Inadequate Justification for Restrictive Requirements Leads to Injunction
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.10.11
After having been thrown out of GAO for purportedly not being an interested party to challenge Interior’s restriction of its procurement of a department-wide messaging and cloud computing system to Microsoft resellers on the GSA schedule, Google found a more sympathetic ear, and standing to complain, in the CFC. In Google, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 4, 2011), the court found that Interior had failed to take several of the procedural steps required by CICA and the FAR to justify the restrictive specification of Microsoft products, enjoined the procurement, and remanded the matter to the agency for it to follow the correct steps of the process.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.17.26
From Checkout To Opt-Out: The EU Withdrawal Button Is Here – What E-Commerce Businesses Need To Know
From June 19, 2026, all online traders active within the EU are required to provide a “withdrawal button” on their websites and apps. The introduction of this withdrawal button represents a significant shift in the online consumer cancellation landscape. In this alert, we provide an overview of what this requirement means in practice and why compliance is so important.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.17.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.16.26
What United States v. Bankman-Fried Means for Health Care Fraud Defense
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

