Consumer protection issues generated a lively discussion at the American Bar Association's 70th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held April 5-8 in Washington, as thousands of practitioners, enforcers, academics and jurists from around the world interacted in person for the first time since 2019.

There's a clear message out of the American Bar Association's Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held April 5-8 in Washington: Practitioners should know that we are in a new era of antitrust enforcement and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will be taking on tough cases such as those addressing criminal Section 2 enforcement and labor market practices.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, on January 28, 2022, revealed the criminal prosecution of a conspiracy that allegedly suppressed wages and limited job mobility for essential healthcare workers.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently entered into settlement agreements with Hy-Vee and Rite Aid in response to the DOJ’s concern that the companies’ vaccine registration websites were not accessible to individuals with vision impairments and other disabilities.

Some courts have shown a willingness to certify damages classes in labeling cases under §§349 and 350 where the damages claimed would entitle plaintiffs’ attorneys and the class to recover $550 for every single New York purchase of a low-priced consumer good like cereal, breakfast bars, or even grass seed.

On October 25, 2021, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its “Statement on Use of Prior Approval Provisions in Merger Orders." The Statement announces two material changes in the agency’s merger enforcement program.

The National Advertising Division (NAD) recently issued recommendations to diamond companies in response to two challenges concerning advertising claims for diamonds that are created in a laboratory, rather than mined from the earth (commonly referred to as “lab-grown diamonds” or “LGDs”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a lower court’s decision in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th. Cir. 2021).

In what could be a harbinger of the future regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, the European Commission published its recent proposal for regulation of AI systems.

On April 22, 2021, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management v. FTC held that the authorization to seek a “permanent injunction” under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not permit the FTC to obtain equitable monetary relief such as restitution and disgorgement. While the FTC may still seek monetary relief under Sections 5 and 19 of the Act, those provisions can be more difficult for the FTC to pursue. FTC Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter is already calling on Congress to “strengthen the FTC’s powers” in light of the decision.

This year, the American Bar Association's 69th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting was held virtually due to the ongoing global health crisis.

U.S. antitrust enforcers highlighted their past efforts and future priorities at the American Bar Association's Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held virtually on March 23-26.

In this episode, Jason Howell and Amanda Beane discuss compliance tips and litigation risks for businesses. 

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project et al. is significant for both the decision’s effect on the regulation of the broadcast television industry and its clarifications of administrative law. In Prometheus, the Court restored the Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 order on reconsideration to repeal or modify three core broadcast television ownership rules. This client update summarizes the decision and provides key takeaways on the ruling’s implications for M&A and other transactions in the broadcast industry.

In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid et al., the U.S. Supreme Court provided some clarity that stakeholders have been awaiting since 2015 by adopting a narrower interpretation of the term “autodialer” for purposes of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Court reversed an expansive interpretation of “autodialer” adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the Court noted would have prohibited many commonplace uses of cell phones by consumers. The Court found that for a dialing system to constitute an autodialer, it must have the capacity to either store or produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator. This narrower interpretation comes as a relief to a broad range of businesses and nonprofit organizations, among others, that believed the Ninth Circuit’s broad interpretation unfairly ensnared legitimate communications practices that did not harm consumers.

We offer some key takeaways from three sessions from the ABA's virtual Antitrust Law Spring Meeting focused on consumer protection: an annual review of the consumer protection landscape, developments in consumer privacy, and insights into the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement activities and priorities.

Over the last two weeks, the American Bar Association offered a virtual version of what would have been its 68th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, presenting a select number of panels online. Several of the virtual sessions addressed the efforts of federal and state antitrust enforcement agencies.

Key takeaways from three sessions focused on consumer protection: an annual review of the consumer protection landscape, developments in consumer privacy, and insights into the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement activities and priorities.

The meeting included sessions on merger enforcement that addressed a number of important issues.

Over the last two weeks, the American Bar Association offered a virtual version of what would have been its 68th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, presenting a select number of panels online.

The U.S. Supreme Court held this week that willfulness is not a prerequisite for an award of profits for violation of Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), resolving a longstanding circuit split.

During the public health emergency brought on by the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), food processors and manufacturers must continue to be vigilant in protecting the health and safety of their workers and the foods they produce and distribute.

Last Friday, the White House declared a national state of emergency amid concerns of the global spread of the coronavirus. Nearly every state and numerous cities have followed suit by issuing declarations triggering emergency measures and regulations on businesses.

Operators of the LendEDU website entered into a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to allegations that LendEDU misled consumers by claiming that its website provided objective, unbiased rankings of financial products, when in fact they offered better ratings to companies that paid for the endorsement.

 When the DOJ is deciding whether to charge a company with a criminal antitrust violation, or agreeing to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), the effectiveness of a company’s antitrust compliance program is only one factor.

The start of 2020 has brought uncertainty for tech businesses as individuals in the global health and business communities grapple with trying to understand and contain the deadly new coronavirus.

The parties to class action litigation frequently contest whether plaintiffs are entitled to pre-certification discovery aimed at identifying additional or replacement class representatives.

