regulatory-review

name	regulatory-review
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze regulations", "regulatory landscape", "compliance requirements", "legal considerations", "regulatory risk", "industry regulations", "compliance analysis", "regulatory trends", or needs guidance on understanding regulatory environments, compliance requirements, or legal market factors.
version	0.6.0

Regulatory Review

Overview

Regulatory review assesses the legal and compliance landscape affecting markets and products. This skill covers frameworks for understanding regulatory requirements, risks, and trends.

Required Frameworks

Framework	Output Section	Required	Condition
Framework Identification	Applicable Frameworks	yes	—
Industry-to-Framework Mapping	Regulatory Mapping	yes	—
Penalty Ranges	Enforcement & Penalties	yes	—
Risk Matrix	Risk Assessment	yes	—
Cross-border Mechanisms	Cross-border Analysis	conditional	Multi-jurisdiction scope in elicitation

Trend Indicators: Load and apply the trend indicator definitions from protocols/TREND-INDICATORS.md.

Regulatory Dimensions

Direct Regulations

• Industry-specific rules (fintech, healthcare, etc.)
• Product safety requirements
• Licensing and certification
• Operational standards

Data & Privacy

• Data protection laws (GDPR, CCPA, etc.)
• Cross-border data transfer
• Consent requirements
• Breach notification

Consumer Protection

• Advertising standards
• Fair trading practices
• Warranty requirements
• Dispute resolution

Competition/Antitrust

• Market dominance rules
• M&A restrictions
• Pricing practices
• Distribution agreements

Major Regulatory Frameworks

Data Privacy

Framework	Jurisdiction	Key Requirements
GDPR	EU	Consent, data rights, DPO, breach notification
CCPA/CPRA	California	Disclosure, opt-out, deletion rights
LGPD	Brazil	Similar to GDPR, local DPO
PIPL	China	Consent, localization, cross-border rules

Financial Services

Framework	Jurisdiction	Scope
Dodd-Frank	US	Banking, consumer protection
PSD2	EU	Payment services, open banking
MiCA	EU	Crypto assets
SOX	US	Public company reporting

Healthcare

Framework	Jurisdiction	Scope
HIPAA	US	Health information privacy
FDA 21 CFR	US	Medical devices, pharma
MDR	EU	Medical devices
HITECH	US	Health IT security

Children's Privacy

Framework	Jurisdiction	Scope
COPPA	US	Children under 13 online privacy, parental consent
COPPA 2.0 (proposed)	US	Expanded age range, stricter consent
Age-Appropriate Design Code	California/UK	Privacy-by-design for minors

COPPA Parental Consent Methods (FTC-approved):

• Signed consent form (mail/fax/scan)
• Credit card transaction verification
• Government ID check
• Knowledge-based authentication
• Video conference verification
• FTC-approved verifiable parental consent method

Key COPPA Thresholds:

• Under 13: Full COPPA applies; verifiable parental consent required before collecting ANY personal information
• CCPA/CPRA: Under 16 requires opt-in for sale/sharing of personal data; under 13 requires parental opt-in

Consumer & Advertising

Framework	Jurisdiction	Scope
FTC Act Section 5	US	Unfair/deceptive practices, advertising substantiation
FCA (Financial Conduct Authority)	UK	Financial services authorization and conduct
Proposition 65	California	Chemical exposure warnings
FDA DSHEA	US	Dietary supplement labeling and safety

AI/Technology

Framework	Jurisdiction	Scope
EU AI Act	EU	AI risk classification, requirements
NYC Local Law 144	NYC	AI in employment decisions (bias audits required)
State AI bills	Various US	Emerging requirements (IL, CO, MD)
EEOC AI Guidance	US	Anti-discrimination for AI hiring tools

AI/ML Bias Audit Requirements

When the product uses AI/ML in decisions affecting people (hiring, lending, insurance, housing), these specific requirements apply:

Requirement	Source	Detail
Annual bias audit by independent auditor	NYC Local Law 144	Must test for disparate impact across race/ethnicity and gender; publish summary results
10-day candidate notice	NYC Local Law 144	Notify candidates that AEDT is used; describe data collected and data retention policy
High-risk AI conformity assessment	EU AI Act	Employment, education, law enforcement AI classified as high-risk; requires risk management system, data governance, human oversight
Adverse impact analysis	EEOC/Title VII	Four-fifths rule for selection rates across protected categories; document validation studies
Algorithmic fairness assessment	Colorado SB 21-169	Developers and deployers of high-risk AI must provide impact assessments

Industry-Framework Mapping

Use this table to quickly identify primary and secondary regulatory frameworks based on the user's industry:

Industry	Primary Frameworks	Secondary Frameworks
Healthcare/Telehealth	HIPAA, HITECH, FDA 21 CFR	GDPR (EU), State telehealth laws
Fintech/Crypto	Dodd-Frank, SEC, FCA (UK)	MiCA (EU), State MSB licensing, BSA/FinCEN
AI/ML in Employment	NYC Local Law 144, EEOC, EU AI Act	State AI bills, CCPA/CPRA
Children's Apps/Games	COPPA, FTC Act	CCPA minors provisions, App store policies
Medical Devices	FDA 21 CFR, EU MDR	TGA (AU), PMDA (JP), ISO 13485
E-commerce/Supplements	FDA DSHEA, FTC Act, Prop 65	CCPA/CPRA, cGMP (21 CFR 111)
SaaS/Data Processing	GDPR, CCPA/CPRA	ePrivacy, Sector-specific (HIPAA, PCI DSS)

Regulatory Risk Assessment

Risk Categories

Compliance Risk

• Failure to meet existing requirements
• Likelihood: Based on current gaps
• Impact: Fines, operational restrictions

Regulatory Change Risk

• New or changing regulations
• Likelihood: Based on legislative trends
• Impact: Cost of compliance, market access

Enforcement Risk

• Increased regulatory scrutiny
• Likelihood: Based on enforcement patterns
• Impact: Investigations, penalties

Reputational Risk

• Public perception of compliance
• Likelihood: Based on sensitivity of issues
• Impact: Customer trust, brand damage

Risk Matrix

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Trend	Mitigation
[Risk]	H/M/L	H/M/L	INC/DEC/CONST	[Action]

Regulatory Trend Analysis

Trend Indicators

INC (Increasing regulation)

• New legislation proposed/passed
• Increased enforcement actions
• Growing public/political attention
• International coordination

DEC (Decreasing regulation)

• Deregulation initiatives
• Reduced enforcement
• Political shift toward less oversight

CONST (Stable regulation)

• Established framework
• Predictable enforcement
• No major changes pending

Current Global Trends

Area	Direction	Key Developments
Data Privacy	INC	More countries adopting GDPR-style laws
AI/ML	INC	EU AI Act, emerging US frameworks
Crypto/Fintech	INC	Global frameworks emerging
Competition/Big Tech	INC	Antitrust scrutiny increasing
ESG/Sustainability	INC	Disclosure requirements expanding
Cybersecurity	INC	Mandatory breach reporting
Children's Privacy	INC	COPPA 2.0, Kids Online Safety Act, state children's codes
Supplement/Consumer Products	INC	FDA mandatory listing, FTC enforcement of health claims

Compliance Assessment

Gap Analysis Framework

Requirement	Current State	Gap	Priority	Remediation
[Req 1]	Compliant/Partial/Non	Description	H/M/L	Action needed

Compliance Cost Estimation

Component	One-Time	Ongoing Annual
Technology	$X	$X
Personnel	$X	$X
Legal/Consulting	$X	$X
Training	$X	$X
Audit/Certification	$X	$X
Total	$X	$X

Jurisdiction Analysis

Market Entry Considerations

Jurisdiction	Key Regulations	Complexity	Barrier Level
US	Federal + 50 states	High	Medium
EU	GDPR + sector regs	High	High
UK	Post-Brexit regime	Medium	Medium
APAC	Varies widely	Variable	Variable

Cross-Border Considerations

• Data localization requirements
• Licensing reciprocity
• Contractual restrictions
• IP protection differences

Cross-Border Data Transfer Mechanisms

When operations span multiple jurisdictions, identify which transfer mechanism applies:

Mechanism	Use When	Key Requirements
Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs)	Transferring EU/UK data to non-adequate countries	2021 version required; Transfer Impact Assessment mandatory
Adequacy Decisions	Transferring to countries with EU adequacy status	Verify current adequacy status (can be invalidated — see Schrems II)
Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs)	Intra-group transfers within multinational corporations	DPA approval required; lengthy approval process
Data Localization	Country requires data to remain within borders	China, Russia, India (proposed); may require local infrastructure
Consent-based Transfer	Individual explicitly consents to cross-border transfer	Not suitable for systematic/bulk transfers under GDPR

Output Rules

These rules are mandatory for every regulatory review output. They ensure consistency and completeness regardless of the specific industry or prompt:

1. Use exact section headings from the Output Structure below. Do not rename or skip sections.
2. Every Risk Matrix row MUST include a Trend column using exactly one of: INC, DEC, or CONST.
3. Every Trend Analysis bullet MUST use the format: Area: INC/DEC/CONST - [Evidence sentence].
4. Recommendations MUST include at least one of each: Immediate action, Medium-term action, and Monitoring action.
5. Compliance Assessment MUST use status symbols: ✓ (compliant), △ (partial), ✗ (non-compliant).
6. Never use the phrase "This is not legal advice" in the output. The skill disclaimer is in SKILL.md, not in outputs.
7. Always include a Monitoring Indicators section with at least 3 specific indicators (regulatory body names, legislative tracking sources).
8. Cross-border data transfer: When a prompt involves operations in multiple jurisdictions, always discuss data transfer mechanisms (SCCs, adequacy decisions, data localization).
9. Children's data: When the product involves users who may be minors, always address COPPA and parental consent requirements specifically.
10. Compliance costs: Always provide estimated ranges (not exact figures) broken down by Technology, Personnel, Legal/Consulting, Training, and Audit/Certification.

Output Structure

## Regulatory Review Summary

### Regulatory Landscape
[Overview of applicable regulations]

### Key Frameworks
| Framework | Applicability | Status |
|-----------|---------------|--------|
| [Name] | Direct/Indirect | Applicable/Monitor |

### Compliance Assessment
| Area | Status | Gap | Priority |
|------|--------|-----|----------|
| Data Privacy | ✓/△/✗ | [Gap] | H/M/L |
| [Other] | ✓/△/✗ | [Gap] | H/M/L |

### Regulatory Risk Matrix
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Trend |
|------|------------|--------|-------|
| [Risk] | H/M/L | H/M/L | INC/DEC/CONST |

### Trend Analysis
- Data Privacy: INC/DEC/CONST - [Evidence]
- Industry-Specific: INC/DEC/CONST - [Evidence]
- Enforcement: INC/DEC/CONST - [Evidence]

### Estimated Compliance Costs
[Cost breakdown]

### Recommendations
1. [Immediate action]
2. [Medium-term action]
3. [Monitoring action]

### Monitoring Indicators
- [Regulatory body announcements]
- [Legislative calendars]
- [Enforcement actions]

Emerging Regulations to Monitor

These proposed or recently enacted regulations are not yet fully in force but will affect multiple industries. Reference them in Trend Analysis and Monitoring Indicators when relevant:

Regulation	Jurisdiction	Status	Expected Impact
COPPA 2.0 (FTC rulemaking)	US	Proposed rule	Expanded age range, stricter consent, limits on data use for marketing to children
Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)	US	Passed Senate, House pending	Duty of care for platforms serving minors; impact assessments required
EU AI Act implementing rules	EU	Phased implementation 2024-2027	High-risk AI requirements; prohibited practices; GPAI model obligations
Digital Markets Act (DMA)	EU	In force, enforcement ongoing	Gatekeeper obligations; interoperability; data portability for large platforms
State AI employment laws	US (IL, CO, MD, NY+)	Various stages	Bias audits, transparency, impact assessments for AI in hiring/employment
Federal privacy legislation	US	Proposed (APRA and others)	Potential national data privacy standard preempting state laws
India DPDP Act	India	Enacted, rules pending	Consent-based processing, data localization, significant penalty structure

