1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.12.06

The AGBCA in Ardco, Inc. (Aug. 2, 2006), grounded the government's attempt to resort to the termination for convenience clause to avoid lost profit damages for breach when it wrecked the contractor's aircraft and caused it to lose revenue for part of the contract term. Nor did the government's argument fly that the lack of a contractual guarantee of any further revenue under an IDIQ contract defeats a lost profits claim, as the contractor is free to prove what work it likely would have received as the basis for its breach damages

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.11.26

Clicking All the Right Boxes: FTC Moves to Revive “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Following Eighth Circuit Vacatur

On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans, commonly known as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule. As detailed in a previous client alert, the rule was intended to regulate negative option plans[1]— such as subscriptions and automatic renewals — by imposing stringent requirements on businesses, including streamlined cancellation processes and enhanced disclosure obligations. The Eighth Circuit vacated the Click-to-Cancel rule because it found that the FTC had failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. As a result, the rule is no longer in effect, and businesses are not currently subject to its mandates....