On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Internet of Things 2018: Everything is Connected

Select a Location:

The Internet of Things is a core part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where ubiquitous electronic objects are equipped with identifying, sensing, Internet communication abilities, which enable a massive scale of data collection and processing to accomplish previously unforeseen objectives. As is usually the case, technology presents opportunities but requires counsel to navigate, or possibly create, the legal framework to allow "IoT" to achieve its potential, while preserving individual, societal rights and improving lives and the planet.

To stay ahead of the rapidly evolving legal landscape, lawyers and their clients need to utilize a wide variety of skills as the challenges and rewards require an interdisciplinary approach. Please join us for a robust discussion of the future of the Internet of Things with leading experts in the field.

Lecture Topics [Total time 07:06:39]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Opening Remarks* [00:10:46]
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • The IoT Landscape – Data: Big Data and Small Data Are at the Heart [00:59:50]
    Leonard T. Nuara, Thomas Snyder
  • IoT: Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary Versus Open [01:13:18]
    Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D., Leonard T. Nuara, Hana Oh, Ph.D.
  • Regulated Industries and IoT: You Can’t Do That, Ever, or at Least Not Yet [01:00:50]
    Mark Wolff, Ph.D., Richard Guida, Leonard T. Nuara
  • Featured Speaker Presentation: IoT Industry Overview [00:42:31]
    Pamela Clark-Meister
  • IoT for Smart Cities [00:58:48]
    Kipper V. Tew
  • Cybersecurity & Privacy: What are the Risks of IoT Devices and How Privacy Rights Can Be Protected [00:58:48]
    Richard Guida, Ken Mortensen, Leonard T. Nuara, Mark Eichorn
  • IoT Litigation – Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risks [01:01:49]
    Peter Brown

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Internet of Things and Why We Can’t Sleep
    Richard Guida, Leonard T. Nuara
  • Heather J. Meeker, Melody Drummond-Hansen, Hana Oh and Stacy Yae, “Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary Versus Open” Companion Article
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ch. 4, License Compatibility, Open (Source) for Business (2nd Edition) (April 2017)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ch. 5, Conditional Licensing, Open (Source) for Business (2nd Edition) (April 2017)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Michael B. Coleman, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, Internet of Things, Communication and Security Protocols: Past and Future Trends
    Kipper V. Tew, Gregory J. Dunn
  • Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open (Spring 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ab Silico Ad Salus—Health Care in the Age of Intelligent Machines (April 13, 2018)
    Mark Wolff
  • Health Care Internet of Things
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Accenture Consulting, Internet of Health Things Survey (2017)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Federal Trade Commission, Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions, A Guide for Business and Parents and Small Entity Compliance Guide (March 20, 2015)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Electronic Toy Maker VTech Settles FTC Allegations That It Violated Children’s Privacy Law and the FTC Act (January 8, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Online Talent Search Company Settles FTC Allegations It Collected Children’s Information without Consent and Misled Consumers (February 5, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, FTC Provides Additional Guidance on COPPA and Voice Recordings (October 23, 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Consumer Product Safety Commission, The Internet of Things and Consumer Product Hazards [Docket No. CPSC-2018-0007], Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 59 (March 27, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, Internet of Things: Status and Implications of an Increasingly Connected World (May 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • The Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force & Digital Economy Leadership Team, Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things (January 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Terrell McSweeny, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Speech, Opening Remarks: New America’s Open Technology Institute, The Future of Broadband Privacy and the Open Internet: Who Will Protect Consumers? (April 17, 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • William J. Barath, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, Internet of Things? Don’t Forget Your Employees
    Kipper V. Tew, Gregory J. Dunn
  • Smart Regional City Infrastructure—Strategic Steps for Building City Broadband Networks (April 26, 2018)
    Gregory J. Dunn
  • The “Public” and “Private” of Public-Private Partnerships for Smart City Projects
    Kipper V. Tew
  • Smart City Challenge, U.S. Department of Transportation
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Staff Perspective, Connected Cars Workshop (January 2018)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Staff Report, Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World (January 2015)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Examples of Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Actions
    Kristen Anderson
  • Conferences and Workshops from the Federal Trade Commission
    Kristen Anderson
  • Thomas A. Walsh and Eric I. Goodman, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, What Can I Do with All This Data? How to Protect Data for Monetization Strategies
    Kipper V. Tew, Gregory J. Dunn
  • IoT Litigation—Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risk
    Peter Brown
  • Complying with U.S. State and Territorial Security Breach Notification Laws
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security Breach Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon

Presentation Material

  • The IoT Landscape: Data Is at the Heart of it All
    Leonard T. Nuara, Thomas Snyder
  • IoT: Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open
    Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D.
  • Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open
    Hana Oh, Ph.D.
  • Ab Silico Ad Salus; Health Care in the Age of Intelligent Machines
    Mark Wolff, Ph.D.
  • Connected, Smart, Autonomous Future
    Pamela Clark-Meister
  • IoT for Smart Cities
    Kipper V. Tew
  • Internet of Things
    Richard Guida
  • IoT Litigation: Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risks
    Peter Brown
Chairperson(s)
Leonard T. Nuara ~ Flatiron Law Group LLP
Speaker(s)
Peter Brown ~ Peter Brown & Associates PLLC
Pamela Clark-Meister ~ Group Counsel, Internet of Things Group, Intel Corporation
Mark Eichorn ~ Assistant Director, Division of Privacy & Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Richard Guida ~ Managing Director, Guida Technology Associates, Inc.
Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D. ~ President & CEO, Wireless Research Center of North Carolina
Ken Mortensen ~ Data Protection Officer, Global Trust & Privacy, Intersystems Corporation
Hana Oh, Ph.D. ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Thomas Snyder ~ Executive Director, RIoT
Kipper V. Tew ~ Ice Miller LLP
Mark Wolff, Ph.D. ~ Advisory Industry Consultant, Chief Health Analytics Strategist, Global IoT Division, SAS Institute
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

The Internet of Things is a core part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where ubiquitous electronic objects are equipped with identifying, sensing, Internet communication abilities, which enable a massive scale of data collection and processing to accomplish previously unforeseen objectives.  As is usually the case, technology presents opportunities but requires counsel to navigate, or possibly create, the legal framework to allow "IoT" to achieve its potential, while preserving individual, societal rights and improving lives and the planet.

To stay ahead of the rapidly evolving legal landscape, lawyers and their clients need to utilize a wide variety of skills as the challenges and rewards require an interdisciplinary approach. Please join us for a robust discussion of the future of the Internet of Things with leading experts in the field.

Lecture Topics [Total time 07:19:29]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Opening Remarks* [00:08:24]
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • The IoT Landscape – Data: Big Data and Small Data are at the Heart [01:04:56]
    Leonard T. Nuara, Thomas Snyder
  • IoT: Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open [01:15:30]
    Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D., Heather J. Meeker, Leonard T. Nuara
  • Regulated Industries and IoT: You Can’t Do That, Ever, or at Least Not Yet [01:00:55]
    Barrington E. Dyer
  • Featured Speaker Presentation: IoT Industry Overview [00:42:40]
    Pamela Clark-Meister
  • IoT for Smart Cities [01:02:07]
    Gregory Dunn
  • Cybersecurity & Privacy: What are the Risks of IoT Devices and how Privacy Rights can be Protected [01:01:32]
    Jared Ho, David M. Stauss, Christopher J.P. Mitchell
  • IoT Litigation – Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risks [01:03:25]
    Ian C. Ballon

