Insights

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).

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.

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 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 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.

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.

On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the reach of Section 1964(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by holding that a plaintiff may seek treble damages for a business or property loss resulting from a personal injury.[1] The 5-4 decision has resolved a 3-2 circuit split over whether the RICO statute precludes relief for losses stemming from a personal injury.

In a recently published Corporate Counsel article, “Conducting Investigations and Discovery in China: What Companies Need to Consider in Preparing for New Policies,” Crowell’s John E. Davis and the Zhong Lun Law Firm’s Gary Gao (Jun Gao) discuss the need for companies with operations and data in China to prepare for increased governmental scrutiny and civil actions, and provide tips for effectively responding to cross-border demands for data in such pressurized circumstances.

When a company learns that it may wind up as a defendant in a multidistrict litigation (or MDL), it may initially feel like a disaster. Between expensive, drawn out, and complicated legal proceedings and the possibility of outsized damages and company-threatening liability, it is difficult to imagine the upside. However, MDLs may not be as unfavorable a forum for defendants as they initially seem.

In a unanimous opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit on March 18, 2025, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s application to register a copyright protection for a work created by his generative artificial intelligence system, holding that the Copyright Act requires human authorship.

On March 20, 2025, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into whether two leading proxy advisors’ advice involving the consideration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) constitutes deceptive or unfair trade practices under Florida law or a violation of Florida antitrust law.

Despite other sweeping changes to the federal government under the Trump administration, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), passed under former President Biden, remains good law. Below, we report on recent trends in FDA’s implementation and enforcement of MoCRA in the early months of Trump’s presidency.

Senators John Cornyn(R-Texas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) recently sponsored two bills, introduced on March 14th, that would affect patents in the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2023 and 2024, several U.S. states enacted extensive “Right to Repair” laws, reflecting a growing legislative focus on ensuring consumers have access to the parts and resources needed to repair their own products without relying on the product’s original manufacturer. Most recently, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon implemented comprehensive regulations aimed at providing consumers direct access to tools, parts, and information for the repair of various electronic devices and equipment, including digital products and agricultural machinery. As the “Right to Repair” movement continues to gain significant traction across the United States, it is critical that manufacturers understand these laws and how these laws will impact their individual businesses.

In what may be the first lawsuit of its kind, a student has sued Yale University alleging that he has been falsely accused of using artificial intelligence on a final exam. The complaint, filed in February, could have far-reaching implications for both the use of AI by students and issues related to academic honesty.

On February 20, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission launched an “inquiry” into “tech censorship” by calling 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.” The deadline for comments is May 21, 2025.

On February 14th, 2025, the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued a Dear Colleague letter (the “Letter” or “DCL”) addressing what the Department thinks may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other authorities. The Department also announced that it will begin “vigorously enforce[ing] the law” and assessing compliance no later than February 28th, and threatens that educational institutions that fail to comply with the Department’s new view of the federal nondiscrimination laws face investigation and loss of federal funding.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a pivotal ruling earlier this week, finding that in order to establish falsity in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case premised on Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) liability, the kickback must have been the “but-for” cause of the submission of the claim. The court’s decision hinged on the meaning of the phrase “resulting from” within the 2010 amendment to the AKS, which provided that a claim that includes items or services “resulting from” a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. The meaning of “resulting from” for purposes of establishing such FCA liability has been hotly debated by courts. The First Circuit now joins the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in adopting this stricter but-for standard, while the Third Circuit has opted for a much looser approach.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.