Insights

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).

On July 29, 2024, FDA announced that it added two new features to Cosmetics Direct, the electronic submission portal used for the facility registration and product listing requirements now in effect under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). The portal now allows responsible persons to “discontinue” and “relist” cosmetic products.

A warning letter posted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 18, 2024 offers a first glimpse into how FDA may enforce its new regulatory scheme for products that fall within the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA)’s purview. While MoCRA was enacted in December 2022 and many of its provisions became enforceable on December 29, 2023, until now, many have wondered how FDA will exercise its new enforcement powers.

On May 14, 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (the “ACM”) revealed that they were fining Epic Games 1,125,000 Euros for violating “professional diligence,” following ACM’s 2023 finding that the developer of Fortnite created an environment that pressured children into make purchases in its video game. In issuing the fine, the Decision declared that “ACM is making it known that unfair treatment of children in the digital world is particularly grave and will be dealt with severely.” 

Talc is a mineral ingredient used in many cosmetic and personal care products, including baby powder, root touch-up products, and blush. Because both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in underground deposits, there is risk for contamination of asbestos in talc-based products.

On April 19, 2024, EPA signed the highly anticipated final rule designating two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  At the same time, David M. Uhlmann, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the EPA, released an enforcement policy memorandum that provides “direction to all EPA enforcement and compliance staff about how EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion under CERCLA in matters involving PFAS, just as EPA exercises enforcement discretion regarding other hazardous substances.”  This alert summarizes key points from the enforcement policy and flags various uncertainties that lie ahead. 

For the RSL, EPA regions should now use an RSL of 200 parts per million (ppm). (Before this new guidance, the RSL was 400 ppm.) However, EPA regions should use an RSL of 100 ppm if an additional source of lead is identified (e.g., lead water service lines, lead-based paint, or non-attainment areas where the air lead concentrations exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]). The recommended RSL of 100 ppm considers aggregate lead exposure and increased risk to children living in communities with multiple sources of lead contamination.