Penalty Reference Ranges

Use these ranges to calibrate risk impact assessments. Cite specific enforcement examples when relevant to the user's industry:

Framework	Maximum Penalty	Notable Enforcement Examples
GDPR	Up to 4% of global annual revenue or EUR 20M	Meta EUR 1.2B (2023, data transfers); Amazon EUR 746M (2021, targeting)
HIPAA	$50K-$1.9M per violation category per year	Anthem $16M (2018, breach); Premera $6.85M (2020, breach)
COPPA	$50,120 per violation (adjusted annually)	Epic Games $275M (2022, Fortnite); Microsoft/Xbox $20M (2023)
FTC Act	Varies; injunctive relief + restitution	FTC v. Kochava (2022, location data); numerous supplement enforcement
NYC Local Law 144	$500-$1,500 per violation per day	Enforcement began July 2023; first actions pending
SEC (Securities)	Varies widely; disgorgement + penalties	BlockFi $100M (2022, crypto lending); multiple crypto actions
FDA (Medical Devices)	Warning letters, seizure, injunction, criminal prosecution	Numerous 510(k) enforcement; import alerts

Pre-Output Checklist

Before finalizing output, verify every item. This prevents common omissions that weaken the analysis:

1. Regulatory Landscape section opens the output with a narrative overview (not just a table)
2. Key Frameworks table lists at least 3 frameworks with Applicability and Status columns
3. Compliance Assessment uses ✓/△/✗ symbols and includes Priority column (H/M/L)
4. Risk Matrix has Likelihood, Impact, AND Trend columns; every row has INC/DEC/CONST
5. Trend Analysis has at least 3 bullet points, each using INC/DEC/CONST - [Evidence] format
6. Recommendations include at least one Immediate, one Medium-term, and one Monitoring action
7. Monitoring Indicators lists at least 3 specific sources (named regulatory bodies, legislative trackers)
8. Compliance Costs table is present with Technology, Personnel, Legal/Consulting, Training, and Audit rows
9. No forbidden phrases appear: "This is not legal advice", "I cannot provide legal advice", "consult a lawyer" (the disclaimer in SKILL.md handles this)
10. Cross-border transfers are addressed when multiple jurisdictions are involved (SCCs, adequacy, data localization)

Best Practices

• Findings are research-grade, not compliance-grade — flag regulatory dependencies for qualified review
• Monitor regulatory developments continuously
• Consider both current and proposed regulations
• Assess both direct and indirect impacts
• Factor compliance costs into business planning

Disclaimer

This skill provides research frameworks only. Consult qualified legal counsel for compliance decisions.

Additional Resources

For detailed frameworks, see:

• references/privacy-frameworks.md - Data privacy details
• references/compliance-checklist.md - Compliance templates
• examples/regulatory-analysis.md - Sample analysis

Orchestration Hints

Confidence tiers (universal scale):

• High: 3+ independent, recent (<12mo) sources that converge
• Medium: 2 sources OR sources >12mo old OR indirect evidence
• Low: Single source, inference, or extrapolation

Dimension-specific confidence criteria below REFINE (not replace) these universal definitions.

• Cross-reference dimensions: trends (regulatory trends and policy direction), competitive (compliance status of competitors)
• Alert triggers:
  • New regulation with <12 months to compliance deadline
  • Regulatory action against a major competitor
  • Policy shift that could enable or block market entry
• Confidence rules:
  • High: Published regulation or official government announcement
  • Medium: Proposed regulation in comment period or credible policy analysis
  • Low: Speculative based on political signals or advocacy positions
• Conflict detection:
  • Compliance timeline vs trend dimension's market entry projections
  • Regulatory burden cost vs financial dimension's unit economics
  • Compliance requirements vs tech dimension's feasibility assessment