Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Uncovers Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices

The Federal Trade Commission’s initial findings from its surveillance pricing market study revealed that details like a person’s precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services.

The staff perspective is based on an examination of documents obtained by FTC staff’s 6(b) orders sent to several companies in July aiming to better understand the “shadowy market that third-party intermediaries use to set individualized prices for products and services based on consumers’ characteristics and behaviors, like location, demographics, browsing patterns and shopping history.”

Staff found that consumer behaviors ranging from mouse movements on a webpage to the type of products that consumers leave unpurchased in an online shopping cart can be tracked and used by retailers to tailor consumer pricing.

“Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.”

The FTC’s study of the 6(b) documents is still ongoing. The staff perspective is based on an initial analysis of documents provided by Mastercard, Accenture, PROS, Bloomreach, Revionics and McKinsey & Co.

The FTC’s 6(b) study focuses on intermediary firms, which are the middlemen hired by retailers that can algorithmically tweak and target their prices. Instead of a price or promotion being a static feature of a product, the same product could have a different price or promotion based on a variety of inputs—including consumer-related data and their behaviors and preferences, the location, time, and channels by which a consumer buys the product, according to the perspective.

The agency will only release information obtained from a 6(b) study as long as all data has been aggregated or anonymized to protect confidential trade secrets from company respondents, and therefore the staff perspective only includes hypothetical examples of surveillance pricing.

The staff perspective found that some 6(b) respondents can determine individualized and different pricing and discounts based on granular consumer data, like a cosmetics company targeting promotions to specific skin types and skin tones. The perspective also found that the intermediaries the FTC examined can show higher priced products based on consumers’ search and purchase activity.

As one hypothetical outlined, a consumer who is profiled as a new parent may intentionally be shown higher priced baby thermometers on the first page of their search results.

The FTC staff found that the intermediaries worked with at least 250 clients that sell goods or services ranging from grocery stores to apparel retailers. The FTC found that widespread adoption of this practice may fundamentally upend how consumers buy products and how companies compete.

As the FTC continues its work in this area, it issued a request for information seeking public comment on consumers’ experiences with surveillance pricing. The RFI also asked for comments from businesses about whether surveillance pricing tools can lead to competitors gaining an unfair advantage, and whether gig workers or employees have been impacted by the use of surveillance pricing to determine their compensation.

The Commission voted 3-2 to allow staff to issue the report. Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak issued a dissenting statement related to the release of the initial research summaries.

The FTC has additional resources on the interim findings, including a blog post advocating for further engagement with this issue, an issue spotlight with more background and research on surveillance pricing and research summaries based on the staff review and initial insights of 6(b) study documents.

The Lobby Shop: Awaiting Trump’s Second Inauguration: GOP Challenges, Party Divisions, and What Lies Ahead [Podcast]

In the Lobby Shop’s first episode of 2025, co-hosts Liam Donovan, Caitlin Sickles and Dylan Pasiuk convene to analyze the political environment ahead of President-elect Trump’s second inauguration. The group explores the challenges facing Speaker Johnson in a very narrowly divided Congress, the enduring influence of Trump on the Republican Party and the Democrats’ growing sense of resignation in legislative struggles. The discussion also highlights the ongoing confirmation hearings and the outsized role of figures like Elon Musk in shaping party dynamics. As they look ahead to the next administration, the hosts wonder what these developments mean for Republicans’ leadership and direction.

The DEI Stalemate: Paying the Price for the Wrong Move

In a unique, interactive session that was part of the firm’s annual In-House Counsel seminar, participants evaluated potential DEI outcomes by analyzing three fictional scenarios. With elements pulled from real-life cases, the discussion illustrated how the stakes can become increasingly high with DEI practices.

Each participant assumed a different role, from in-house counsel and employee to accuser and accused, creating a lively examination of the benefits of DEI and the challenges associated with implementation, as well as how to develop solutions for evolving issues in the DEI landscape.

The discussion was led by Ken Gray, leader of the Labor and Employment Law Group, X. Lightfoot, an employment and personal injury attorney, and Avery J. Locklear, a labor and employment attorney.