This part one of a two-part report with the focus primarily on consumer protection implications. The report assesses the implications of data analytics, and new types of artificial intelligence, including machine learning and neural networks, on the law that drives our practices as consumer protection and competition lawyers. 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new policy on July 11, 2019, designed to incentivize the development and implementation of corporate antitrust compliance programs. 

The Federal Communications Commission recently adopted new measures to combat unwanted robocalls in a unanimous Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court was not necessarily bound by the Federal Communications Commission’s prior interpretation of a federal statute over which the agency has authority to implement and enforce.

On August 7, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will host a public workshop to examine consumer protection issues related to the sale of “loot boxes” in video games.

This is the final article in a three-part series on the American Bar Association's 67th Antitrust Law spring meeting.

The American Bar Association’s 67th Antitrust Law spring meeting held earlier this month featured several sessions addressing the efforts of federal and state antitrust enforcement agencies, including a number of discussions with representatives from those agencies.

From 2010 to 2015, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice filed criminal charges against more than 120 corporations and more than 350 individuals, and collected fines and penalties of more than $8 billion.

U.S. consumers notice and are more likely to buy products that are marketed as Made in USA. President Donald J. Trump proclaimed in his inaugural address that we should “follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.”

The American Bar Association’s 66th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting held earlier this month included many sessions on consumer protection.

We offer some key takeaways from ABA's Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, including the impact of leadership changes at the federal agencies, recent enforcement activities and signals regarding future priorities.

The American Bar Association’s 66th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held last week, included many sessions on consumer protection. Some of the most interesting panels are discussed in the article.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a machine's ability to simulate human intelligence to perform tasks like planning, decision-making, and recognizing objects or sounds. Its use is not always obvious, but AI is now present in nearly every aspect of our lives—from our "smart" home products to our medical care, jobs, and businesses.

Oregon is one of 35 states where the legislature has successfully enacted a statute capping the amount of noneconomic damages, commonly known as “emotional distress,” that juries can award. With the issuance of two recent opinions from the Oregon Court of Appeals, however, Oregon now joins six other states with courts that have ruled such caps are unconstitutional.

The FTC recently issued more than 90 letters to marketers and their social media influencers warning that influencers must clearly and conspicuously disclose material connections in social media posts that promote the marketer, unless the connection is already clear from the context of the posts.

The American Bar Association’s 65th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting held at the end of March included a number of sessions focused on consumer protection.

In our second installment covering the ABA's 65th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, we provide some key takeaways from the sessions, specifically focusing on issues in mergers and acquisitions.

The American Bar Association’s 65th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting held at the end of March included a number of sessions with representatives from federal and state antitrust enforcement agencies.

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the helm of the executive branch of the federal government, many are asking how he will approach antitrust regulation. Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans are more amenable to mergers, even large ones, than Democrats.

This year brought a wave of class action complaints alleging that national retailers are violating the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. §§ 56:12-14 et seq., by including certain provisions in their online terms and other consumer-facing notices and agreements.

Qualcomm sells chipsets and licenses its related standard-essential patents for use in 3G- and 4G-enabled smartphones and tablets.  In late 2013, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began investigating Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).

With two deft strokes, Vermont simultaneously increased the tools in its enforcement toolbox and dealt a significant blow to a well-known patent assertion entity (PAE).  First, Vermont filed suit against MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, a PAE, alleging that the company violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451 et seq.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. __, No. 11-1450, 2013 WL 1104735 (Mar. 19, 2013), that plaintiffs attempting to bring a class action lawsuit cannot escape federal jurisdiction by agreeing to seek less than $5 million in damages.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently held that collecting a consumer's ZIP code at the point of sale may violate Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93, Section 105(a) (Section 105(a)), which restricts the ability of retailers to collect personal identification information (PII) from consumers in connection with a credit card transaction.

The California Supreme Court recently issued a landmark ruling in Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (formerly Krescent v. Apple Inc. in trial court proceedings), a case with wide-reaching implications for consumer privacy in e-commerce. The issue before the Court was whether California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the Act), which generally prohibits retailers from collecting or requesting personal identification information (PII) as a condition of accepting credit card payments, should apply to online retailers.

Companies that accept online credit card payments should be keeping an ear very close to the ground for the California Supreme Court’s decision in Apple v. Superior Court (Krescent), expected within the next few weeks.  Depending on how the court rules, the case has the potential to spawn a flood of class actions against online retailers and change the way web payments are processed.

A Supreme Court decision long-awaited by the class action bar and businesses was a surprise non-event last Thursday when, seven months after hearing oral arguments in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, the Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the writ of certiorari in the case as improvidently granted.  The Supreme Court's per curiam order, presented without reasoning, left intact the Ninth Circuit's holding that a plaintiff who pled a statutory violation but not actual damages had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a plaintiff has suffered a concrete “injury in fact.”  The Supreme Court's decision means that, at least in the Ninth Circuit “[t]he injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’”

Several class action complaints filed in recent months take a novel approach regarding the requirements for website privacy policies under California's "Shine the Light" law.

On January 6, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice Mehrens v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a putative class action against Redbox alleging that Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting ZIP codes and email addresses in connection with credit card transactions.

On June 30, 2010, the House of Representatives approved the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Financial Reform Act, a comprehensive and expansive set of financial reforms widely thought to be the toughest changes to financial regulation in the United States since the Great Depression.