Insights

On July 28, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated its Covered List — established through the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act — to include foreign-produced connected power inverters and advanced robotic devices, following an executive branch national security determination that they “pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.” Equipment on the Covered List is ineligible for FCC equipment authorization, effectively prohibiting the import, sale, or marketing of those products without an exception or approval.

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) final rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), denying the petitions of seven industry groups seeking to overturn that designation.[1] CERCLA, also known as the “Superfund Statute,” allows EPA to require potentially responsible parties to fund cleanup of hazardous substances.

In our previous client alert, we addressed how algorithms and platform features that rely on user generated speech might not receive Section 230 protections because those features may not be considered platform user content.  In these instances, the platform might not carry user generated water through the pipe, but adds its own to the mixture.  At the same time, if it is true that there is less Section 230 protection, these same elements should then imbue the content with First Amendment protections as the expressive content of the platform.

It has been an eventful summer for followers of congressional oversight, with significant implications for individuals and organizations of all stripes. As we move closer to the midterms and then the 2028 general election, private entities both in the U.S. and overseas will find themselves increasingly pulled into the middle of clashes between Republicans and Democrats — and those disputes are inevitable, regardless of election outcome.

Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.

A recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision serves as an important reminder that when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest, this is not necessarily the end of the road. Often, contractors retain the right to file a new protest at the COFC, which conducts its own de novo review of the procurement record. This so-called “second bite at the apple” protest is a powerful tool as the COFC’s recent decision in Chugach Logistics & Facility Services JV, LLC v. USA makes clear.

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.

On August 21, 2026, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published three coordinated final rules that eliminate – from a regulatory perspective – federal contractor affirmative action requirements for women and minorities and narrow contractor affirmative action requirements regarding individuals with disabilities. The final rules: (1) formally rescind the implementing regulations for Executive Order (EO) 11246 effective October 26, 2026; (2) narrow Section 503 affirmative action requirements regarding individuals with disabilities, generally effective September 21, 2026; and (3) update VEVRAA coverage thresholds and enforcement procedures effective September 21, 2026.

On August 13, 2026, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published its final rule banning the use of federal funds — through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — to pay for gender-affirming care for children and youth. The final rule takes effect October 13, 2026 (“Prohibition on Federal Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures Furnished to Children”). While CMS finalized several key elements of its late-2025 proposed rule (Client Alert December 24, 2025), the proposed Medicare hospital Condition of Participation rule remains in proposed form.

A Virginia federal court recently delivered a useful reminder for trade secret owners: a missing NDA is not automatically fatal if the company can show it treated the information as genuinely confidential. In WeightPack, Inc. v. Mitchell, No. 3:25-cv-927 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2026), the court denied a former employee’s motion to dismiss trade secret claims under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA). The court held that the employer had plausibly alleged reasonable measures to protect secrecy even though the employee never signed a nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement.

After identifying a ransomware attack in 2021, OSF Healthcare System waited until its forensic investigation had concluded before notifying the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — and the affected individuals — of the breach. The 110-day delay (nearly double the 60-calendar-day notification deadline mandated by the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule) triggered an investigation from HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The health system’s investigation determined that protected health information (PHI) had been stolen.

On August 12, 2026, the White House released a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), marking a seismic shift in U.S. cybersecurity policy and establishing a framework to authorize private-sector companies to conduct offensive cyber operations—historically strictly prohibited by federal law—against foreign Cyber-Enabled Transnational Criminal Organizations (CE-TCOs).  It builds on an executive order issued in March 2026 that directed federal agencies to develop plans to combat cyber-crimes against Americans.

English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.

Of particular interest for investors with interests in Canada or the UAE, for counsel advising on treaty coverage, dispute strategy, or treaty design, the Canada-UAE FIPA is essential reading and the clearest evidence yet of where Canada's investment treaty practice stands over 30 years after NAFTA came into force.

Over the past 18 months, the federal banking agencies have clarified supervisory expectations for banks’ crypto-asset activities, and several of the largest U.S. banks have announced programs accepting Bitcoin and Ether as loan collateral. Separately, on June 3, 2026, New York’s enactment of the 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code took effect, changing the rules governing the perfection of a security interest in digital asset collateral in New York, the jurisdiction whose law governs most institutional credit documentation. Together, these developments may create significant opportunities for lenders navigating the complexities to comply with the newly enacted statutes. This alert surveys the current landscape, from regulatory permissibility and perfection through custody, structuring, and compliance, for institutions active in this market or considering entering it.

In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer. 

This news bulletin is provided by the International Trade Group of Crowell & Moring. If you have questions or need assistance on trade law matters, please contact Anand Sithian or Simeon Yerokun or any member of the International Trade Group.

On July 22, 2026, Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Kansas City, Missouri, challenging the city’s longstanding Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) program as unconstitutional. The AG filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alongside private plaintiffs Charles Cacioppo Jr. and his company, Industrial Salvage and Wrecking Co.

The State of Qatar has enacted Law No. (8) of 2026, amending certain provisions of Law No. (4) of 2008 concerning the Leasing of Real Estate.

On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.