The Technology Company Scenario

The first scenario involved a well-intentioned technology company that recently hired a new SVP in charge of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Jordan Ellis. The business in question is a tech leader with over 10,000 employees across the U.S.

Ellis was asked to perform an assessment of the company’s workforce and leadership diversity. He found a number of areas in need of improvement, including female representation in leadership, Black/African American representation in leadership, and Asian/Hispanic representation in leadership.

Tasked with improving these metrics by the CEO, Ellis re-evaluated the Director of Communications role held by John Roe, a White man with a strong track record. Ellis then made the decision to inform Roe of a strategic shift within the company and relieved him of his duties.

The role was split into two new positions that were filled by two qualified deputies: one a White woman, the other a Black woman. Ellis believed the move aligned with the company’s DEI goals, representing a strategic step in making the leadership more inclusive and diverse.

Potential Response to Litigation?

The audience was asked to determine if any possible defense asserted by the company in response to a claim made by Roe represented a house of cards. “This was a fairly clear example of discrimination in relation to Title VII,” noted Gray, “which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”

The scenario was based on a real case, Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc. “In this case, a white management level employee who received above average evaluations got the axe,” said Gray. “It was a one-week jury trial, and the jury awarded $10 million.”

The decision made clear that it is permissible for employers to use DEI programs; however, these programs may not form the basis for adverse employment decisions.

“Some call this reverse discrimination, but I just call it discrimination. It’s important to note that the Act doesn’t say in regard to sex, the female sex, or in regard to race, the Black race or the Brown race. It just says race, it just says sex,” Gray explained.

The case established a significant precedent and illustrated a pitfall associated with poorly implemented DEI programs.

A Venture Capital Fund’s Contested Contest

The next scenario involved a venture capital fund interested in supporting businesses led by women of color. To close the funding gap, the fund created a grant contest with a prize of $50,000, growth tools, and mentorship opportunities.

Eligibility was open to Black women who were U.S. residents, with businesses that were at least 51 percent Black woman-owned. The audience discussed potential legal issues an in-house attorney could face as a result of the contest, which included an entry form with official competition rules.

The rules were explicit, stating in all caps that, “BY ENTERING THIS CONTEST, YOU AGREE TO THESE OFFICIAL RULES, WHICH ARE A CONTRACT…”

Two companies with owners who were not Black women were rejected after submitting applications for the contest. The Chief Legal Officers for both companies, Vegan Now and Well Soul, were members of the Collective of Corporate Counsel (CCC), a national bar association promoting the common business interests of in-house counsel through education, networking, and advocacy.

Would it be permissible for CCC to sue on behalf of Vegan Now and Well Soul? Did the rules on the entry form constitute a contract? The audience considered these and other questions.

The contention of CCC was that the form constituted a contract since the potential contest winners entered into a bargain-for-exchange when they applied. CCC’s argument was based on 42 USC § 1981, a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts.

CCC also contended that the contest violated section 1981 due to its terms, as it categorically excluded non-black applicants from eligibility because of race. “If this sounds familiar, the reason is that it mirrors the factual pattern of a case that went before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,” commented Lightfoot.

The case involved the American Alliance for Equal Rights and a venture capital fund out of Atlanta, the Fearless Fund. “Ultimately, the court ruled that the membership organization did have standing to sue on behalf of its members, and the contest likely violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,” added Lightfoot.

The Fearless Fund settled the lawsuit and discontinued the contest as a response.

Breaking Boundaries Baristas

In the final scenario, the team explored how a well-intentioned coffee shop owner brewed trouble in her organization with a DEI policy gone wrong. Hiring people of diverse backgrounds and creating a welcoming environment for her team was a central focus for the owner, Linda Harper, who operates three local branches with 20 employees.

One of Linda’s employees, Sam Rowe, was assigned female at birth. “Sam has been living as a man and recently shared that his new pronouns are he/him,” said Locklear. “Though Sam’s announcement was mostly accepted, some of the team didn’t felt comfortable with his transition.”

A heterosexual female colleague, Olivia Spencer, struggled to adapt to Sam’s pronouns and had to be corrected multiple times. A heterosexual male colleague, Ben Paulson, admits the transition makes him somewhat uncomfortable. However, he has respected Sam’s pronouns.

