Introduction — Why this list matters to you
If you run, advise, or invest in a business that touches U.S. markets, customers, or infrastructure, recent shifts in enforcement doctrine should change how you think about legal exposure. Two fundamental changes—(1) expanded jurisdiction for harm bank liability terrorism "felt" in the United States and (2) the creation or aggressive application of aiding-and-abetting liability against secondary actors—dramatically broaden who can be sued and why. This list explains the concrete implications, shows real-world examples, and gives practical steps to reduce risk. Read this from your point of view: what decisions, contracts, systems, and behaviors should you change today to avoid being the next secondary defendant named in a high-stakes case?
1. Expanded U.S. Jurisdiction: What "Effects in the United States" now means
Courts and regulators increasingly treat harms "felt" in the U.S. as a sufficient hook for jurisdiction. That can include reputational damage to a U.S. company, interference with U.S. commerce, loss by U.S. customers, or even digital impacts (e.g., blocked access for U.S. users). For businesses, the practical consequence is broader exposure: foreign conduct that previously stayed abroad can now be litigated in U.S. courts if it created foreseeable effects here.
Example
A foreign supplier provides components to a U.S. manufacturer. Those components enable a product that injures U.S. consumers. Plaintiffs allege that the supplier knew the end use would be in the U.S. and that a defect would cause harm. Under expanded jurisdiction theories, the supplier may be haled into U.S. court despite being abroad.
Practical applications
Map your business's "U.S. footprint" beyond incorporation and sales: consider data flows, service endpoints, third-party relationships, and downstream users. Update vendor diligence to ask whether products or services could foreseeably affect U.S. markets or consumers. Contractually require jurisdiction, choice-of-law, and dispute-resolution clauses that anticipate jurisdictional expansion, and pair them with practical mitigation steps (e.g., localized controls or safe-harbor technical measures).
2. Aiding-and-abetting liability for secondary actors: the new frontline threat
Aiding-and-abetting liability targets those who knowingly provide substantial assistance to a primary wrongdoer. Historically focused on direct actors, regulators now pursue financiers, intermediaries, service providers, and sometimes passive platform operators. The key risk is secondary exposure: you no longer need to be the direct wrongdoer to face civil or regulatory suits—the allegation that your technology, advice, or transaction enabled misconduct can be enough.
Example
A payments processor handles transactions for an entity engaged in fraud. Plaintiffs allege the processor ignored red flags and continued processing despite clear signs of illicit activity. The processor faces aiding-and-abetting claims for materially assisting the fraud, even if it never conceived the fraudulent scheme.
Practical applications
Adopt risk-based onboarding and continuous monitoring for clients and partners. Document escalation rules and demonstrable responses to red flags. Build transaction filtering and suspicious-activity reporting into operations. In contracts, define acceptable uses and include audit rights; secure indemnities and insurance that explicitly cover aiding-and-abetting exposures. Ensure your incident response records reflect timely, reasonable steps—absence of documentation is often decisive in these cases.
3. Elements and evidentiary realities: what plaintiffs must prove and how courts are helping them
Aiding-and-abetting claims usually require (a) a primary wrong by someone else, (b) knowledge (or conscious awareness) by the secondary actor of the primary wrong, and (c) substantial assistance that facilitated the primary violation. Courts vary on the mens rea requirement—some require “actual knowledge,” others permit “reckless indifference” or willful blindness. Also, discovery rules and liberal pleading standards often let plaintiffs obtain detailed internal records early, so secondary actors must prepare for aggressive factual development.
Example
A tech vendor supplied data-analysis tools to a foreign marketing firm. Plaintiffs claim the marketing firm used those tools for illegal targeting, and that the vendor ignored repeated warnings. Plaintiffs survive early motions by alleging that vendor personnel discussed suspicious uses internally and failed to act—then use expedited discovery to unearth emails.
Practical applications
Implement evidentiary hygiene: centralize incident and compliance records, time-stamped logs, and decision notes. Train employees on documenting remedial steps. Anticipate discovery: preserve relevant communications and establish legal-hold protocols. Strategically use privilege but be careful—overbroad claims can backfire. Finally, when assessing risk, evaluate not only your conduct but what internal documents could show about your state of mind and responses.
