubtedly continue to meet tough regulations for years to come. "Pharma packaging meets tough regulations" was originally created and published by Packaging Gateway, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Malay Mail
18 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
JPJ clamps down on officers failing to declare asset disposals, warns disciplinary action
KANGAR, May 31 — The Road Transport Department (JPJ) will take action against officers who fail to declare disposal of assets in its human resource management information system (HRMIS), if non-compliance is confirmed. Its director-general Datuk Aedy Fadly Ramli said the issue of non-compliance will be brought before the disciplinary committee once it is proven that such an element exists, based on findings from the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission's (EAIC) investigation. 'We will review the investigation report and take the necessary action. If our review confirms non-compliance with civil service regulations, we will refer the matter to the disciplinary committee,' he told a press conference after launching the MyLesen B2 programme here yesterday. Earlier yesterday, the media reported that the EAIC had found JPJ officers to have failed to update and declare asset disposals in the HRMIS. The report also stated that EAIC had received a complaint against the Kuala Lumpur JPJ involving several vehicle registration numbers. On the MyLesen B2 programme in Perlis, Aedy Fadly said a total of 800 individuals from the B40 group successfully obtained motorcycle licences for free through the programme, with more than 80 per cent being school students. 'We received 1,200 applications in Perlis and 800 of them have passed the test,' he said. — Bernama
Associated Press
a day ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Wetouch Announces Receipt of Nasdaq Notification of Non-Compliance Regarding Delayed Form 10-Q Filing for the Period Ended March 31, 2025
CHENGDU, CHINA / ACCESS Newswire / May 30, 2025 / Wetouch Technology Inc. (Nasdaq:WETH) ('Wetouch' or the 'Company') today announced that it has received a notification letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ('Nasdaq'), dated May 27, 2025, indicating that the Company is not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1). This rule requires timely filing of periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). The notification was issued because the Company has not yet filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2025 (the 'Form 10-Q') and the Company remains delinquent in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 (the 'Form 10-K'). This delay triggered the non-compliance notice under the continued listing requirements. In accordance with Nasdaq's procedures, the Company has until June 20, 2025, to submit to Nasdaq a plan to regain compliance. If Nasdaq accepts the plan, Wetouch may be granted up to 180 calendar days from the original due date of the Form 10-K, or until October 13, 2025, to file the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q and thereby regain compliance. The Company intends to file the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q as soon as practicable thereafter, and expects to regain compliance within the allowed timeframe. There is no immediate effect on the listing or trading of the Company's common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market as a result of this notification. About WeTouch Technology Inc.: Wetouch Technology Inc. is a leading provider of high-quality touch display solutions, committed to revolutionizing human-machine interaction across various industries. With a focus on innovation and customer satisfaction, Wetouch delivers cutting-edge technology and unmatched performance in touch display solutions worldwide. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as defined in the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as 'will', 'expects', 'anticipates', 'future', 'intends', 'plans', 'believes', 'estimates', 'target', 'going forward', 'outlook,' 'objective' and similar terms. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the expected filing of its Form 10-K and Form 10-Q and ability to regain compliance under the Nasdaq listing rule. Such statements are based upon management's current expectations and current market and operating conditions, and relate to events that involve known or unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, all of which are difficult to predict and which are beyond Wetouch's control, which may cause Wetouch's actual results, performance or achievements (including the RMB/USD value of its anticipated benefit to Wetouch as described herein) to differ materially and in an adverse manner from anticipated results contained or implied in the forward-looking statements. For example, there can be no assurance that the Company will regain compliance with the Nasdaq listing rule during any compliance period or in the future, or otherwise meet Nasdaq compliance standards. Further information regarding these and other risks, uncertainties or factors is included in Wetouch's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available at Wetouch does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required under law. For more information, please contact: Horizon Research Management Consultancy Michael Wei, Email:[email protected] SOURCE: Wetouch Technology Inc. press release
CTV News
a day ago
- Business
- CTV News
FINTRAC fines B.C. currency exchange nearly $350K for non-compliance with money laundering rules
Federal anti-money-laundering investigators have imposed a hefty fine on a currency exchange business based in Burnaby, B.C. The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, better known as FINTRAC, announced the $348,067.50 administrative monetary penalty against Crystal Currency Exchange Inc. on Thursday. The penalty, which was imposed on March 5, stems from nine instances of non-compliance with Part 1 of the federal Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its associated regulations, according to FINTRAC. The currency exchange has launched an appeal of the penalties in Federal Court. According to FINTRAC, Crystal Currency Exchange's violations included: Failure to submit suspicious transaction reports where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that transactions were related to a money laundering or terrorist activity financing offence; Failure to report large cash transactions of $10,000 or more in cash in a single transaction; Failure to submit outgoing electronic funds transfer reports of $10,000 or more in the course of a single transaction, together with prescribed information; Failure to submit incoming electronic funds transfer reports of $10,000 or more in the course of a single transaction, together with prescribed information; Failure to appoint a compliance officer; Failure to develop and apply written compliance policies and procedures that are kept up to date; Failure to assess and document the risk of a money laundering or terrorist financing offence; Failure to develop and maintain a training program; and Failure to institute and document the prescribed review. A more detailed summary of the non-compliance is listed on the FINTRAC website. It indicates that investigators found three instances of unreported suspicious transactions, each involving a client about whom Crystal Currency Exchange had previously submitted a suspicious transaction report. The regulator's summary also notes that it had informed the business of 'deficiencies in its compliance program' during previous examinations in 2015 and 2017. Despite this, 'FINTRAC did not observe any improvement in Crystal Currency Exchange Inc.'s compliance program' when investigators returned in 2022. 'Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime is in place to protect the safety of Canadians and the security of Canada's economy,' said Sarah Paquet, FINTRAC's director and CEO, in the news release announcing the penalties. 'FINTRAC works with businesses to help them understand and comply with their obligations under the act. We are also firm in ensuring that businesses continue to do their part and we will take appropriate actions when they are needed.'