Locklear asked whether Olivia’s and Ben’s behavior has risen to the level of creating a hostile work environment. The answer, of course, is that it depends and, as it is with so many other topics within the legal profession, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, bright-line rule that can be applied to every situation.

Slurs and the misuse of pronouns by co-workers can encourage similar behavior from customers. To illustrate this idea, Gray described a case in which he assisted a client in 2016. “People would approach the coworkers and ask whether their colleague was a man or a woman,” he said. “This would occasionally result in slurs, and the customers would pick up on that, perpetuating the hostile work environment.”

The facts have to be evaluated in the context of every situation. “It boils down to whether the behavior was so severe and pervasive it created a hostile work environment. There’s no magic number of how many harassing events need to occur,” advised Locklear. “It’s based on all the circumstances.”

The EEOC issued new guidance on transgender employees in the workplace in April of 2024. A key aspect of this guidance was the misgendering of employees in front of coworkers and customers to the extent it made them uncomfortable.

“If it’s a long-term employee, there are going to be mistakes, and everyone has to give each other a little bit of grace, but whenever in doubt, you can always just use that person’s name,” added Locklear.

Mandatory Work Events

In an effort to foster unity and celebrate Pride Month, Linda organizes a mandatory drag queen night for the entire workforce. Her hope is that an evening with celebrity impersonator, Holly Wood, could bring the team together through a shared experience emphasizing inclusion.

While some employees are pumped about the event, some, including Ben and Olivia, are not comfortable attending. Sam also feels uneasy, sensing the event is directed at him in a way that feels awkward instead of supportive.

Ben asks to be excused from the event; Linda reiterates that attendance is mandatory and disciplinary action will follow if employees fail to attend.

The day after, Olivia tells Linda she feels the company is “too woke,” and she no longer enjoys working there. Sam describes new tension with his colleagues and feels some are treating him differently as a result of the event.

After some reflection, Linda realizes her approach may have inadvertently caused discomfort among the employees she wanted to support with her commitment to inclusivity. To move forward, she begins considering new ways to promote understanding and respect within her team.

The audience considered what went wrong and there was vast consensus that the event should not have been mandatory.

“This could have been fun, but making it mandatory was a bad idea, especially since it was a social event and an employee had already expressed discomfort,” Locklear explained.

Though the scenario was farfetched, it holds a number of important lessons for employers, Locklear added. “One is to educate your workforce,” she said. “Another could be to update your policies so a person who is transitioning knows who they can talk to about it.”

Any information provided in confidence should remain confidential. Being open about new ideas and willing to have frank discussions with employees is advisable. Assessing whether dress codes are gender-neutral could be another proactive way to foster a positive work environment.

Conclusion

The employment attorneys highlighted well-intentioned actors taking steps that caused issues for members of their fictional workforces. The team cautions in-house counsel against unintended consequences and offers training insights in Part 2 of the session.

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban Law

On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”), which restricts companies from making foreign adversary controlled applications available (i.e., on an app store) and from providing hosting services with respect to such apps. The Act does not apply to covered applications for which a qualified divestiture is executed.

The result of this ruling is that TikTok, an app which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance and qualifies as a foreign adversary controlled application under the Act, will face a ban when the law enters into effect on January 19, 2025. To continue operations in the United States in compliance with the Act, the law requires that ByteDance sell the U.S. arm of the company such that it is no longer controlled by a company in a foreign adversary country. In the absence of a divestiture, U.S. companies that make the app available or provide hosting services for the app will face enforcement under the Act.

It remains to be seen how the Act will be enforced in light of the upcoming changes to the U.S. administration. TikTok has 170 million users in the United States.

Direct Employer Assistance and 401(k) Plan Relief Options for Employees Affected by California Wildfires

In the past week, devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, California, have caused unprecedented destruction across the region, leading to loss of life and displacing tens of thousands. While still ongoing, the fires already have the potential to be the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Quick Hits

Employers can assist employees affected by the Los Angeles wildfires through qualified disaster relief payments under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are tax-exempt for employees and deductible for employers.
The SECURE Act 2.0 allows employees impacted by federally declared disasters to take immediate distributions from their 401(k) plans without the usual penalties, provided their plan includes such provisions.

