Insights

On September 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to certain provisions of California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. This interlocutory ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates why and how state laws can withstand and avoid First Amendment challenges. Second, it showcases the potential difficulties in establishing associational standing on behalf of member technology and digital commerce companies.

The Really Simple Licensing Collective (“RSL Collective”), a nonprofit dedicated to creating collective licensing solutions for content creators and publishers, has announced Really Simple Licensing (“RSL”), a new standard designed to stop crawlers from scraping websites for content without permission or compensation. If adopted, RSL could have major implications for both online platforms and the AI technologies that source content for training data from them.

After months of anticipation, the Senate has received a nomination for a Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) issued its Lapse Plan in advance of the federal government shutdown. The CSPC will furlough 35% of full-time employees, with the overwhelming majority of those retained focused on “protect[ing] life and property.” Under the Lapse Plan, consumer-oriented programs and, notably, civil penalties, will pause for the duration of any shutdown.

The Department of Education (DOE) announced on September 10, 2025, that it will end discretionary funding to several Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) grant programs that, it stated, “discriminate by conferring government benefits exclusively to institutions that meet racial or ethnic quotas.”[1] The agency stated that it would “us[e] its statutory authority to reprogram discretionary funds to programs that do not present such concerns.”[2] This announcement follows a July 2025 decision by the Department of Justice to no longer defend the constitutionality of a provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) that authorizes grant funding to Hispanic-Serving institutions, after determining that such programs “violate the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”[3]

On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a news release announcing an “aggressive[]” “crackdown” on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.  This release came on the heels of a Presidential Memorandum President Trump issued the same day directing HHS to “ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements,” and the FDA to “take action to enforce legal requirements that advertisements for prescription drugs be truthful and not misleading.”

On August 8, 2025, the Attorneys General of 23 Republican-led U.S. states (the “AGs”) sent a letter to Science Based Targets Initiative (“SBTi”), a U.K. non-profit climate organization, expressing concern with the SBTi’s climate initiatives.[1]SBTi had previously received a subpoena from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in connection with his office’s investigation into what he described as a “climate cartel,” which he alleges includes SBTi and CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).[2]

California Governor Gavin Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to sign into law a first-in-the-nation bill that will, if enacted, likely impose significant regulatory obligations and litigation risk on companies deploying AI chatbots in California.

A question often asked by consumer product companies these days is whether the eFiling requirements will go into effect as planned given the political upheaval at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the dismissal of the three Democrat Commissioners. While that is an impossible question to answer with certainty, all signals suggest the requirements will be implemented on schedule for July 8, 2026.

On August 21, the Supreme Court, in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, granted the government’s application for a stay of the district court’s order vacating NIH’s termination of various research grants. The Court denied the government’s application with respect to the district court’s vacatur of related internal guidance documents. The Court’s order impacts federal government grantees who wish to challenge grant terminations in federal court.

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.