Insights

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently issued a landmark judgment in the LEGO Group case (C-211/24) concerning the scope of EU design protection for modular systems. This recent judgment addresses fundamental questions regarding the protection and enforcement of Community designs for modular products, specifically the LEGO Group’s iconic toy building blocks and parts:

Last year, the California General Assembly passed the California AI Transparency Act (CAITA), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 19, 2024, and goes into effect on January 1, 2026. This may change because this year, the same General Assembly passed AB 853, an amendment to CAITA with potentially far-reaching implications.

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.

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.

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 May 14, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced that it will keep the current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (“NPDWR”) for perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), while extending the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. EPA further announced it plans to rescind requirements in those regulations applicable to other PFAS and mixtures of certain PFAS in drinking water. The NPDWR consists of legally enforceable primary standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems and guide EPA’s enforcement of the SDWA. This announcement follows EPA’s April 28, 2025 press release outlining its priorities for PFAS enforcement, which included 21 actions EPA intends to take to address PFAS and “engage with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that ensures the polluter pays and passive receivers are protected.”

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

On January 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could resolve whether putative Rule 23(b)(3) classes may be certified in the federal courts when some of the class members are uninjured. Or, as the Supreme Court put the certified question in the case, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp, v. Luke Davis, et al., No. 22-55873:

For years, consumers have initiated legal actions against cosmetic companies alleging a causal relationship between the use of certain cosmetic products containing talc (such as baby powder) and the development of various cancers, commonly mesothelioma and ovarian cancer, with varied results. Below, we discuss a recent proposed rule from FDA proposing asbestos testing for cosmetics containing talc and potential impacts on ongoing and new consumer litigation.

On December 11, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a final guidance concerning the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (“MoCRA”)’s facility registration and product listing submission requirements, which FDA began enforcing on July 1, 2024. This guidance includes key FDA recommendations and instructions, including the following:

On October 25, 2024, FDA issued final guidance to the tattoo industry on the preparation, packing and holding of tattoo inks aimed at preventing the risk of microbial contamination. FDA is getting involved because tattoo ink is considered a cosmetic product regulated by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA).