Insights

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision.

Because effective Directors & Officers insurance (D&O) is becoming even more important for companies and their leaders, particularly for peace of mind and financial soundness in our highly litigious society, we provide this coverage alert.  

From 1 April 2026, a major new transparency requirement under the Procurement Act 2023 will take effect pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 4) Regulations 2025.

While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs.  For a detailed analysis of the decision, please see our Trade Group’s full alert.

On January 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled favorably for policyholders in a major ongoing cyber-insurance dispute between Southwest Airlines and Liberty Insurance when it accepted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc., Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2218-E, the court reinforced critical legal protections for policyholders facing coverage denials. 

In GuideOne National Insurance Co. v. Systems 2000 Plumbing Service, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed whether excess insurer GuideOne was required to provide coverage under a “follow form” excess policy based on mutual mistake or illusory coverage principles. The insured, Systems 2000, is a plumbing contractor that worked exclusively in residential apartment buildings. It held a $2 million primary general liability insurance policy with Travelers and a $4 million excess insurance policy with GuideOne, both of which were effective March 15, 2021. Eight days later, there was a fire in a Manhattan apartment building where Systems 2000 had been performing work. Systems 2000 made timely claims under both policies for coverage related to the fire.

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) is celebrating its 10th anniversary.  After many years of consideration, in 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the DTSA.  Patterned on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act adopted in most states, the DTSA creates a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets and thereby gives litigants a direct avenue into federal court.  Since then, the federal courts have been grappling with how to manage DTSA cases.  One issue still to be resolved is the absence of model jury instructions in most jurisdictions.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an unprecedented investigative sweep into “surveillance pricing” practices by grocers, hotels, and retailers, marking the first state-level inquiry targeting personalized pricing under data privacy laws.

California state and federal courts continue to see extensive litigation involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). When enacted in 1967, CIPA targeted traditional telephone wiretapping. However, its reach has expanded as new technologies enter the market. Today, private CIPA claims often concern website tracking and a business’s choice to embed analytic tools on its website.

2026 will be a significant year for retailers and e-commerce companies, with significant changes on the horizon that will affect the entire industry and ecosystem. Potential headwinds and developments in product safety, pricing, artificial intelligence, data privacy, website compliance, and environmental responsibility are expected. But amidst these changes, there are likely significant opportunities that retail and e-commerce businesses can capitalize on.

In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court significantly constrained the equitable authority of federal district courts to grant universal or nationwide injunctive relief, clarifying that, with specific exceptions, a federal court’s power to grant relief is limited to the parties before it. When it was issued, many bemoaned CASA’s implications for preventing government overreach.

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.

On December 22, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took its first step in enforcing its August 2024 Consumer Review Rule (“Rule”) that regulates online companies’ moderation and curation of user reviews, by issuing warning letters to 10 unidentified companies alerting them of their potential violations of the Rule, and cautioning that continued noncompliance could lead to enforcement action and substantial civil penalties. The FTC warning letters directed each recipient to immediately cease and desist from any non-compliant practices and required the company to confirm in writing the steps taken to ensure ongoing compliance with the Rule.

In October 2025, the Second Circuit addressed a recurring procedural issue: the standard of review district judges must apply to objections to magistrate judge reports and recommendations (“R&Rs”) on dispositive motions. In Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP, the Second Circuit clarified that district judges are required to conduct a de novo review of any portion of an R&R to which a party has made timely and specific objections—even when those objections restate arguments previously made before the magistrate judge. This decision resolves confusion stemming from district courts that have limited de novo review to "new" arguments, and it sets clear expectations for how parties should challenge R&Rs going forward.

As microplastics begin making headlines and sparking scientific inquiry into the impacts of these pervasive particles, state legislators, regulators, and law enforcers—as well as private plaintiffs’ counsel—are taking action. In California, a bipartisan coalition of legislators passed AB 823, expanding the scope of an existing state ban on products containing plastic microbeads. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, citing concerns that the ban would inadvertently slow the adoption of non-plastic alternatives.

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.

Rule 16.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, titled “Multidistrict Litigation,” takes effect today, December 1, 2025. The adoption of this rule provides a long-awaited framework specific to district courts’ management of MDL proceedings. However, many critics of the new rule are concerned that it does not impose mandatory obligations on MDL courts, and thus lacks the teeth required to establish meaningful change.

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.

President Trump is preparing to sign an Executive Order that would seek to forestall state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) by threatening federal lawsuits and the withholding of some federal funds. The draft, unsigned six-page Executive Order, “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” (EO), the text of which has been circulating publicly since November 19, would declare it the policy of the Administration “to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI.”