As impacted communities band together and donations begin to flow to families in need, many employers are eager to take steps to assist employees affected by the disaster.

As discussed below, the Internal Revenue Code provides employers with the ability to make qualified disaster relief payments to employees in need. In addition, for employers maintaining a 401(k) plan, optional 401(k) plan provisions can enable employees to obtain in-service distributions based on hardship or federally declared disaster.

Internal Revenue Code Section 139 Disaster Relief

Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for a federal income exclusion for payments received due to a “qualified disaster.” Under Section 139, an employer can provide employees with direct cash assistance to help them with costs incurred in connection with the disaster. Employees are not responsible for income tax, and payments are generally characterized as deductible business expenses for employers. Neither the employees nor the employer are responsible for federal payroll taxes associated with such payments.

“Qualified disasters” include presidentially declared disasters, including natural disasters and the coronavirus pandemic, terrorist or military events, common carrier accidents (e.g., passenger train collisions), and other events that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury concludes are catastrophic. On January 8, 2025, President Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration for California based on the Los Angeles wildfires.

In addition to the requirement that payments be made pursuant to a qualified disaster, payments must be for the purpose of reimbursing reasonable and necessary “personal, family, living, or funeral expenses,” costs of home repair, and to reimburse the replacement of personal items due to the disaster. Payment cannot be made to compensate employees for expenses already compensated by insurance.

Employers implementing qualified disaster relief plans should maintain a written policy explaining that payments are intended to approximate the losses actually incurred by employees. In the event of an audit, the employer should also be prepared to substantiate payments by retaining communications with employees and any expense documentation. Employers should also review their 401(k) plan documents to determine that payments are not characterized as deferral-eligible compensation and consider any state law implications surrounding cash payments to employees.

401(k) Hardship and Disaster Distributions

In addition to the Section 139 disaster relief described above, employees may be able to take an immediate distribution from their 401(k) plan under the hardship withdrawal rules and disaster relief under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).

Hardship Distributions

If permitted under the plan, a participant may apply for and receive an in-service distribution based on an unforeseen hardship that presents an “immediate and heavy” financial need. Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the participant’s unique facts and circumstances. Under the hardship distribution rules, expenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by an employee on account of a federally declared disaster declaration are considered immediate and heavy provided that the employee’s principal residence or principal place of employment was in the disaster zone.

The amount of a hardship distribution must be limited to the amount necessary to satisfy the need. If the employee has other resources available to meet the need, then there is no basis for a hardship distribution. In addition, hardship distributions are generally subject to income tax in the year of distribution and an additional 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if the participant is below age 59 and a half. The participant must submit certification regarding the hardship to the plan sponsor, which the plan sponsor is then entitled to rely upon.

Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions

Separate from the hardship distribution rules described above, SECURE 2.0 provides special rules for in-service distributions from retirement plans and for plan loans to certain “qualified individuals” impacted by federally declared major disasters. These special in-service distributions are not subject to the same immediate and heavy need requirements and tax rules as hardship distributions and are eligible for repayment.

SECURE 2.0 allows for the following disaster relief:

Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions. Qualified individuals may receive up to $22,000 of Disaster Recovery Distributions (QDRD) from eligible retirement plans (certain employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as section 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and IRAs). There are also special rollover and repayment rules available with respect to these distributions.
Increased Plan Loans. SECURE 2.0 provides for an increased limit on the amount a qualified individual may borrow from an eligible retirement plan. Specifically, an employer may increase the dollar limit under the plan for plan loans up to the full amount of the participant’s vested balance in their plan account, but not more than $100,000 (reduced by the amount of any outstanding plan loans). An employer can also allow up to an additional year for qualified individuals to repay their plan loans.

Under SECURE 2.0, an individual is considered a qualified individual if:

the individual’s principal residence at any time during the incident period of any qualified disaster is in the qualified disaster area with respect to that disaster; and
the individual has sustained an economic loss by reason of that qualified disaster.

