You Must Ante Up To Play In The Game
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.11.06
The Federal Circuit in Rex Service Corp. v. U.S. (May 8, 2006) emphasized that a company must respond to a solicitation, even if it thinks it is flawed, to be able to have standing as an "interested party" to protest. Unless the company is prevented from bidding (e.g., by a sole-source award), a company does not meet the requirements of being "an actual or prospective bidder" with a "direct economic interest" if it could have bid but didn't.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
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.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26
