Tag: DOJ

DOJ Fighting for E-Sports Player Compensation

The Biden administration continues its campaign against wage suppression as a source of harm to workers, competitive markets, and the economy. In its latest move, the Department of Justice is supporting players in professional e-sports leagues with a suit to stop Overwatch and Call of Duty developer, Activision Blizzard, Inc., from capping player compensation. Unlike salary restrictions in traditional sports leagues, those implemented by Activision were not produced through collective bargaining and, therefore, are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny.

Complaint and Consent Decree

The DOJ filed suit to challenge Activision’s wage restrictions on April 3rd, alleging Activision and independently-owned teams in two e-sports leagues agreed to implement certain wage restrictions, including a “Competitive Balance Tax.” The tax penalizes teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty leagues if player compensation exceeds a threshold set by Activision. According to the complaint, this agreement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The DOJ concurrently filed a consent decree to address the competition issues. If approved by the court, the consent decree would prohibit Activision from implementing any restriction that would limit player compensation directly or indirectly. It would also require Activision to, among other things, certify it has terminated competitive balance taxes and implement antitrust compliance and whistleblower policies.

Ongoing Antitrust Issues Concerning Activision-Microsoft Merger

 While Activision was negotiating the consent decree with the DOJ, its potential parent company, Microsoft, was continuing to defend its proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision. In December 2022, the FTC sued to block the merger, claiming “the largest ever [acquisition] in the video gaming industry” would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors of Xbox and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business. This case remains pending.

[Read Jonathan Rubin’s Dec. 12, 2022, commentary on the FTC’s challenge, titled, “An Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object: Microsoft to Fight FTC Over Activision Deal.”]

Microsoft has had more success with antitrust agencies overseas. While the European Commission initially put the deal on hold in December 2022, Reuters and Polygon.com reported the Commission’s concerns have been mollified by Microsoft’s commitment to offer licenses to rival gaming companies. Polygon has also reported that the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority has “set aside some of its main concerns” about the merger. It quotes the CMA as stating that “the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action.” The deal has also been approved in Japan, Chile, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Serbia, Polygon reports.

Non-Statutory Exemption Inapplicable to E-Sports Salary Restrictions

Readers may be wondering why salary caps are commonplace in traditional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA and NHL but not permitted in e-sports leagues. The key distinction is that the salary caps in traditional sports leagues are negotiated and agreed to by player unions as part of the collective bargaining process. As a result, these salary caps (and the agreements containing them) fall under the “non-statutory antitrust exemption,” which was created by the Supreme Court to resolve the inherent conflict between the underlying goals of antitrust laws and labor laws.

Specifically, the non-statutory exemption relieves parties to an agreement restraining trade from antitrust liability where (1) the restraint primarily affects the parties to the agreement and no one else, (2) the agreement concerns wages, hours, or conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, and (3) the agreement is produced from bona fide, arm’s-length collective bargaining. The restraints at issue here do not satisfy either the first or third prongs because they affect the e-sports players, who were not parties to the agreement, and were not produced through collective bargaining. Therefore, unlike salary restrictions in other professional sports leagues, those agreed to by Activision and the independent teams are subject to the antitrust laws.

© MoginRubin LLP
For more Antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

What You Need to Know About the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch

The Consumer Protection Branch of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is one of the most overlooked and misunderstood parts of the country’s largest law enforcement agency. With a wide field of enforcement, the Branch can pursue civil enforcement actions or even criminal prosecutions against companies based in the United States and even foreign companies doing business in the country.

Here are four things that Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a defense lawyer at Oberheiden P.C., thinks that people and businesses need to know about the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch.

The Wide Reach of “Protecting Consumers”

According to the agency itself, the Consumer Protection Branch “leads Department of Justice enforcement efforts to enforce consumer protection laws that protect Americans’ health, safety, economic security, and identity integrity.” While “identity integrity” is relatively tightly confined to issues surrounding identity theft and the unlawful use of personal data and information, “health,” “safety,” and “economic security” are huge and vaguely defined realms of jurisdiction.

Under the Branch’s enforcement focus or interpretation of its law enforcement mandate, it has the power to prosecute fraud and misconduct in the fields of:

  • Pharmaceuticals and medical devices

  • Food and dietary supplements

  • Consumer fraud, including elder fraud and other scams

  • Deceptive trade practices

  • Telemarketing

  • Data privacy

  • Veterans fraud

  • Consumer product safety and tampering

  • Tobacco products

Business owners and executives are often surprised to learn that the Consumer Protection Branch has so many oversight powers. But the Consumer Protection Branch’s wide reach is not limited to the laws that it can invoke and enforce; it also has a wide geographical reach, as well. In order to carry out its objective, the Branch brings both criminal and affirmative civil enforcement cases throughout the country. In one recent case, the Consumer Protection Branch prosecuted a drug manufacturer for violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) after the drug maker hid and destroyed records before an inspection by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug manufacturer, however, was an Indian company that sold several cancer drugs in the U.S. The plant inspection took place in West Bengal, India.