4. "Substantial assistance" and the broadening definition of "knowledge"
Courts interpret “substantial assistance” flexibly: it can be technical support, financial facilitation, infrastructure access, or even ordinary business services if they materially ease the wrongdoing. Likewise, “knowledge” can be actual knowledge, willful blindness, or constructive knowledge depending on jurisdiction. For operators of platforms and intermediaries, everyday functions—hosting content, routing payments, providing analytics—can be re-cast as substantial assistance if plaintiffs connect them to the harm.
Example
An analytics provider offers tools that optimize ad placement. Plaintiffs allege the tools were used to promote illegal goods and that the provider received complaints. The provider’s continued product improvements and support may be framed as substantial assistance contributing to the illegal distribution.
Practical applications
Re-evaluate product features for misuse potential and embed abuse prevention into design (privacy-by-design, fraud detection). Create technical limits: rate limits, geo-restrictions, and use-case gating. Maintain records of abuse reports and product changes to show preventive intent. For M&A and partnerships, perform reverse due diligence on how products might be used and retain contractual remedies (suspension/termination for misuse) and indemnities.
5. Corporate structure and affiliate risk: how groups can be pulled into action
Holding companies, foreign subsidiaries, and affiliates can face mirror claims when plaintiffs allege the group enabled or benefited from wrongdoing. U.S. enforcement agencies sometimes target the parent for control and oversight failures, or for funding and policy decisions that facilitated misconduct. This means that separate legal entities are not automatically protective; shared systems, leadership, or financial integration increase exposure.
Example
A multinational uses a centralized payments hub in a low-cost jurisdiction. A U.S. plaintiff alleges the payments hub processed illicit proceeds for a U.S. victim and that corporate leadership knew and permitted the arrangement. Plaintiffs name the parent and U.S. affiliate, citing control and profit flows.
Practical applications
Segment risk via operational and legal barriers: separate teams, distinct contracts, and limited shared IT systems where feasible. Implement group-wide policies but localize execution and record-keeping. Use transfer-pricing and finance controls to reduce direct profit flows tied to risky activities. If centralization is necessary, build robust governance, periodic independent audits, and explicit delegation records to demonstrate a compliance “firewall.”
6. Contract drafting and transactional defenses: clauses that matter
Contracts are your first line of defense. Well-drafted terms can reduce exposure by allocating risk, setting clear permitted uses, preserving termination and audit rights, and requiring compliance certifications. However, poorly drafted or unenforced clauses are ineffective. Courts may treat written policies as evidence of knowledge if the party does not enforce them, so contractual language must be paired with observable enforcement.
Example
A cloud provider's terms prohibit illegal uses, but the provider never investigates credible abuse reports. Plaintiffs point to the terms as notice and use the provider’s inaction to argue willful blindness and substantial assistance.
Practical applications
Include express representations about lawful use, detailed acceptable-use lists, audit and reporting obligations, cooperation in investigations, and specific indemnities for aiding-and-abetting claims. Require partners to maintain specific controls (KYC, AML, content moderation). Build enforcement metrics—number of investigations, suspensions, remediation steps—and keep documentation to prove contract compliance. Consider insurance that explicitly covers aiding-and-abetting and related third-party exposures.
7. Compliance program design: advanced techniques to lower secondary liability
A compliance program is an affirmative defense only if it’s meaningful, proactive, and documented. Advanced techniques that reduce aiding-and-abetting risk include threat-based risk assessments, automated transaction-monitoring algorithms, cross-border compliance playbooks, and escalation matrices tied to immediate suspension powers. The stronger and more demonstrable your controls, the harder a plaintiff’s narrative of willful ignorance becomes.
Example
An international platform implements machine-learning detection for illicit listings, plus a documented manual review process and rapid takedown policy. When a plaintiff sues, the platform’s logs show prompt removals and account terminations—material evidence that the platform did not knowingly facilitate the wrongdoing.
Practical applications
Adopt continuous monitoring with human oversight, maintain audit trails, and require management sign-off on risk-tolerant decisions. Use red-team exercises to test detection and escalation. Train front-line staff to identify and report red flags, and maintain a centralized incident register. Periodically engage independent auditors to validate the program and use their reports defensively during litigation.
8. Litigation readiness and defensive strategies: preparing for early, broad discovery
When secondary actor claims arise, plaintiffs often seek early, broad discovery to prove knowledge and assistance. Defensive strategies include having a litigation playbook, a litigation hold implementation plan, and a rapid-response evidence-gathering team. Anticipatory steps—privilege mapping, data retention limits, and minimizing unnecessary internal commentary—reduce the ammunition plaintiffs can use to allege conscious disregard.
Example
A supplier is sued as an aider based on internal emails that show frustration with customers’ end uses. The supplier’s lack of a litigation hold leads to spoliation allegations. Conversely, a similar company with a rapid legal-hold and controlled document collection successfully limits disclosure and wins an early dismissal.
Practical applications
Prepare a litigation readiness kit: standard legal-hold templates, preserved log schemas, privilege and confidentiality protocols, and a designated cross-functional response team (legal, compliance, IT, and PR). Conduct tabletop exercises simulating discovery demands and public inquiries. Consider targeted use of protective orders and meet-and-confer tactics to limit fishing expeditions. Where appropriate, proactively communicate with regulators to mitigate reputational and enforcement risk.
Interactive Quiz — Test your company's exposure
Use the questions below to self-assess quickly. Score 1 point for each "Yes." 0–2: Low immediate exposure; 3–5: Moderate; 6–8: High. For each "Yes," follow the practical steps recommended above.
Do any of your products or services have foreseeable impacts on U.S. users or markets? Do you rely on third-party intermediaries (payments, hosting, analytics) without continuous monitoring? Do contracts lack explicit use restrictions, audit rights, and termination for misuse? Do you lack a documented, tested escalation path for credible abuse reports? Are your corporate controls centralized such that the parent has operational control over risky activities? Have you never been the target of regulatory inquiries about secondary facilitation or cross-border transactions? Do you lack documented logs and retention policies that could show your response to red flags? Do your insurance policies not name aiding-and-abetting exposures explicitly?Self-Assessment Checklist (Quick actions)
AreaImmediate action (0–30 days)Responsible Jurisdictional mappingPerform a U.S.-effects audit of products, data, and usersLegal & Product Third-party riskInventory vendors and add continuous monitoring clausesProcurement & Compliance ContractsUpdate AUP, indemnities, and termination rightsCommercial Legal Compliance programDocument KYC/KYB, escalation matrices, and response playbooksCompliance Litigation readinessImplement legal hold templates and preserve logsLegal & IT InsuranceReview policies for aiding-and-abetting coverage gapsRisk & InsuranceSummary — Key takeaways
1) Expanded U.S. jurisdiction and aiding-and-abetting doctrines materially enlarge the set of entities that can be sued in the U.S. for foreign conduct. Treat “U.S. exposure” as a product risk, not just a legal one. 2) Secondary liability often turns on knowledge and substantial assistance—both of which are subject to interpretation and can be proven through internal records. 3) Defensive measures are practical and effective: tighten contracts, harden compliance programs, document actions, and prepare for aggressive discovery. 4) Technical mitigation (limits, monitoring, takedown processes) plus governance (audits, independent validation) creates the evidentiary bedrock to resist or defeat aiding-and-abetting claims. 5) Finally, run the interactive quiz and self-assessment checklist now—early remediation is almost always less costly than reactive litigation and reputational damage.
Final note
From your perspective as an operator, investor, or counsel: prioritize actions that both reduce the chance of facilitating wrongdoing and produce demonstrable proof of prevention and remediation. Those twin pillars—prevention and documentation—are the most reliable way to minimize the novel risks introduced by broader U.S. jurisdiction and aggressive aiding-and-abetting enforcement.