Insights

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. 1st Choice Accident & Injury, LLC, No. 24-20275 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026), offers important lessons for health care payors and other potential plaintiffs considering civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although the Fifth Circuit’s decision focused on a procedural issue, the underlying case turned on a fundamental pleading failure: the plaintiff insurers did not adequately describe the fraudulent network they were suing as a RICO “enterprise.” The result was dismissal of a $14 million fraud case.

On February 10, 2026, California enacted Senate Bill 25 (“SB 25”), known as the California Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. The new law takes effect on January 1, 2027, making California the third state—following Washington (effective July 27, 2025) and Colorado (effective August 6, 2025)—to implement a “mini-HSR” regime modeled after the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (“UAPNA”). The legislation reflects the growing state-level focus on merger oversight, and it signals California’s continuing intent to increase early pre-merger scrutiny and concurrent review of transactions with federal authorities.

By the end of 2025, 16 drug manufacturers had voluntarily negotiated and executed agreements to adopt Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing for certain high-cost drugs. The Trump Administration highlighted the agreements in its “Great Healthcare Plan,” published on January 15, 2026, and communicated the government’s plans to “codify” such deals as a means of “get[ting] Americans the same low prices that people in other countries pay.” The Administration recently leveraged MFN pricing to establish the TrumpRx website, which helps uninsured or cash-paying consumers find drugs at a discounted price. The website reflects the Administration’s stated commitment to provide more lower-cost drugs directly to consumers. Currently, 40 branded medications are available at reduced prices.

On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans, commonly known as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule. As detailed in a previous client alert, the rule was intended to regulate negative option plans[1]— such as subscriptions and automatic renewals — by imposing stringent requirements on businesses, including streamlined cancellation processes and enhanced disclosure obligations. The Eighth Circuit vacated the Click-to-Cancel rule because it found that the FTC had failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. As a result, the rule is no longer in effect, and businesses are not currently subject to its mandates.

On February 3, 2026, President Trump signed a $1.2 trillion spending deal that, among other points, introduced significant regulatory changes for Medicare Part D plans and PBMs providing services to PDP sponsors in the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs, and imposed significant new restrictions and transparency requirements on PBMs contracting with private group health plans.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has signed into law the most significant update to New York’s consumer protection law in 45 years — the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act, or FAIR Business Practices Act — expanding the scope of the state’s authority to now challenge unfair and abusive business practices. The measure, backed by New York Attorney General (“AG”) Letitia James and signed on December 19, 2025, amends New York’s General Business Law § 349, giving regulators new tools to protect consumers and promote fair marketplace practices.

California continues its blistering pace in enacting artificial intelligence regulations. In 2024 alone, California enacted 18 AI-related bills seeking to regulate AI tools and increase transparency around AI data disclosure.

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Utah Attorney General Derek Brown (R) and North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson (D) have announced a nationwide bipartisan “AI Task Force,” in partnership with major AI developers (including OpenAI and Microsoft) and the Attorney General Alliance (AGA), a bipartisan nonprofit that serves as a forum for attorneys general around the United States to discuss and collaborate on policy and enforcement initiatives.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs laid out their enforcement priorities during the 2025 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, at which Crowell & Moring attorneys spoke on and attended various panels.

Earlier this month, California enacted Senate Bill 763 (“SB 763”). The legislation amends the state’s long-standing antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, to increase both criminal and civil maximum penalties for corporations and individuals.  California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is responsible for enforcing the Cartwright Act and stands to benefit from any civil penalties recovered under the new law, sponsored the bill.

A new series of lawsuits have been filed in California courts alleging violations of the state’s Business and Professions Code § 17529.5 (the “Anti-Spam Law”). These cases target companies that send marketing and promotional emails to California residents, and they could present serious legal and financial risks for businesses engaged in email marketing.

The deadline for Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to notify approved manufacturers of acceptance into the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program has passed, and stakeholders across the healthcare industry should start planning for compliance and operational changes. The Model Pilot Program may also face legal challenges that could delay or disrupt implementation.

California recently enacted two laws instituting new restrictions and requirements for health care transactions. On October 6, Governor Newsom signed SB 351, which codifies elements of the state’s corporate practice of medicine doctrine and strengthens restrictions against private equity, hedge fund, and other private investor control of health care organizations and operations. On October 11, Newsom signed AB 1415, which expands the scope of parties and relevant transactions that require pre-transaction notice to the state’s Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA). Both laws are intended to provide the State of California greater oversight of transactions involving health care entities, and raise additional hurdles for parties seeking to acquire or sell health care operations in the state,[1] consistent with a broader trend across the country. The key points of each of the California laws are summarized below:

On August 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force to expand efforts to target importers and other parties committing trade-related fraud. As stated in a press release issued on August 29, the Task Force will augment the existing coordination mechanisms within the DOJ and DHS, for instance through partnerships with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, to “aggressively” take enforcement measures against parties that commit tariff evasion or attempt to smuggle prohibited goods into the U.S.

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had unsealed an indictment against two Mexican businessmen for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  DOJ asserts that the defendants, both Mexican nationals living in Texas, paid bribes to officials at Petróleos Mexicanos (“PEMEX”), and its subsidiary, PEMEX Exploración y Producción (“PEP”) to secure contracts worth an estimated $2.5 million.  These charges come amidst a period of uncertainty regarding FCPA enforcement following the Trump administration’s temporary pause on FCPA enforcement and the subsequent issuance of new investigation and enforcement guidelines.

On July 24, the European Commission announced the imposition of new EU countermeasures in response to U.S. tariffs further to an agreement reached among EU Member States. These measures are adopted through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1564 and take the form of additional customs duties on U.S. products as well as export restrictions for certain EU products. In total, these measures concern about EUR 93 billion ($109 billion) worth of customs duties, the highest volume of bilateral trade caught by the EU so far. The EU countermeasures are set to enter into force as of August 7.

Briefing. The Trump administration continues to raise the stakes for importers and other actors in the international trade space. Bloomberg Law reports that the Department of Justice has tasked its MIMF (Market Integrity and Major Frauds) Unit with investigating fraud schemes by companies dodging U.S. tariffs. The MIMF Unit is already well-versed in financial fraud investigations, is set to grow significantly with the addition of prosecutors previously assigned to consumer protection matters, and now is shifting resources to tariff evasion cases.

Merger consent orders are back at the FTC, and the FTC’s most recent action showcases how the current leadership is analyzing divestiture proposals. Last week, the FTC approved a proposed consent agreement in Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc.’s (ACT) acquisition of retail fuel outlets from Giant Eagle, Inc. that paired standard retail divestitures with a “prior notice” requirement that ACT notify the agency of future acquisitions in certain markets regardless of size. This FTC has signaled greater acceptance of remedies than the prior administration, and this most recent consent puts that on display, with Commissioner Meador providing merging parties guidance on designing effective remedies.