The Branch Has Lots of Laws at Its Disposal

The extremely broad reach of the Consumer Protection Branch comes with a significant implication: There are numerous laws that the Branch can invoke as it regulates and investigates businesses. Many of these are substantive laws that prohibit certain types of conduct, like:

Others, however, are procedural laws, which prohibit using certain means to carry out a crime, like:

  • Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), which is the crime of using the mail system to commit fraud

  • Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which is the crime of using wire, radio, or television communication devices to commit fraud, including the internet

This can mean that many defendants get hit with multiple criminal charges for the same line of conduct, drastically increasing the severity of a criminal case. For example, in one case, a group of pharmacists fraudulently billed insurers for over $900 million in medications that they knew were not issued under a valid doctor-patient relationship. They were charged with misbranding medication and healthcare fraud, in addition to numerous counts of mail fraud for shipping that medication through the mail.

The Branch Has the Power to Pursue Civil and Criminal Sanctions

Lots of business owners and executives are also unaware of the fact that the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch has the power to pursue both civil and criminal cases if the law being enforced allows for it.

This has serious consequences for companies, and not just because the Branch can imprison individuals for putting consumers at risk: It also complicates the strategy for defending against enforcement action.

A good example of how this works in real life is a healthcare fraud allegation that is pursued by the Consumer Protection Branch under the False Claims Act, or FCA, because the alleged fraud implicated money from a government healthcare program, like Medicare or Medicaid. For it to be the crime of healthcare fraud, the Consumer Protection Branch would have to prove that there was an intent to defraud the program. If there is no intent, though, the Branch can still pursue civil penalties.

This complicates the defense strategy because keeping prosecutors from establishing your intent is not the end of the case. It just takes prison time off the table. While this is a big step in protecting your rights and interests, it still leaves you and your company open to civil liability. That liability can be quite substantial, as many anti-fraud laws – including the FCA – impose civil penalties on each violation and impose treble damages, or three times the amount fraudulently obtained.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, a consumer protection defense lawyer at the national law firm Oberheiden P.C., explains, “While relying on a lack of intent defense can work with other criminal offenses, it is a poor choice when fighting against allegations of fraud because it tacitly admits to the fraudulent actions. Enforcement agencies like the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can then easily impose civil liability against your company.”

The Branch Works in Tandem With Other Agencies

The Consumer Protection Branch only has about 200 prosecutors, support professionals, embedded law enforcement agents, and investigators. However, between October 2020 and December 2021, the Branch charged at least 96 individuals and corporations with criminal offenses and another 112 with civil enforcement actions, collecting $6.38 billion in judgments and resolutions.

The Branch can do this in large part because it works closely with other federal law enforcement agencies, like the:

By pooling their resources with other agencies like these, the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch can bring more weight to its enforcement action against your company.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more consumer protection legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

It’s Time To Review Your Online Patient-User Interface: DOJ Issues New Federal Guidance on Telemedicine and Civil Rights Protections

As online digital health services continue to enjoy broader use and appeal, federal regulators are concerned some telemedicine online patient-user interfaces fail to accommodate persons with disabilities and limited English proficiency. Such failures in “product design” can violate federal civil rights laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to new policy guidance jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The document, Nondiscrimination in Telehealth, is specifically directed to companies offering telemedicine services and instructs such covered entities to immediately take specific steps to comply with the various “accessibility duties” under federal civil rights laws. The guidance focuses on ensuring accessibility for two populations of users: 1) people with disabilities and 2) people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Who is Subject to these Rules?

The guidance refers to “covered entities” subject to these rules. Under the rules, “covered entities” are any health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (in addition to programs and activities administered by either a federal executive agency or an entity created by Title I of the Affordable Care Act). While the guidance does not define what constitutes “receiving federal financial assistance”, HHS has historically held that providers who receive federal dollars solely under traditional Medicare Part B were not covered entities. However, a recently-proposed rule suggests HHS will significantly expand the scope of covered entities, and soon. Telemedicine providers should be prepared to comply with these federal laws.

People with Disabilities

The guidance explains that no person with a disability shall – because of the disability – be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a covered entity, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination by a covered entity. The requirements in the guidance is supported by several federal laws, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act Section 1557, and the Rehabilitation Act Section 504.

Applying these federal civil rights protections to telemedicine services, the guidance states companies must make reasonable changes to their policies, practices, or procedures in order to provide “additional support to patients when needed before, during, and after a virtual visit.”

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “additional support” obligations:

  • A dermatology practice that typically limits telehealth appointments to 30 minutes may need to schedule a longer appointment for a patient who needs additional time to communicate because of their disability.

  • A doctor’s office that does not allow anyone but the patient to attend telehealth appointments would have to make reasonable changes to that policy to allow a person with a disability to bring a support person and/or family member to the appointment where needed to meaningfully access the health care appointment.

  • A mental health provider who uses telehealth to provide remote counseling to individuals may need to ensure that the telehealth platform it uses can support effective real-time captioning for a patient who is hard of hearing. The provider may not require patients to bring their own real-time captioner.

  • A sports medicine practice that uses videos to show patients how to do physical therapy exercises may need to make sure that the videos have audio descriptions for patients with visual disabilities.

People with LEP

The second area of the guidance is protections for LEP individuals under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Under Title VI, no person shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

For telemedicine services, the guidance states that the prohibition against national origin discrimination extends to LEP persons. Namely, telemedicine companies must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. Such “meaningful access” includes providing information about the availability of telehealth services, the process for scheduling telehealth appointments, and the appointment itself. In many instances, HHS states, language assistance services are necessary to provide meaningful access and comply with federal law.