A QDRD must be requested within 180 days after the date of the qualified disaster declaration (i.e., January 8, 2025, for the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires). Unlike hardship distributions, a QDRD is not subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for participants under age 59 and a half. Further, unlike hardship distributions, taxation of the QDRD can be spread over three tax years and a qualified individual may repay all or part of the amount of a QDRD within a three-year period beginning on the day after the date of the distribution.

As indicated above, like hardship distributions, QDRDs are an optional plan feature. Accordingly, in order for QDRDs to be available, the plan’s written terms must provide for them.

Bridging the Gap: How AI is Revolutionizing Canadian Legal Tech

While Canadian law firms have traditionally lagged behind their American counterparts in adopting legal tech, the AI explosion is closing the gap. This slower adoption rate isn’t due to a lack of innovation—Canada boasts a thriving legal tech sector. Instead, factors like a smaller legal market and stricter privacy regulations have historically hindered technology uptake. This often resulted in a noticeable delay between a product’s US launch and its availability in Canada.

Although direct comparisons are challenging due to the continuous evolution of legal tech, the recent announcements and release timelines for major AI-powered tools point to a notable shift in how the Canadian market is being prioritized. For instance, Westlaw Edge was announced in the US in July 2018, but the Canadian launch wasn’t announced until September 2021—a gap of over three years. Similarly, Lexis+ was announced in the US in September 2020, with the Canadian announcement following in August 2022. However, the latest AI products show a different trend. Thomson Reuters’ CoCounsel Core was announced in the US in November 2023 and shortly followed in Canada in February 2024. The announcement for Lexis+ AI came in October 2023 in the US and July 2024 in Canada. This rapid succession of announcements suggests that the Canadian legal tech market is no longer an afterthought.

The Canadian federal government has demonstrated a strong commitment to fostering AI innovation. It has dedicated CAD$568 million to its national AI strategy, with the goals of fostering AI research and development, building a skilled workforce in the field, and creating robust industry standards for AI systems. This investment should help Canadian legal tech companies, such as Clio, Kira Systems, Spellbook, and Blue J Legal, all headquartered in Canada. With the Canadian government’s focus on establishing Canada as a hub for AI and innovation, these companies stand to benefit significantly from increased funding and talent attraction.

While the Canadian government is actively investing in AI innovation, it’s also taking steps to ensure responsible development through proposed legislation, which could impact the availability of AI legal tech products in Canada. In June 2022, the Government of Canada introduced the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which aims to regulate high-impact AI systems. While AI tools used by law firms for tasks like legal research and document review likely fall outside this initial scope, AIDA’s evolving framework could still impact the sector. For example, the Act’s emphasis on mitigating bias and discrimination may lead to greater scrutiny of AI algorithms used in legal research, requiring developers to demonstrate fairness and transparency.

While AIDA may present hurdles for US companies entering the Canadian market with AI products, it could conversely provide a competitive advantage for Canadian companies seeking to expand into Europe. This is because AIDA, despite having some material differences, aligns more closely with the comprehensive approach in the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act).

While US companies are working to comply with the EU AI Act, Canadian companies may have an advantage. Although AIDA isn’t yet in force and has some differences from the EU AI Act, it provides a comprehensive regulatory framework that Canadian legal tech leaders are already engaging with. This engagement with AIDA could prove invaluable to Canadian legal tech companies as AI regulation continues to evolve globally.

Canadian companies looking to leverage their experiences with AIDA for European expansion will nonetheless encounter some material differences. For instance, the EU AI Act casts a wider net, regulating a broader range of AI systems than AIDA. The EU AI Act’s multi-tiered risk-based system is designed to address a wider spectrum of concerns, capturing even “limited-risk” AI systems with specific transparency obligations. Furthermore, tools used for legal interpretation could be classified as “high-risk” systems under the EU AI Act, triggering more stringent requirements.

In conclusion, the rise of generative AI is not only revolutionizing Canadian legal tech and closing the gap with the US, but it could also be positioning Canada as a key player in the global legal tech market. While AIDA’s impact remains to be seen, its emphasis on responsible AI could shape the development and deployment of AI-powered legal tools in Canada.

