Description

A focused course, tailored for you

The Lead Counsel Platform Regulatory Memo Playbook

Build the platform-counsel reference stack that turns a regulator letter into a defensible, week-one response without paging every subject-matter team in the company.

A Civil Investigative Demand lands Friday afternoon. The product question is one paragraph. The legal exposure spans four regulators. You have a working answer in your head and zero codified reference material to defend it under cross-examination.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Lead Counsel at a major platform sits at the intersection of product reality and a regulatory landscape that has fragmented. DSA, GDPR, a dozen US state privacy laws, child-safety statutes, the EU AI Act, the FTC's Section 5 expansion, AG civil investigative demands, and ongoing antitrust proceedings each ask adjacent questions about the same product surface. The work is not novel legal analysis on any single front. It is the comparative work: which obligation triggers, which precedent governs, which prior internal position the company has already taken, which regulator is going to read this response, and what the company can defend without limiting product optionality. Most platforms rebuild that comparative reference stack memo by memo. The course codifies it.

What you walk away with

A comparative obligation matrix you can pull up in 90 seconds when a regulator letter arrives, mapping product surface to triggers across DSA, GDPR, US state privacy laws, AI Act, child-safety statutes, and FTC Section 5.
Letter-typed response frameworks: one for CIDs from state AGs, one for DSA Article 40 audit access requests, one for DPC binding decisions, one for FTC second requests, one for congressional inquiries.
A precedent file of public enforcement actions against major platforms, indexed by product surface and statute, so you can position internal advice against the regulator's actual pattern of practice.
A draft privileged-memo template that survives external review: separates legal conclusion from product description, flags reliance on engineering input, and structures the record for later litigation.
A working method for coordinating with product, policy, engineering, and external counsel when the inquiry crosses functions, without bottlenecking on the lead counsel's calendar.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The comparative obligation matrix for platform-counsel work

Build the master matrix that maps product surfaces (feed, ads, messaging, minor accounts, recommender systems, generative outputs) against the live obligation stack: DSA, GDPR, ePrivacy, US state privacy laws, COPPA, state child-safety statutes, EU AI Act, FTC Section 5, NetzDG legacy. The matrix is your reference layer when a regulator letter arrives and you need a defensible week-one position across four statutes simultaneously.

Module 2. DSA Article 34/35 systemic risk assessment as legal artefact

Read the DSA risk-assessment obligation as a counsel writes it, not as a policy team drafts it. Where the legal conclusion has to sit, what is privileged versus what is filed, how the Commission reads the document, what Article 40 vetted-researcher access does to the privilege calculus. Includes a worked annotated risk assessment indexed to the actual Commission scrutiny questions.

Module 3. Responding to state AG civil investigative demands

Decompose the CID workflow for platform counsel: scope objection, privilege log construction, meet-and-confer posture, parallel-state coordination when three AGs file adjacent demands on the same product surface, the timing relationship to active multistate investigations, and how the response document positions for a later complaint or assurance of voluntary compliance.

Module 4. FTC Section 5 inquiries, second requests, and consent decree posture

Work through the FTC engagement arc: initial inquiry, second request, consent-decree negotiation, monitor reports under an active order. Read the Commission's recent pattern on platforms specifically. What survives privilege, what becomes part of the public record, how the existing consent decree (where one exists) constrains the response to new inquiries on adjacent product surfaces.

Module 5. Irish DPC and lead supervisory authority workflow under GDPR

Practical mechanics of the one-stop-shop regime as it actually runs: DPC binding decision drafts, the Article 65 EDPB referral pathway, concerned supervisory authority objections, the German DPA pattern of separate enforcement, and how cross-border decisions filter into the platform's privacy program documentation. Includes annotated recent binding decisions against major platforms.

Module 6. US state privacy law fragmentation and the platform-counsel response

Track the live state privacy regimes (CCPA/CPRA, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Texas, Oregon, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, Indiana, Montana, and the next wave) at the level needed for memo work: rights request operationalisation, sensitive data definitions, opt-out signal honouring, kid-and-teen carve-outs, AG enforcement signals. Build a single internal authority that survives a state-by-state regulator inquiry.

Module 7. Child safety statutes and the rapidly moving state landscape

Florida HB 3, Utah Social Media Regulation Act and its successors, California Age-Appropriate Design Code (and the constitutional posture after litigation), New York SAFE for Kids Act, Texas SCOPE Act. The statutes share themes but differ on age-gating, parental consent, recommender-system restriction, and design defaults. Build the comparative table that lets you advise the product team in one meeting rather than five.

Module 8. EU AI Act compliance as a platform-counsel matter, not just a policy matter

Read the AI Act through the platform-counsel lens: Article 50 transparency obligations on generative outputs and deepfakes, foundation model versus deployer obligations on integrated generative features, the interaction with DSA Article 34 systemic risk, conformity assessment versus self-assessment routing, and how the Commission's AI Office is positioning early enforcement. Includes a generative-feature compliance memo template.