These language assistance services can include such measures as oral language assistance performed by a qualified interpreter; in-language communication with a bilingual employee; or written translation of documents performed by a qualified translator

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “meaningful access” obligations:

  • In emails to patients or social media postings about the opportunity to schedule telehealth appointments, a federally assisted health care provider includes a short non-English statement that explains to LEP persons how to obtain, in a language they understand, the information contained in the email or social media posting.

  • An OBGYN who receives federal financial assistance and legally provides reproductive health services, using telehealth to provide remote appointments to patients, provides a qualified language interpreter for an LEP patient. The provider makes sure that their telehealth platform allows the interpreter to join the session. Due to issues of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest (such as in matters involving domestic violence) providers should avoid relying on patients to bring their own interpreter.

What if Making These Changes is Expensive?

While not directly addressed in the guidance, the cost for implementing accessibility measures generally falls on the company itself. Federal ADA regulations prohibit charging patients extra for the cost of providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or similar accommodations. In fact, a covered entity may be required to provide an ASL interpreter even if the cost of the interpreter is greater than the fee received for the telemedicine service itself. With respect to LEP interpreters, HHS issued separate guidance stating it is not sufficient to use “low-quality video remote interpreting services” or “rely on unqualified staff” as translators.

However, companies are not required to offer an aid or service that results in either an undue burden on the company or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the services offered by the company. This is an important counterbalance in the law. Yet, the threshold for what constitutes an “undue burden” on a company or a “fundamental alteration” to the nature of the services is not bright line and requires a fact-specific assessment under the legal requirements.

Conclusion

Telemedicine companies subject to the guidance should heed the government’s warning and look inward on patient-facing elements. The first step is to simply have the website and app platform reviewed (most particularly the patient online user interface) by a qualified third party to determine if its design and features are sufficiently accessible for people with disabilities, as well as LEP persons. That time is also a prudent opportunity to review the user interface to confirm it complies with state telemedicine practice standards, e-commerce rules, electronic signatures or click-sign laws, and privacy/security requirements. Because these laws have undergone rapid and extensive changes during the Public Health Emergency, it is recommended to conduct these assessments on a periodic/annual basis.

If a company believes the expense of making these product design changes to ensure accessibility would be prohibitively expensive, it should check with experienced advisors to determine if the changes would constitute an “undue burden” or “fundamental alteration.” Otherwise, federal guidance is clear that refusing to make reasonable changes can be a violation of federal civil rights laws.

Article By Kate L. Pamperin, Larry S. Perlman, and Nathaniel M. Lacktman of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health and telemedicine legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

DOJ Forces $85M End to “Long-Running Conspiracy” to Suppress Poultry Wages

Three poultry processors and a consulting firm that circulated wage information among them have entered a consent decree with the Department of Justice to end a “long-running conspiracy to exchange information about wages and benefits for poultry processing plant workers and collaborate with their competitors on compensation decisions,” a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The poultry companies — Cargill Inc. and Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Sanderson Farms Inc., and Wayne Farms LLC – agreed to pay nearly $85 million. In addition to the payment, the producers must submit to antitrust monitoring for 10 years.

The decree brings a halt to the exchange of compensation information and deceptive conduct toward chicken growers designed to lower their compensation. The DOJ charged two of the poultry processors – Sanderson Farms, which was just acquired via joint venture between Cargill and Continental Grain Co., and Wayne Farms, owned by Continental – with violating the Packers and Stockyards Act. The companies engaged in deceptive practices via a “tournament system” which pit chicken growers against each other to determine their compensation. Jonathan Meng, meanwhile, president of the data firm Webber, Meng, Sahl & Company, is banned from the industry for his role as information broker for the producers.

Cargill is a privately held, multinational corporation based in Minnetonka, Minn. The corporation’s major businesses are trading, purchasing and distributing grain and other agricultural commodities. In 2021, Cargill generated revenue of about $134.4 billion. In the meat and poultry processing industry, Cargill’s $20 billion in revenue in 2021 put it in third place behind Tyson Foods Inc. ($43 billion) and JBS USA Holdings, Inc. ($39 billion) and one notch ahead of Sysco Corp. ($18 billion).

Just days before the settlement, Bloomberg Law reporter Dan Papsucn wrote, Sanderson Farms was acquired for $4.5 billion via joint venture between Cargill and Continental Grain Co. Wayne Farms was already owned by Continental. The acquisition combined the third and sixth-largest companies in U.S. chicken production to form the new Wayne-Sanderson Farms company. Before they were merged, Sanderson Farms and Wayne Farms annually were generating approximately $3.56 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively.

The DOJ’s investigation continues into the activities of several unnamed co-conspirators.  The government’s suit was filed in federal court in Maryland (U.S. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., et al., No. 1:22-cv-01821 D. Md.).

Increased Federal Attention

The poultry industry case demonstrates that the antitrust law enforcers at DOJ, in addition to those at the Federal Trade Commission, remain dedicated to increasing competition in such concentrated labor markets. Worker mobility is something President Biden has promised to protect. FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan is considering new regulations to ban non-competes and to target them with enforcement actions, according to Wall Street Journal reporters Dave Michaels and Ryan Tracy.

Agreements entered without the cloak of legitimate competitive concerns by employers are called “naked” agreements. In 2016 DOJ and FTC jointly declared that naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements were per se illegal under antitrust laws. If the agreement is separate from or not reasonably necessary to achieve a larger legitimate collaboration between the employers, the agreement is deemed illegal without any inquiry into its competitive effects. Legitimate joint ventures (including, for example, appropriate shared use of facilities) are not considered per se illegal under antitrust laws. For these legitimate ventures the DOJ advocates the “rule of reason” or “quick-look analysis.” Also in 2016, DOJ said it would proceed with criminal actions against naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements.

