Changes in regulatory priorities may alter the enforcement landscape, but they do not eliminate the legal, business and reputational risks companies face. Finn Dixon & Herling Litigation attorney Andrew Calamari examines this dynamic in his National Law Review article, “Corporate Risk Does Not Ease When Regulation Does,” explaining why companies should continue to prioritize corporate resilience even during periods of deregulation.
Andy cautions against equating reduced regulation or enforcement with reduced risk. Regulatory priorities are cyclical, and decisions companies make today can create exposure well into the future. Even when federal oversight recedes in a particular area, businesses may still face state enforcement, private litigation, shareholder scrutiny and reputational concerns, as well as the possibility that regulatory priorities will shift again.
Against that backdrop, Andy emphasizes the importance of a durable, long-term approach to risk management. Rather than viewing compliance primarily through the lens of the current regulatory climate, companies and their leadership should consider whether their practices will remain defensible as legal standards, enforcement priorities and public expectations evolve.
For corporate decision-makers, the takeaway is clear: a resilient risk-management framework can matter more than the direction of any single regulatory cycle.
Read “Corporate Risk Does Not Ease When Regulation Does” in The National Law Review.