Insights

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)  recently announced that it approved final amendments to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), broadening the rule’s coverage to inbound calls for technical support (“Tech Support”) services. For example, if a Tech Support company presents a pop-up alert (such as one that claims consumers’ computers or other devices are infected with malware or other problems) or uses a direct mail solicitation to induce consumers to call about Tech Support services, that conduct would violate the amended TSR. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently issued a second report and order to modernize vehicle communication technology by transitioning to Cellular-Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) systems within the 5.9 GHz spectrum band. This initiative is part of a broader effort to advance Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in the U.S., enhancing road safety and traffic efficiency. While we previously reported on the frustrations with the long time it took to finalize rules concerning C-V2X technology, this almost-final version of the rule has stirred excitement in the industry as companies can start to accelerate development, now that they know the rules they must comply with. 

On November 27, 2024, a group of eleven state attorneys general (the “AGs”) sued three of the world’s largest asset managers (the “Asset Managers”), accusing them of anticompetitive stock acquisitions, deceptive asset management practices, and an antitrust conspiracy to restrict coal output. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief including divestitures, as well as fines under state laws, although the allegations could provide a basis for follow-on private treble damages claims under the antitrust laws.

New York Department of Labor Issues Guidance Regarding Paid Prenatal Leave, Taking Effect January 1.

On November 22, 2024, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) member states adopted the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (“Treaty”). This development is arguably the biggest advancement in international design law since 1999, when the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (“the Hague Agreement”) was adopted.

On September 30, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., 1:22-cv-03667-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024), holding that an online-only business’s website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Chief Judge Swain’s opinion is the first of its kind for the Southern District and is the latest installment in an ongoing judicial debate about the reach of the ADA’s regulatory reach.  

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and order (the Order) enjoining the federal government, including the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and a FinCEN rule implementing the CTA, codified at 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380) (i.e., the Reporting Rule).  The Reporting Rule requires certain entities formed or registered to do business in the U.S. (reporting companies) to report information about themselves, including personal identifiers for their natural-person “beneficial owners.”  For background on the CTA and the Reporting Rule, please see our previous client alert discussing a separate district court’s decision (National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 1, 2024) (NSBU) ruling the CTA unconstitutional.) 

Just over a year ago, the notification obligations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) became applicable. Since then, M&A transactions and bids for government contracts above certain thresholds must be notified to the European Commission. Pending the Commission’s review, the transaction cannot be completed, or the contract cannot be awarded. What lessons can be learned from the application of the FSR to date? Has the FSR proved to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field, or has its main effect been to burden companies with red tape, at the risk of discouraging investment in Europe?

Erik Woodhouse, Former Department of State Sanctions Official, Returns to Crowell & Moring

On Monday, November 18, 2024, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) announced that it had finalized the regulatory changes previewed in April that will enhance certain CFIUS procedures and sharpen its penalty and enforcement authorities.[1]  The changes go into effect on December 26, 2024 and as described in more detail below: (a) expand the types of information that CFIUS can require transaction parties and other persons (i.e., third-parties) submit when engaging with them on transactions that were not filed with CFIUS; (b) broaden the instances in which CFIUS may use its subpoena authority, including when seeking to obtain information from third persons not party to a transaction notified to CFIUS and in connection with assessing national security risk associated with non-notified transactions; and (c) substantially increase monetary penalties for violations of CFIUS regulations from a maximum of U.S. $250,000 to U.S. $5 million per violation, or the value of the transaction, whichever is greater.

On November 22, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted the United States’ petition for panel rehearing en banc of its June 2024 decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (litigation we have extensively discussed here, here, and here).  In its June decision, the Circuit held Percipient had standing to challenge a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) procurement action—whether NGA had complied with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s (FASA) commercial-item mandate at 10 U.S.C. § 3453—nested within the performance of a previously awarded NGA task order upon which Percipient had not bid.

Following a multi-million-dollar ruling against it by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), nursing home operator Care One, LLC, is now challenging the authority of NLRB-appointed Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) on constitutional grounds before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit’s line of questioning during the November 12, 2024, oral argument revealed the Court’s apparent skepticism towards Care One’s challenges, creating the prospect of a circuit court split on key issues that are likely to make their way to the Supreme Court. Care One’s arguments follow the trend over the past several years of employers increasingly questioning the authority of ALJs to adjudicate their labor and employment claims before administrative agencies.

Since its passage in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act’s renewable energy tax credits have been in the crosshairs of Congressional Republicans. With many of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expiring at the end of 2025, and a full plate of Trump and Congressional Republican Campaign promises for tax cuts in play, the Republicans have pointed to repeal of the IRA as a source of funding to pay for other tax breaks.

While it is unclear at this stage what exactly a second Trump administration means for U.S. digital, technology, and trade policy, one thing that is clear is that it will involve major changes, especially as it relates to the potential for high, broad tariffs. Media reports and commentary and recent personnel appointments give some early clues on what else a second Trump administration may do. It is an open question as to which Biden administration policies a second Trump administration keeps, revises, or scraps (like Biden administration executive orders on artificial intelligence) and which policies and strategies from the first Trump administration it revives or revises. It is also unclear the extent to which a second Trump administration will consider the interests of allies and close trading partners and whether the Trump administration will pursue its own vision for global technology governance at the G7 and other fora.  

On October 24, 2024, Crowell & Moring LLP hosted its 38th Annual Managing Tax Audits and Appeals Seminar. The seminar featured several prominent IRS speakers and lively discussion among clients, including conversations about the following hot topics:

On November 14, 2024, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, introduced the Restoring Trade Fairness Act, seeking to suspend China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (“PNTR”) status.

On November 13, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) updated its FAQs for insurers in a long-awaited move to modernize its published sanctions compliance guidance for the insurance industry.  None of the industry-specific FAQs had been updated since January 2015, and many had not been amended in more than 20 years, so these updates represent an important step by OFAC to ensure that its public guidance reflects the industry as it is today. 

On November 14, 2024, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Report on Bid Protests for Fiscal Year 2024, containing the full statistics shown below:

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. 

In a recent UK Court of Appeal judgment in what is known as “the motor finance cases” (see Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited, which appeals were all heard together), the Court has shone a spotlight on the issue of commissions paid by financiers to brokers and determined that, in some cases, they may be considered “bribes” under UK law.