Of course, support for the legitimacy of non-competes and no-poaching agreements splits along party lines. Sometimes the issue isn’t whether the agreements should be eliminated, but who should eliminate them. The question becomes: Is this the purview of the federal government or is it up to state legislatures?

Private Litigation

Private actions are another consideration for employers. Auto repair chain Jiffy Lube, which is owned by Shell Oil Company, recently agreed to pay $2 million to settle claims that it used illegal no-poaching agreements which prevented franchise owners from hiring current or recent employees of other Jiffy Lube franchises. The settlement will be shared among 1,250 hourly workers in the Philadelphia metropolitan area in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

According to the class action complaint, Jiffy Lube used these agreements to suppress wages and prevent workers from achieving better terms of employment. Employees had to wait six months after leaving one Jiffy Lube shop before attempting to work at another, according to the terms. Workers sued claiming this was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Victor Fuentes v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05174, E.D. Pa.).

Employers Beware

As these cases demonstrate, many employers don’t realize (or may not care) that these types of arrangements can be considered anticompetitive or that their employment agreements can create substantial antitrust liabilities. In addition to public and private litigation, restrictive employment agreements can tank business deals. Imagine your M&A deal craters when a buyer discovers you have a no-poach agreement with competitors.  You might not have seen it as problematic until your prospective buyer walks away because of the risk and your once promising deal is over.

Employers and business owners who wish to protect themselves when employees leave for new positions need to be careful how they go about building their defenses because doing it wrong can mean both civil and criminal charges against corporations and individuals, as these cases illustrate. Critical questions need to be answered in employment agreements and business deals. Is the employer – such as a franchisor – trying to stop intramural poaching within its own system, effectively causing vertical restraint? Or is it trying to legitimately protect itself from losing employees to competitors, or horizontal restraint? These are questions best addressed by counsel with a sophisticated understanding of antitrust law, employment agreements, and mergers and acquisitions.

Article By Jennifer M. Oliver of MoginRubin

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP

Threats of Antitrust Enforcement in the Supply Chain

With steep inflation and seemingly constant disruptions in supply chains for all manner of goods, the Biden Administration has turned increasingly to antitrust authorities to tame price increases and stem future bottlenecks. These agencies have used the myriad tools at their disposal to carry out their mandate, from targeting companies that use supply disruptions as cover for anti-competitive conduct, to investigating industries with key roles in the supply chain, to challenging vertical mergers that consolidate suppliers into one firm. In keeping with the Administration’s “whole-of-government” approach to antitrust enforcement, these actions have often involved multiple federal agencies.

Whatever an entity’s role in the supply chain, that company can make a unilateral decision to raise its prices in response to changing economic conditions. But given the number of enforcement actions, breadth of the affected industries, and the government’s more aggressive posture toward antitrust enforcement in general, companies should tread carefully.

What follows is a survey of recent antitrust enforcement activity affecting supply chains and suggested best practices for minimizing the attendant risk.

Combatting Inflation as a Matter of Federal Antitrust Policy

Even before inflation took hold of the U.S. economy, the Biden Administration emphasized a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. President Biden appointed progressives to lead the antitrust enforcement agencies, naming Lina Kahn chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Jonathan Kanter to head the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ). President Biden also issued Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy.” This Order declares “that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony….” To that end, the order takes a government-wide approach to antitrust enforcement and includes 72 initiatives by over a dozen federal agencies, aimed at addressing competition issues across the economy.

Although fighting inflation may not have been the initial motivation for the President’s agenda to increase competition, the supply disruptions wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and persistent inflation, now at a 40-year high, have made it a major focus. In public remarks the White House has attributed rising prices in part to the absence of competition in certain industries, observing “that lack of competition drives up prices for consumers” and that “[a]s fewer large players have controlled more of the market, mark-ups (charges over cost) have tripled.” In a November 2021 statement declaring inflation a “top priority,” the White House directed the FTC to “strike back at any market manipulation or price gouging in this sector,” again tying inflation to anti-competitive conduct.

The Administration’s Enforcement Actions Affecting the Supply Chain

The Administration has taken several antitrust enforcement actions in order to bring inflation under control and strengthen the supply chain. In February, the DOJ and FBI announced an initiative to investigate and prosecute companies that exploit supply chain disruptions to overcharge consumers and collude with competitors. The announcement warned that individuals and businesses may be using supply chain disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic as cover for price fixing and other collusive schemes. As part of the initiative, the DOJ is “prioritizing any existing investigations where competitors may be exploiting supply chain disruptions for illicit profit and is undertaking measures to proactively investigate collusion in industries particularly affected by supply disruptions.” The DOJ formed a working group on global supply chain collusion and will share intelligence with antitrust authorities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK.

Two things stand out about this new initiative. First, the initiative is not limited to a particular industry, signaling an intent to root out collusive schemes across the economy. Second, the DOJ has cited the initiative as an example of the kind of “proactive enforcement efforts” companies can expect from the division going forward. As the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement put it in a recent speech, “the division cannot and will not wait for cases to come to us.”