FDA Finalizes Lead Restrictions in Processed Foods for Babies and Young Children

On January 6, 2025, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA, or the Agency) issued a final guidance ,“Action Levels for Lead in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children: Guidance for Industry” which aims to regulate lead levels in processed foods for infants and toddlers under two years old.
As we have previously blogged, in 2021, FDA initiated its Closer to Zero policy which identified actions the Agency will take to reduce exposure to toxic elements, including lead, to as low as possible while maintaining access to nutritious foods.
As part of this initiative, FDA has also evaluated mercury, cadmium, and arsenic in foods intended for babies and young children, as well as lead in juices. Under this initiative, FDA has prioritized babies and young children as they are especially vulnerable to lead exposure, which accumulates in the body over time.
Lead is naturally present in the environment, but human activities have also released elevated levels of lead, contaminating soil, water, and air. This contamination can affect crops used in food production.
Lead exposures can lead to developmental harm to children by causing learning disabilities, behavioral difficulties, lowered IQ, and may be associated with immunological, cardiovascular, and reproductive and or/developmental effects.
To address this concern, FDA established the following action levels in the final guidance for processed foods intended for babies and young children:
- 10 parts per billion (ppb) for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures (including grain- and meat-based mixtures), yogurts, custards/puddings, and single-ingredient meats;
- 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables; and
- 20 ppb for dry infant cereals.
If a processed food intended for babies and young children reaches or exceeds the aforementioned levels of lead, the product will be considered adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
After publishing the final action levels, the Agency will establish a timeframe for assessing industry’s progress toward meeting the action levels and resume research to determine whether the scientific data supports efforts to further adjust the action levels.

FCC Adopts Report and Order Introducing New Fees Associated with the Robocall Mitigation Database

As I am sure you all know the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) was implemented to further the FCC’s efforts when it comes to protecting America’s networks from illegal robocalls and was birthed out of the TRACED Act. The RMD was put in place to monitor the traffic on our phone networks and to assist in compliance with the rules. While the FCC has expanded the types of service providers who need to file and the requirements, they still felt there were deficiencies with accuracy and up-to-date information. The newly adopted Report and Order is set to help finetune the RMD.

On December 30^th the Commission adopted a Report and Order to further strengthen their efforts and fines and fees associated with the RMD. Companies that are submitting false or inaccurate information may face fines of up to $10,000 for each filing. While failing to keep your company information current might land you a $1,000 fine. There will now be a $100 filing fee associated with your RMD application along with an Annual Recertification filing fee of $100.

Aside from the fine and fees, there are a few additional developments with the RMD, see the complete list below.

Requiring prompt updates when a change to a provider’s information occurs (this must be updated within 10 business days or face a $1,000 fine)
Establishing a higher base forfeiture amount for providers submitting false or inaccurate information ($10,000 fine);
Creating a dedicated reporting portal for deficient filings;
Issuing substantive guidance and filer education;
Developing the use of a two factor authentication log-in solution; and
Requiring providers to recertify their Robocall Mitigation Database filings annually ($100).
Require providers to remit a filing fee for initial and subsequent annual submissions ($100)

Chairwoman Rosenworcel is quoted as saying “Companies using America’s phone networks must be actively involved in protecting consumers from scammers, we are tightening our rules to ensure voice service providers know their responsibilities and help stop junk robocalls. I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support of this effort.”

The new fines and fees will become effective 30 days after publication in the CFR. While the remaining items are still under additional review. We will keep an eye on this and let you know once the Report and Order is published. Read the Report and Order here.

Back to the Antitrust Basics: FTC and DOJ Call for Case-by-Case Enforcement With the Withdrawal of Longstanding Competitor Collaboration Antitrust Guidelines

With the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) withdrawing yet another set of antitrust compliance guidelines last month, companies that collaborate with their competitors — whether directly or through a trade association — are left without any official agency guidance regarding safe harbors, other than the murkier background of a century of antitrust cases. However, the forthcoming change in presidential administrations might provide increased clarity.