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Internet of Things and Why We Can’t Sleep
    Leonard T. Nuara, Richard Guida
  • Heather J. Meeker, Melody Drummond-Hansen, Hana Oh and Stacy Yae, “Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary Versus Open” Companion Article
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ch. 4, License Compatibility, Open (Source) for Business (2nd Edition) (April 2017)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ch. 5, Conditional Licensing, Open (Source) for Business (2nd Edition) (April 2017)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Michael B. Coleman, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, Internet of Things, Communication and Security Protocols: Past and Future Trends
    Gregory J. Dunn, Kipper V. Tew
  • Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open (Spring 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Ab Silico Ad Salus—Health Care in the Age of Intelligent Machines (April 13, 2018)
    Mark Wolff
  • Health Care Internet of Things
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Accenture Consulting, Internet of Health Things Survey (2017)
    William A. Tanenbaum
  • Federal Trade Commission, Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions, A Guide for Business and Parents and Small Entity Compliance Guide (March 20, 2015)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Electronic Toy Maker VTech Settles FTC Allegations That It Violated Children’s Privacy Law and the FTC Act (January 8, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Online Talent Search Company Settles FTC Allegations It Collected Children’s Information without Consent and Misled Consumers (February 5, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, FTC Provides Additional Guidance on COPPA and Voice Recordings (October 23, 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Consumer Product Safety Commission, The Internet of Things and Consumer Product Hazards [Docket No. CPSC-2018-0007], Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 59 (March 27, 2018)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • United States Government Accountability Office, Technology Assessment, Internet of Things: Status and Implications of an Increasingly Connected World (May 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • The Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force & Digital Economy Leadership Team, Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things (January 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Terrell McSweeny, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Speech, Opening Remarks: New America’s Open Technology Institute, The Future of Broadband Privacy and the Open Internet: Who Will Protect Consumers? (April 17, 2017)
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • William J. Barath, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, Internet of Things? Don’t Forget Your Employees
    Gregory J. Dunn, Kipper V. Tew
  • Smart Regional City Infrastructure—Strategic Steps for Building City Broadband Networks (April 26, 2018)
    Gregory J. Dunn
  • The “Public” and “Private” of Public-Private Partnerships for Smart City Projects
    Kipper V. Tew
  • Smart City Challenge, U.S. Department of Transportation
    Leonard T. Nuara
  • Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Staff Perspective, Connected Cars Workshop (January 2018)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Staff Report, Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World (January 2015)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things
    Kristen Anderson
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    Kristen Anderson
  • Examples of Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Actions
    Kristen Anderson
  • Conferences and Workshops from the Federal Trade Commission
    Kristen Anderson
  • Thomas A. Walsh and Eric I. Goodman, Ice Miller LLP, Smart Connections, What Can I Do with All This Data? How to Protect Data for Monetization Strategies
    Kipper V. Tew, Gregory J. Dunn
  • IoT Litigation—Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risk
    Peter Brown
  • Complying with U.S. State and Territorial Security Breach Notification Laws
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security Breach Class Action Litigation
    Ian C. Ballon

Presentation Material

  • The IoT Landscape: Data Is at the Heart of it All
    Leonard T. Nuara, Thomas Snyder
  • IoT: Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open
    Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D.
  • Technology Protocols & Standards: Proprietary versus Open
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Connected, Smart, Autonomous Future
    Pamela Clark-Meister
  • Smart Cities
    Gregory Dunn
  • Cybersecurity & Privacy: What are the Risks of IoT Devices and how Privacy Rights can be Protected
    Jared Ho, Christopher J.P. Mitchell, David M. Stauss
  • IoT Litigation – Predicting Trends and Mitigating the Risks
    Ian C. Ballon
Chairperson(s)
Leonard T. Nuara ~ Flatiron Law Group LLP
Speaker(s)
Ian C. Ballon ~ Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Pamela Clark-Meister ~ Group Counsel, Internet of Things Group, Intel Corporation
Gregory Dunn ~ Ice Miller LLP
Barrington E. Dyer ~ Polsinelli PC
Gerard James Hayes, Ph.D. ~ President & CEO, Wireless Research Center of North Carolina
Jared Ho ~ Senior Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Heather J. Meeker ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Christopher J.P. Mitchell ~ Law Offices of Christopher J.P. Mitchell, PLLC
Thomas Snyder ~ Executive Director, RIoT
David M. Stauss ~ Ballard Spahr LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.