In addition to the DOJ’s initiative, the FTC and other federal agencies have launched more targeted inquiries into specific industries with key roles in the supply chain or prone to especially high levels of inflation. Last fall, the FTC ordered nine large retailers, wholesalers, and consumer good suppliers to “provide detailed information that will help the FTC shed light on the causes behind ongoing supply chain disruptions and how these disruptions are causing serious and ongoing hardships for consumers and harming competition in the U.S. economy.” The FTC issued the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies and seek various types of information without a specific law enforcement purpose. The FTC has in recent months made increasing use of 6(b) orders and we expect may continue to do so.

Amid widely reported backups in the nation’s ports, the DOJ announced in February that it was strengthening its partnership with and lending antitrust expertise to the Federal Maritime Commission to investigate antitrust violations in the ocean shipping industry. In a press release issued the same day, the White House charged that “[s]ince the beginning of the pandemic, these ocean carrier companies have been dramatically increasing shipping costs through rate increases and fees.” The DOJ has reportedly issued a subpoena to at least one major carrier as part of what the carrier described as “an ongoing investigation into supply chain disruption.”

The administration’s efforts to combat inflation through antitrust enforcement have been especially pronounced in the meat processing industry. The White House has called for “bold action to enforce the antitrust laws [and] boost competition in meat processing.” Although the DOJ suffered some well-publicized losses in criminal trials against some chicken processing company executives, the DOJ has obtained a $107 million guilty plea by one chicken producer and several indictments.

Most recently, the FTC launched an investigation into shortages of infant formula, including “any anticompetitive [] practices that have contributed to or are worsening this problem.” These actions are notable both for the variety of industries and products involved and for the multitude of enforcement mechanisms used, from informal studies with no law enforcement purpose to criminal indictments.

Preventing Further Supply-Chain Consolidation

In addition to exposing and prosecuting antitrust violations that may be contributing to inflation and supply issues today, the Administration is taking steps to prevent further consolidation of supply chains, which it has identified as a root cause of supply disruptions. DOJ Assistant Attorney General Kanter recently said that “[o]ur markets are suffering from a lack of resiliency. Among many other things, the consequences of the pandemic have revealed supply chain fragility. And recent geopolitical conflicts have caused prices at the pump to skyrocket. And, of course, there are shocking shortages of infant formula in grocery stores throughout the country. These and other events demonstrate why competition is so important. Competitive markets create resiliency. Competitive markets are less susceptible to central points of failure.”

Consistent with the Administration’s concerns with consolidation in supply chains, the FTC is more closely scrutinizing so-called vertical mergers, combinations of companies at different levels of the supply chain. In September 2021, the FTC voted to withdraw its approval of the Vertical Merger Guidelines published jointly with the DOJ the year before. The Guidelines, which include the criteria the agencies use to evaluate vertical mergers, had presumed that such arrangements are pro-competitive. Taking issue with that presumption, FTC Chair Lina Khan said the Guidelines included a “flawed discussion of the purported pro-competitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers” and failed to address “increasing levels of consolidation across the economy.”

In January 2022, the FTC and DOJ issued a request for information (RFI), seeking public comment on revisions to “modernize” the Guidelines’ approach to evaluating vertical mergers. Although the antitrust agencies have not yet published revised Guidelines, the FTC has successfully blocked two vertical mergers. In February, semiconductor chipmaker, Nvidia, dropped its bid to acquire Arm Ltd., a licenser of computer chip designs after two months of litigation with the FTC. The move “represent[ed] the first abandonment of a litigated vertical merger in many years.” Days later Lockheed Martin, faced with a similar challenge from the FTC, abandoned its $4.4 billion acquisition of missile part supplier, Aerojet Rocketdyne. In seeking to prevent the mergers, the FTC cited supply-chain consolidation as one motivating factor, noting for example that the Lockheed-Aerojet combination would “further consolidate multiple markets critical to national security and defense.”

Up Next? Civil Litigation

This uptick in government enforcement activity and investigations may lead to a proliferation of civil suits. Periods of inflation and supply disruptions are often followed by private plaintiff antitrust lawsuits claiming that market participants responded opportunistically by agreeing to raise prices. A spike in fuel prices in the mid-2000s, for example, coincided with the filing of class actions alleging that four major U.S. railroads conspired to impose fuel surcharges on their customers that far exceeded any increases in the defendants’ fuel costs, and thereby collected billions of dollars in additional profits. That case, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, is still making its way through the courts. Similarly, in 2020 the California DOJ brought a civil suit against two multinational gas trading firms claiming that they took advantage of a supply disruption caused by an explosion at a gasoline refinery to engage in a scheme to increase gas prices. All indicators suggest that this trend will continue.

Reducing Antitrust Risk in the Supply Chain and Ensuring Compliance

Given the call to action for more robust antitrust enforcement under Biden’s Executive Order 14036 and the continued enhanced antitrust scrutiny of all manner of commercial activities, companies grappling with supply disruptions and rampant inflation should actively monitor this developing area when making routine business decisions.

As a baseline, companies should have an effective antitrust compliance program in place that helps detect and deter anticompetitive conduct. Those without a robust antitrust compliance program should consider implementing one to ensure that employees are aware of potential antitrust risk areas and can take steps to avoid them. If a company has concerns about the efficacy of its current compliance program, compliance reviews and audits – performed by capable antitrust counsel – can be a useful tool to identify gaps and deficiencies in the program.

Faced with supply chain disruptions and rampant inflation, many companies have increased the prices of their own goods or services. A company may certainly decide independently and unilaterally to raise prices, but those types of decisions should be made with the antitrust laws in mind. Given the additional scrutiny in this area, companies may wish to consider documenting their decision-making process when adjusting prices in response to supply chain disruptions or increased input costs.

Finally, companies contemplating vertical mergers should recognize that such transactions are likely to garner a harder look, and possibly an outright challenge, from federal antitrust regulators. Given the increased skepticism about the pro-competitive effects of vertical mergers, companies considering these types of transactions should consult antitrust counsel early in the process to help assess and mitigate some of the risk areas with these transactions.

Article By Elizabeth A. N. Haas, Ian T. Hampton, and Kate E. Gehl of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

What the C-Suite and Board Should Know About the New CCO Certification Requirement from DOJ

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco presented a new policy at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association event that requires chief compliance officers (CCO) to certify that compliance programs have been “reasonably designed to prevent anti-corruption violations.”1 The policy is an outgrowth of a settlement involving US$1 billion in criminal and civil penalties imposed on mining giant, Glencore International AG (Glencore), after it pleaded guilty to bribery and market manipulation charges.2 According to Monaco, this new policy is meant to ensure that CCOs stay in the loop on potential company violations and have the necessary resources to prevent financial crime.3 While the expressed intention of this new policy is to empower CCOs, it has raised concerns about potential liability for CCOs.

GLENCORE SETTLEMENT

Glencore is among the largest companies that dominate global trading of oil, fuel, metals, minerals, and food.4 In 2018, Glencore was subject to a multi-year investigation by the DOJ for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and a commodity price manipulation scheme.5 According to admissions and court documents filed in the Southern District of New York, Glencore, acting through its employees and agents, engaged in a scheme for over a decade to pay more than US$100 million to third-party intermediaries in order to secure improper advantages to obtain and retain business with state-owned and state-controlled entities. A significant portion of these payments were used to pay bribes to officials in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.6 Glencore resolved the government’s investigations by entering into a plea agreement (Plea Agreement)7According to the Plea Agreement, Glencore admitted to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.8 Shaun Teichner, the general counsel for the company, told a federal judge in New York that Glencore “knowingly and willingly entered into a conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making payments to corrupt government officials.”9

Glencore expects to pay about US$1 billion to U.S. authorities, after accounting for credits and offsets payable to other jurisdictions and agencies, and about US$40 million to Brazil.10 A related payment by Glencore to the United Kingdom will be finalized after a hearing next month.11

The Plea Agreement requires that Glencore, among other things: (1) implement two independent compliance monitors, one in the United States and one abroad, to prevent the reoccurrence of crimes; (2) retain a compliance monitor for three years; and (3) have its chief executive officer (CEO) and CCO submit a document certifying to the DOJ’s fraud section that the company has met its compliance obligations (the CCO Certification Requirement or the Certification).12

WHY THE CCO CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT HAS RAISED CONCERNS

The CCO Certification Requirement has raised concerns in the compliance space over potential increases in CCO liability.13 Specifically, compliance officials worry that this policy transfers corporate liability into potential individual liability for the CCO. The Certification form asks the CEO and CCO to certify that the compliance program has been “reasonably designed” to prevent future anti-corruption violations.14 Critics worry that these new certifications may discourage CCOs from taking jobs at companies that are or may be parties to agreements with the DOJ.15

The DOJ stated that liability will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case but that the new policy is not aimed at going after CEOs or CCOs.16 Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. stated, “if there is a knowing misrepresentation on the part of the CEO or CCO, then that could certainly result in some form of personal liability.”17  Depending on the circumstances, the DOJ may consider it a breach of the corporation’s obligations under the Plea Agreement if there is either a misrepresentation in one of these certifications or a failure to provide the same.18 Polite added that “the certification memorializes the company’s commitment to take its compliance obligations seriously.”19

Critics question how realistic the CCO Certification Requirement is for large, multinational companies.20 They also question the due diligence required to actually ensure that compliance programs are “reasonably designed,” especially for companies operating in over 50 countries. Would it be realistic to expect a CCO or CEO to keep tabs on compliance across their company with that level of specificity?21

WHAT THE C SUITE AND BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD

The questions to consider are: (1) where will the expressed policy lead? And (2) how do we best prepare for the Certification?

The DOJ has specifically stated its intention to “prosecute the individuals who commit and profit from corporate malfeasance.”22 Regardless of Monaco’s comments, the Certification appears to create potential for an extension of that policy.

The fact of the policy gives rise to a number of subsidiary questions. Is the Certification, which targets foreign corrupt practices, a harbinger for other such certifications in areas such as health care fraud, defense contractor fraud, money laundering, etc.? And is DOJ gearing toward providing its prosecutors with more tools for individual culpability at the highest corporate levels consistent with its expressed policy?

Moving forward, in-house counsel should work with the CEO and CCO to consider areas of corporate business practices that are specifically subject to compliance programs. They should develop practices including auditing, tracking, training, and reviewing to ensure the programs are “reasonably designed” to prevent future wrongdoing. Further, they should be sure to document their corporate business practices. Obviously, these programs become much more complex when operations include foreign jurisdictions and foreign laws with respect to matters such as privacy and employee rights.

Although this process may not be new to protect corporations from criminal charges, the newly-announced policy will certainly focus the spotlight on CEOs and CCOs in the FCPA context and arguably beyond.