The DOJ and FTC in 2023 had earlier withdrawn the decades-old safe harbors for information sharing among competitors, which many companies and associations relied on to tailor their data analytics. Our alert regarding that withdrawal is available here.

The agencies followed up by jointly announcing on December 11, 2024, their withdrawal of the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors (Collaboration Guidelines). The FTC announced the withdrawal of the 24-year-old Collaboration Guidelines following a narrow 3-2 party-line vote. The three Democratic commissioners supported withdrawal, while the two Republican commissioners opposed it.

The Guidelines Are Gone

The Collaboration Guidelines provided detailed guidance about US federal antitrust enforcers’ advice to companies for antitrust compliance when collaborating with competitors. According to the FTC’s press release, the 2000 Collaboration Guidelines “no longer provide reliable guidance about how enforcers assess the legality of collaborations involving competitors.” Instead, the DOJ and FTC encourage businesses thinking about partnering with competitors to “review the relevant statutes and caselaw to assess whether a collaboration would violate the law.”

The Dissents May Portend a Trump Administration Action Item

The FTC’s Republican Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, who likely will be the next FTC chairperson, strongly criticized the withdrawal of the Collaboration Guidelines, arguing in their dissents that the decision was terribly timed and will leave companies without clear guidance:

Improper Timing

They both argued that it was inappropriate for the Commission to make this decision during the lame-duck presidential period, “a mere 40 days before the country inaugurates a new President,” “further compounding today’s poor policy decision.”
Commissioner Ferguson’s dissent indicated that although the FTC seeks to promote “transparency and predictability,” now is not the time to “withdraw existing guidance or to push through revised or new guidance.” Instead, the time left for the Biden-Harris Commission should be reserved to “facilitate an orderly transition.”
Commissioner Holyoak’s dissent conveyed her opposition to the Commission’s decision, stating “The Majority had four years to address its concerns with the Collaboration Guidelines — now is not the time.”

Unclear Guidance

Commissioner Holyoak further expressed her opposition to the withdrawal, stating that the withdrawal announcement happened “without providing any replacement guidance, or even intimating plans for future replacement.” She contended that withdrawal of the Collaboration Guidelines leaves “businesses grasping in the dark.”
Commissioner Ferguson stated the Commission should “revisit its nonbinding guidance to ensure that it properly informs the public of the Commission’s enforcement position” which may become evident with the next Administration.

In response to Commissioners Ferguson and Holyoak, Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, writing for the majority, wrote that the FTC is “not on vacation,” emphasizing that “[t]he American people expect their government to keep working for them even in periods of transition.” Commissioner Bedoya further asserted that he looks forward to working with the incoming Trump Administration with “evolving jurisprudence on competitor collaborations and issue new guidance for the business community.”

What Is Next?

For now, companies should no longer rely on the Collaboration Guidelines and instead must look for guidance in the underlying caselaw that the DOJ and FTC’s guidelines were based upon.

Yet, given the anticipated appointment of Commissioner Ferguson as the next FTC chairperson and his dissenting comments, the incoming Trump Administration might seize the opportunity to revisit the Collaboration Guidelines.

Barring that change in position, as Commissioner Melissa Holyoak indicated, companies will need “antitrust lawyers on speed dial” to obtain specific guidance to navigate case-by-case situations and evaluate the nuances of each project’s antitrust compliance.

2024 Title IX Regulations Vacated Nationwide

On January 9, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of Tennessee v. Cardona, vacating the 2024 Title IX regulations nationwide. The court ruled that the issuance of the 2024 regulations exceeded the Department of Education’s authority and was unconstitutional on multiple grounds.

The ruling may be appealed, but for now, institutions covered by Title IX should revert to compliance with their policies in effect under the 2020 Title IX regulations.

The 2024 Title IX regulations, which took effect on August 1, 2024, had faced several challenges that led to injunctions with varying geographic scopes. As a result, prior to the Cardona decision, the Title IX regulations were only effective in about half of the states across the U.S.

Author: National Law Forum

FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Uncovers Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices

Like this:

The Lobby Shop: Awaiting Trump’s Second Inauguration: GOP Challenges, Party Divisions, and What Lies Ahead [Podcast]

Like this: