Insights

On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring it the policy of the United States “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” The order reasons that “disparate impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.”

On April 24, the Department of Transportation announced the Trump Administration’s new framework for the regulation of Automated Vehicles (“AVs"). According to the release, “NHTSA’s AV Framework” has three principles:

On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges).

On April 17, 2025, Arkansas recently became the first state to enact broad restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) owning retail pharmacies within the state.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the FTC’s Combatting Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule in January of this year, finding that the FTC failed to follow the correct administrative procedures when it promulgated the regulation.

Two bills currently making their way through the California Legislature could, if passed, have far-reaching implications for how companies doing business in California price their goods and services. California Assembly Bill 325 (Aguiar-Curry) and Senate Bill 384 (Wahab), as drafted, seek broad prohibitions against the use, distribution of, and inputs into algorithmic pricing and supply software, even where there is no coordination among competitors on the use of such software or the setting of prices. Their enactment would reach every business that uses software applications to develop pricing, supply levels and other commercial terms in California. Crowell & Moring represents the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the proposed bills.

Looking back at 2024, manufacturers were extremely busy navigating a high number of recalled products and corresponding litigation. A number of these 2024 litigation and class action trends appear to be carrying over into 2025.

The USPTO has made a series of recent announcements in April that should not go unnoticed as they serve as important reminders for best practices in patent prosecution. In particular, the USPTO’s announcements address continuation applications, a new working group to mitigate fraud, and the elimination of expedited examinations for design applications.

The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.

On April 16, 2025, the White House issued an Executive Order (“EO”), “Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts,” requiring agencies to meet their needs with commercially available products and services to the maximum extent practicable. The EO reiterates and builds upon the requirements set forth in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”), which similarly encourages the use of commercial acquisition procedures. Specifically, the EO institutes a required review procedure for certain open acquisition actions and establishes an oversight procedure to be implemented for all acquisitions hereafter.

On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap agreements and for online contract formation and enforcement more generally. A sign-in wrap is a type of online agreement in which the agreement is hyperlinked on the website, but the user is not required to access, review, confirm an understanding, or otherwise affirmatively “assent” to be bound. If the Ninth Circuit does not grant ClassPass’ request and issue a new ruling in Chabolla, this case may signal the death knell for sign-in wraps, resulting in significant disruption, friction, and ultimately lower conversion for online companies who will be forced to redesign their sign-up flows to be click-wrap agreements (online agreements that require the user to affirmatively accept a company’s terms of use by clicking an assent box or button). Short of that, this decision increases business risk given that there are now conflicting opinions both within the Ninth Circuit and between the various Circuits.

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets.

On April 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance regarding the implementation and enforcement of the newly enacted final rule, “Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons,” now referred to as the Data Security Program (DSP). The release included an Implementation and Enforcement Policy, a Compliance Guide, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Collectively, these documents are designed to help entities subject to the DSP understand and comply with the obligations set out under the Final Rule.

On April 15, 2025, the White House issued an Executive Order (“EO”), “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” calling for the reform of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) consistent with the aims of EO 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” which sought to eliminate perceived unnecessary regulatory burdens. Specifically, the April EO notes that the FAR should only contain statutorily required provisions or those “essential to sound procurement,” and it recommends the removal of any FAR provisions that do not advance these objectives.

Will the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit’s unique Server Test for online copyright infringement? After the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the Server Test, a photographer and copyright owner has requested certiorari. Petitioner-Plaintiff, Elliot McGucken, is a landscape photographer. Respondent-Defendant, Valnet, Inc., is the owner of a travel website located at “www.thetravel.com.” McGucken sued Valnet for copyright infringement when Valnet embedded on its site a number of links to McGucken’s Instagram posts. The district court, bound by the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Perfect 10, granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Server Test foreclosed McGucken’s direct infringement claim as a matter of law, because Valnet linked to the images and did not store them on its own servers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a panel decision. McGucken now requests the Supreme Court to review the validity of the Server Test, which is unique to the Ninth Circuit.

On April 3, 2025, the United States Department of Justice’ Antitrust Division hosted a forum on “Big-Tech Censorship” in which key Trump Administration Officials announced their desire to reform, or entirely overhaul, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In March 2025, we wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) inquiry into “tech censorship” and its associated request for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” That RFI remains open, and its deadline is May 21, 2025.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.

In Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc., C.A. No. 20-1630 (D. Del.), brand manufacturer Amarin brought an induced infringement claim against Hikma’s generic icosapent ethyl product, which lists Amarin’s Vascepa® as the reference listed drug. Vascepa was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, and later, Amarin obtained patents and approval for Vascepa as a treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in certain patient populations. Hikma’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for generic icosapent ethyl included a Section viii statement that Hikma was not seeking approval for the patented cardiovascular indication along with a “skinny label” that included only the indication for severe hypertriglyceridemia.

On April 7, 2025, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) announced agency reorganization plans aimed at reducing the number of field offices and centralizing audit operations. DCAA plans to close 40 smaller audit suboffices around the country, many staffed with fewer than 10 personnel, to reduce the costs of associated leases. The agency will also consolidate the existing Region Audit Directorates for the Eastern, Central and Western Regions and four Corporate Audit Directorates (CADs), located proximate to large contractors, into three new Directorates—Land, Sea, and Air. The audit offices of the CADs will be merged into the new Directorate that most closely aligns with a contractor’s product. DCAA’s announcement states that the organizational restructuring will be completed by September 30, 2025. The full text of the announcement is available here.

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 Jana del-Cerro, Anand Sithian, or Simeon Yerokun or any member of the International Trade Group.