FOOTNOTES

1 Al Barbarino, DOJ Defends New CCO Certifications Amid Industry Worry, LAW360 (May 26, 2022), https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/1496108/doj-defends-new-cco-….

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Chris Strohm, Chris Dolmetsch & Jack Farchy, Glencore Pleads Guilty to Decade of Bribery and Manipulation, BLOOMBERG (May 24, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-24/glencore-to-appear-in-us-uk-courts-over-resolutions-of-probes.

5 Id.

6 News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Office of Pub. Affs., Glencore Entered Guilty Pleas to Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes, (May 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glencore-entered-guilty-pleas-foreign-bribery-and-market-manipulation-schemes.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Strohm, supra note 4.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Barbarino, supra note 1.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks Announcing Glencore Guilty Pleas in Connection with Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes (May 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-announcing-glencore-guilty-pleas.

Article By Mark A. Rush and Nadia J. Brooks of K&L Gates

For more corporate law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Update: In Opioid Liability Ruling for Doctors, SCOTUS Deals Blow to DOJ

On June 27, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled that doctors who act in subjective good faith in prescribing controlled substances to their patients cannot be convicted under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).  The Court’s decision will have broad implications for physicians and patients alike.  Practitioners who sincerely and honestly believe – even if mistakenly – that their prescriptions are within the usual course of professional practice will be shielded from criminal liability.

The ruling stemmed from the convictions of Dr. Xiulu Ruan and Dr. Shakeel Kahn for unlawfully prescribing opioid painkillers.  At their trials, the district courts rejected any consideration of good faith and instructed the members of the jury that the doctors could be convicted if they prescribed opioids outside the recognized standards of medical practice. The Tenth and Eleventh Circuits affirmed the instructions.  Drs. Ruan and Kahn were sentenced to 21 and 25 years in prison, respectively.

The Court vacated the decisions of the courts of appeals and sent the cases back for further review.

The question before the court concerned the state of mind that the Government must prove to convict a doctor of violating the CSA.  Justice Breyer framed the issue: “To prove that a doctor’s dispensation of drugs via prescription falls within the statute’s prohibition and outside the authorization exception, is it sufficient for the Government to prove that a prescription was in fact not authorized, or must the Government prove that the doctor knew or intended that the prescription was unauthorized?”

The doctors urged the Court to adopt a subjective good-faith standard that would protect practitioners from criminal prosecution if they sincerely and honestly believed their prescriptions were within the usual course of professional practice.  The Government argued for an objective, good-faith standard based on the hypothetical “reasonable” doctor.  The Court took it one step further.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.  He said that for purposes of a criminal conviction under the CSA, “the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.”  To hold otherwise “would turn a defendant’s criminal liability on the mental state of a hypothetical ‘reasonable’ doctor” and “reduce culpability on the all-important element of the crime to negligence,” he explained.  The Court has “long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes,” wrote Justice Breyer.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in part.  Although Justice Alito would vacate the judgments below and remand for further proceedings, he would hold that the “except as authorized” clause of the CSA creates an affirmative defense that defendant doctors must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Court’s decision will protect patient access to prescriptions written in good faith.  However, for the government, the Court’s decision means prosecutors face an uphill battle in charging, much less convicting, physicians under the CSA.  Indeed, the Court’s decision may have a chilling effect on the recent surge in DOJ prosecutions of medical practitioners and pain clinics.

Article By Lindsay K. Gerdes and Madeline R. Pinto of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Constitutionality of FTC’s Structure and Procedures Under SCOTUS Review

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have authority to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act by investigating and challenging mergers where the effect of such transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

However, the enforcement paths of these two federal agencies differ markedly. DOJ pursues all aspects of its enforcement actions in the federal court system. The FTC, on the other hand, only uses the federal district courts to seek injunctive relief, but otherwise follows its own internal administrative process that combines the investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency.

Whether a transaction is subjected to DOJ or FTC review is determined by a “clearance” process with no public visibility. To many, including entities in the health care industry—and, in particular, parties to hospital mergers that are now routinely “cleared” to the FTC (exemplified by two recently filed enforcement actions against hospitals in New Jersey and Utah)—this process appears to be arbitrary. It is also particularly daunting because the FTC has not lost an administrative action in over a quarter-century. Because of the one-sided nature and duration of these administrative proceedings, most enforcement actions brought against merging hospitals rise or fall at the injunctive relief stage. This process also appears to embolden the FTC into taking unprecedented actions, including the pursuit of enforcement remedies against parties to abandoned transactions.

However, this may soon change. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that raises a forceful constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and procedures. The Supreme Court recently agreed to combine the briefing schedule of this case with a similar case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the administrative process of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The outcome of these cases may fundamentally alter the FTC’s enforcement process.

Article By E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust and trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

DOJ Limits Application of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Providing Clarity for Ethical Hackers and Employees Paying Bills at Work Alike

On May 19, 2022, the Department of Justice announced it would not charge good-faith hackers who expose weaknesses in computer systems with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Congress enacted the CFAA in 1986 to promote computer privacy and cybersecurity and amended the Act several times, most recently in 2008. However, the evolving cybersecurity landscape has left courts and commentators troubled by potential applications of the CFAA to circumstances unrelated to the CFAA’s original purpose, including prosecution of so-called “white hat” hackers. The new charging policy, which became effective immediately, seeks to advance the CFAA’s original purpose by clarifying when and how federal prosecutors are authorized to bring charges under the Act.

