Shoura Approves New Food System
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.12
On the basis of proposals forwarded by its Committee on Health and the Environment, Saudi Arabia's Shoura Council approved on 23 April 2012 a draft law for a comprehensive food system in Saudi Arabia (the Draft Law).
The Draft Law has not been released to the public and will not become law until and unless enacted into law by a Royal Decree or Royal Order. However, it is understood that the Draft Law:
- defines food and food additives;
- sets standards for food;
- mandates hygienic practices for food handling and food safety;
- imposes requirements for the packaging of food;
- authorizes the Saudi Food and Drug Authority to approve foodstuffs for import into Saudi Arabia and to prohibit the import of foodstuffs that are prohibited by Islamic law, harmful to health, unfit for consumption, or produced in violation of the standards for food production;
- imposes a registration and licensing requirement upon establishments that produce and/or handle foodstuffs; and
- imposes a registration requirement on foodstuffs that are marketed in Saudi Arabia.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