Module 9. Section 230 in its current form and the platform-counsel litigation posture

Where Section 230 still holds, where the Supreme Court has narrowed reasoning, where state-level statutes are testing the doctrine (NetChoice line), how recommender-system claims are framed by plaintiffs, what survives a motion to dismiss in the current circuit split. Reference brief framework for the recurring fact patterns.

Module 10. Antitrust posture and the platform-counsel coordination problem

Ongoing platform antitrust matters (DOJ, FTC, EU DMA, state AGs) create downstream constraints on every other regulatory response: what positions are taken, what cooperation looks like, what document review burden falls on counsel. Build the coordination protocol between the antitrust team, the privacy team, and lead counsel on a product-touching inquiry.

Module 11. Privileged memo construction that survives external review

How a platform-counsel memo is structured to survive cross-examination, subpoena, or production: legal conclusion separated from product description, engineering input flagged as reliance not as legal opinion, cite to authority rather than to internal slack, version control as a privilege artefact, the memo template that internal leadership and outside counsel both trust. Includes a redlined before-and-after of a real platform-style memo.

Module 12. The week-one response system when four regulators arrive at once

Operationalise the system: triage protocol when an inquiry arrives, ownership matrix between lead counsel and subject-matter teams, calendar mechanics that do not bottleneck on one lawyer, the standing comparative reference stack updated quarterly, the precedent file kept current, and the internal documentation that makes the next inquiry response take a week instead of a month. Includes a worked example walking a four-regulator scenario from arrival to filed responses.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

A CID arrives Friday afternoon from a state AG: pull module 3, the precedent file, and the matrix in module 1.

Product wants to ship a generative feature next quarter: modules 8 and 2 walk the AI Act and DSA risk-assessment overlap.

DPC sends a draft binding decision: module 5 frames the Article 65 referral calculus and the EDPB downstream.

Three state child-safety bills move in the same week: module 7 gives the comparative table and module 6 ties it to the broader state-privacy stack.

What you get with this course

Twelve written modules in the Art of Service learning environment.
The comparative obligation matrix as an editable template.
Letter-typed response frameworks (CID, DSA Article 40, FTC second request, DPC binding decision, congressional inquiry).
An indexed precedent file of public platform enforcement actions, keyed to product surface and statute.
A privileged-memo template with worked redline.
The hand-built implementation playbook keyed to your product surface, account history, and the regulators that have written most recently.
30-day full refund.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within the day: account access and the hand-built implementation playbook arrive.

Week one: complete modules 1, 2, and 3, populate the comparative matrix against your live product surfaces.

Week two: complete modules 4 through 7, build the response-framework binder against your existing regulator correspondence.

Week three: complete modules 8 through 12, run the week-one response system on the next real inquiry.

Before and after

Before

Every regulator letter triggers a from-scratch comparative analysis. You rebuild the same obligation tables quarterly, and the product team is waiting on you to give a single answer that covers four statutes.

After

The matrix and precedent file are already current. The response framework matches the letter type. The privileged memo template is a starting point, not a blank page. The product team has the answer in days, not weeks.

What happens if you do not address this

Platform-counsel work where every memo is a fresh build is the work that loses to outside counsel cost overruns, regulator credibility burn (because positions across letters look inconsistent), and senior-counsel burnout. Codifying the reference stack is what separates the platform-counsel function that scales from the one that does not.

Who it is for

Lead Counsel or senior counsel at a major platform or large tech employer, handling regulator inquiries, civil investigative demands, content-policy litigation, AI policy positions, and cross-jurisdictional product compliance questions. You are the lawyer the product team calls when the question crosses three statutes and two continents. You write memos that have to survive review by both internal leadership and external regulators.

Who this is NOT for. First-year associates without context on platform product surfaces. Compliance generalists who do not write privileged legal memos. Privacy program managers without legal training. This is for the lawyer who owns the regulator-facing response.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Six to eight hours across three weeks of self-paced reading. The matrix population and template adaptation are where the real work happens, and those slot into normal memo cadence.

Why $199 is the right number

Outside counsel can produce comparative obligation memos at billable rates, but the output is engagement-specific and not held internally as a reusable reference stack. CLE courses cover individual statutes in depth but do not produce the comparative artefact a platform counsel actually uses on inquiry day. This course produces the reference stack, the templates, and the worked examples you keep and reuse.

FAQ

Is this jurisdiction-specific?

The matrix is multi-jurisdiction by design: DSA and GDPR for the EU regime, US state privacy laws, child-safety statutes, EU AI Act, and FTC Section 5. The implementation playbook is keyed to the regulators that have engaged your platform recently.

Does it cover the EU AI Act in detail?

Module 8 is dedicated to platform-counsel-relevant AI Act mechanics. The implementation playbook adapts the framework to your generative product surfaces.

Does it cover Section 230?

Module 9 walks the current doctrinal posture, the NetChoice line, and the recurring plaintiff theories on recommender-system liability.

Is the precedent file kept current?

The base file is a snapshot. The implementation playbook adds the enforcement actions most relevant to your platform's product surface.

Is the content privileged?

The course content is published training material. Your adaptation of the templates inside your own practice is for you to designate.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.