DOJ to Decline Prosecution of Good-Faith Security Research

The new policy exempts activity of white-hat hackers and states that “the government should decline prosecution if available evidence shows the defendant’s conduct consisted of, and the defendant intended, good-faith security research.” The policy defines “good-faith security research” as “accessing a computer solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a manner designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices, machines, or online services to which the accessed computer belongs, or those who use such devices, machines, or online services.”

In practice, this policy appears to provide, for example, protection from federal charges for the type of ethical hacking a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter performed in 2021. The reporter uncovered security flaws in a Missouri state website that exposed the Social Security numbers of over 100,000 teachers and other school employees. The Missouri governor’s office initiated an investigation into the reporter’s conduct for unauthorized computer access. While the DOJ’s policy would not affect prosecutions under state law, it would preclude federal prosecution for the conduct if determined to be good-faith security research.

The new policy also promises protection from prosecution for certain arguably common but contractually prohibited online conduct, including “[e]mbellishing an online dating profile contrary to the terms of service of the dating website; creating fictional accounts on hiring, housing, or rental websites; using a pseudonym on a social networking site that prohibits them; checking sports scores at work; paying bills at work; or violating an access restriction contained in a term of service.” Such activities resemble the facts of Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, which the Supreme Court decided in June 2021. In Van Buren, the 6-3 majority rejected the government’s broad interpretation of the CFAA’s prohibition on “unauthorized access” and held that a police officer who looked up license plate information on a law-enforcement database for personal use—in violation of his employer’s policy but without circumventing any access controls—did not violate the CFAA. The DOJ did not cite Van Buren as the basis for the new policy. Nor did the DOJ identify any another impetus for the change.

To Achieve More Consistent Application of Policy, All Federal Prosecutors Must Consult with Main Justice Before Bringing CFAA Charges

In addition to exempting good-faith security research from prosecution, the new policy specifies the steps for charging violations of the CFAA. To help distinguish between actual good-faith security research and pretextual claims of such research that mask a hacker’s malintent, federal prosecutors must consult with the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) before bringing any charges. If CCIPS recommends declining charges, prosecutors must inform the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) and may need to obtain approval from the DAG before initiating charges.

Article By Kyle R. Freeny, Linda Ricci, Jena M. Valdetero, and Brittany M. Fisher of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

EEOC and the DOJ Issue Guidance for Employers Using AI Tools to Assess Job Applicants and Employees

Employers are more frequently relying on the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools to automate employment decision-making, such as software that can review resumes and “chatbots” that interview and screen job applicants. We have previously blogged about the legal risks attendant to the use of such technologies, including here and here.

On May 12, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued long-awaited guidance on the use of such AI tools (the “Guidance”), examining how employers can seek to prevent AI-related disability discrimination. More specifically, the Guidance identifies a number of ways in which employment-related use of AI can, even unintentionally, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), including if:

  • (i) “[t]he employer does not provide a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that is necessary for a job applicant or employee to be rated fairly and accurately by” the AI;
  • (ii) “[t]he employer relies on an algorithmic decision-making tool that intentionally or unintentionally ‘screens out’ an individual with a disability, even though that individual is able to do the job with a reasonable accommodation”; or
  • (iii) “[t]he employer adopts an [AI] tool for use with its job applicants or employees that violates the ADA’s restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.”

The Guidance further states that “[i]n many cases” employers are liable under the ADA for use of AI even if the tools are designed and administered by a separate vendor, noting that “employers may be held responsible for the actions of their agents . . . if the employer has given them authority to act on [its] behalf.”

The Guidance also identifies various best practices for employers, including:

  • Announcing generally that employees and applicants subject to an AI tool may request reasonable accommodations and providing instructions as to how to ask for accommodations.
  • Providing information about the AI tool, how it works, and what it is used for to the employees and applicants subjected to it. For example, an employer that uses keystroke-monitoring software may choose to disclose this software as part of new employees’ onboarding and explain that it is intended to measure employee productivity.
  • If the software was developed by a third party, asking the vendor whether: (i) the AI software was developed to accommodate people with disabilities, and if so, how; (ii) there are alternative formats available for disabled individuals; and (iii) the AI software asks questions likely to elicit medical or disability-related information.
  • If an employer is developing its own software, engaging experts to analyze the algorithm for potential biases at different steps of the development process, such as a psychologist if the tool is intended to test cognitive traits.
  • Only using AI tools that measure, directly, traits that are actually necessary for performing the job’s duties.
  • Additionally, it is always a best practice to train staff, especially supervisors and managers, how to recognize requests for reasonable accommodations and to respond promptly and effectively to those requests. If the AI tool is used by a third party on the employer’s behalf, that third party’s staff should also be trained to recognize requests for reasonable accommodation and forward them promptly to the employer.

Finally, also on May 12th, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released its own guidance on AI tools’ potential for inadvertent disability discrimination in the employment context. The DOJ guidance is largely in accord with the EEOC Guidance.

Employers utilizing AI tools should carefully audit them to ensure that this technology is not creating discriminatory outcomes.  Likewise, employers must remain closely apprised of any new developments from the EEOC and local, state, and federal legislatures and agencies as the trend toward regulation continues.

Article By Joseph C O’Keefe and Edward C. Young of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.