Insights

On July 23, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued interim guidance for Large Business & International Division (“LB&I”) audit procedure. The IRS announced three major changes: (1) the Acknowledgement of Facts Information Document Request (“AOF IDR”) will be eliminated; (2) Accelerated Issue Resolution (“AIR”) applies to Large Corporate Compliance (“LCC”) cases; and (3) the IRS must conduct additional review before denying a taxpayer’s request to participate in the Fast Track Settlement (“FTS”). These changes reflect the IRS’s continued push to make its examinations “more efficient and current.”

On August 5, 2025, Royal Sovereign International Inc. (Royal Sovereign), a defunct New Jersey importer of portable air conditioners, pled guilty to one count of willfully violating the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) for its failure to report dangerous defects in portable air conditioners that had been linked to multiple fires and one death. The company also agreed to a civil settlement with the Department of Justice and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that included $395,786.48 in restitution to victims and a $16,025,000 civil penalty, which was suspended to $100,000 for inability to pay.

On July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidance to all federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (“Guidance”). The Guidance purports to “clarif[y] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs.” It declares that “[e]ntities receiving federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics,” and identifies a series of “‘Best Practices’ as non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls.” The Guidance is the most comprehensive articulation of the Administration’s view of what constitutes unlawful DEI released since President Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, issued on January 21, 2025.

Over the past several months, Missouri and Florida have gone on the offensive against the nation’s largest proxy advisors related to what they deemed “radical” agendas in providing proxy advice. In Texas, two of the largest proxy advisors, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), punched first, filing separate complaints in federal court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity, challenging the facial and as applied constitutionality of Senate Bill 2337 (“S.B. 2337” or “the Act”). The Act would require all proxy advisory services to disclose advice or recommendations that are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” Advice and/or a recommendation is defined as being “for nonfinancial reasons” when it “is wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors” including “an environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goal,” “diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)”, or “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Both Glass Lewis and ISS seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 2337 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they allege the Act violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, infringes upon their freedom of association, and is unconstitutionally vague. Glass Lewis also argues that the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and that it is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

On July 23, 2025, the White House released Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan (“the Plan”) the Trump Administration’s most significant policy statement on artificial intelligence to date.

In May 2025, the Trump Administration, asserting Executive authority, terminated the three Democratic Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. On June 13, 2025, a Maryland district court aborted the without-cause termination while a legal challenge proceeds, leaving the Commissioners in place.

On July 14, 2025, the FTC announced its enforcement action against telemedicine company NextMed over charges it used misleading prices, fake reviews and deceptive weight-loss claims to sell GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. The FTC has now settled its charges that NextMed used deceptive practices to lure consumers into buying their weight-loss membership programs that had hidden terms and conditions. With the rise of both authentic and counterfeit GLP-1s throughout the nation and the proliferation of the availability of GLP-1s from telemedicine/telehealth companies, online pharmacies and medspas, this announcement is a sign that the federal government will actively monitor these entities to ensure consumers are getting genuine, authentic GLP-1s, that consumers are making informed decisions about weight-loss drugs, and that consumers are not being deceived and duped in the frenzy over GLP-1s.

On June 12, 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Guardian Flight I[i] and Guardian Flight II[ii] that the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) does not confer a private right of action on parties to confirm an Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) award in court. The Fifth Circuit is the first United States Court of Appeals to weigh in on the issue, which has divided some district courts. On July 11, 2025 the Fifth Circuit denied Appellant’s request for en banc review of the Court’s finding that the NSA lacks a private right of action.[iii] The panel’s ruling is now final and controlling precedent for the Fifth Circuit unless overturned by the Supreme Court.

On July 8, 2025, the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Negative Option Rule, also known as the Click-to-Cancel Rule, on procedural grounds. The Click-to-Cancel Rule, which provided a streamlined path for consumers to cancel subscription services in a few clicks of a mouse, was scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025, but the Court found that the FTC had failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements.

On June 27, in Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue “nationwide”—or, using the Court’s preferred parlance, “universal”—injunctions. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that whether Congress vested the judiciary with such power depends on the existence of a founding-era antecedent to the practice of universal injunctions. Finding none, the Court held that universal injunctions fall outside a federal court’s equitable authority.

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) are voluntary, environmental or public health projects that parties subject to environmental enforcement proceedings can propose as part of an administrative, civil, or criminal settlement. SEPs are unique and used specifically in environmental enforcement cases in part because (1) many environmental law statutes do not require a showing of harm to prove a violation; thus, redressing harm, outside of equitable relief, is not usually statutorily required; and (2) pollution is a public harm that is hard to redress, both individually and collectively.

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court held that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). In the Grokster case, the Supreme Court found that peer-to-peer file sharing companies could be liable for copyright infringement for their users’ deployment of file sharing software. There, the Court found that liability was warranted because the file sharing companies knew that its users were infringing, and the companies materially contributed to that infringement.

Over the past several months, hundreds of businesses across California have been served with Notices of Violation (NOVs) of California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) for issuing thermal receipts at the register and using thermal labels and stickers in their stores. The targeted businesses include large and small retailers, restaurants, banks, gas stations, and grocers.

On June 25, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the agenda for its July 9, 2025 Workshop exploring the characterization of gender-affirming health care as involving consumer deception or unfair trade practices. Health care providers, plans, and related businesses should anticipate that investigations and lawsuits related to gender-affirming care will follow under federal unfair competition law and, perhaps first, under state unfair trade practices laws.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been credited with “creating” the internet by immunizing websites and platforms from lawsuits arising from the content posted by third-party users. Specifically, an internet company is not liable for publishing or posting content drafted by another person under conventional common law tort theories such as defamation or slander, however loathsome, violent or otherwise hateful that content is.  At the same time, Section 230 also immunizes a website or platform that engages in good-faith moderation of content it deems to violate its terms of use/conditions or community standards. 

Crowell attorneys have closely monitored developments related to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). In particular, we have watched plaintiffs attempt to extend this wiretapping law to encompass website chatbot communications that are managed by third parties.

The English Court of Appeal has recently handed down a helpful judgment, clarifying the test for breach of duty in cases of alleged negligence by valuers. In short: (i) the valuation must fall outside a reasonable margin of error of the ‘correct’ valuation; and (ii) the valuer must have carried out the valuation in a way that no reasonably competent valuer could have done (the Bolam test).

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the Department of Justice, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador of the Federal Trade Commission, have each looked to the history of conservative voices to chart a path forward for antitrust enforcement in the second Trump Administration. Within the last three weeks, AAG Slater delivered remarks to the University of Notre Dame Law School, Chairman Ferguson delivered remarks at the International Competition Network Annual Conference, and Commissioner Meador shared his policy aims in an FTC paper and a speech to George Washington University. The enforcers emphasized the need for robust antitrust enforcement to break private monopolies and other anticompetitive arrangements. These enforcers appear to align on priorities, though differing slightly in methods, grounding their rationale in what they describe as traditional conservative values, while at the same time distancing themselves from previous Republican administrations which have emphasized anti-cartel policies and an otherwise preference for limited intervention in markets.

On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp, v. Luke Davis, et al., No. 22-55873. The Supreme Court had granted a petition for writ of certiorari in the case as to the following question: “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.” The Justices focused much of the oral argument on whether the case was moot, suggesting they may not reach the merits. And when soliciting argument on the merits, the Court appeared divided as to how to answer the question.

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).