Non-Compete Compliance in 2025: State Trends and Employer Strategies
FTC and Florida Focus on Non-Competes, SCOTUS to Rule on Pension Withdrawal Liability - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - Tips for Maintaining FTC Compliance When Using AI
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — The Consumer Finance Podcast
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Driving Digital Security: The FTC's Safeguards Rule Explained — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
First 100 Days of the New HSR Rules with Antitrust Partner Kara Kuritz
Podcast - FTC to Focus on Deceptive AI Claims: Compliance Management Strategies
Cruising Through Change: The Auto-Finance Industry’s New Era Under Trump Unveiled — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Cruising Through Change: The Auto-Finance Industry’s New Era Under Trump Unveiled — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Compliance Needs are Alive and Well: FTC's Recent Enforcement Activity
Podcast - New Guidance on Complying with FTC Rule on Deceptive and Unfair Fees
Podcast - Navigating the New Landscape of Private Equity in Healthcare
(Podcast) The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
From Cell Phones to Tractors: The Right to Repair Movement Drives On — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the FTC
Podcast - Who Owns Your DNA? Lessons Learned from 23andMe
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 51 – The Compliance Week at 20 Edition
Daily Compliance News: May 1, 2025, The 100 Days of Corruption Edition
As the Oval Office and Congress flip to Republican control, we expect more state AG-led efforts to impact public policy. Shortly after the New Year, we gathered together attorneys from our State Attorneys General team to...more
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the landscape of patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry with its FTC v. Actavis, Inc. decision. In Actavis, the Court held that certain types of...more
In February of this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint to block Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion merger with Albertsons Companies, Inc., citing antitrust concerns. On August 19, 2024,...more
In the ten years since the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis that reverse payment settlements—or settlements where a patent holder pays an accused patent infringer cash or other consideration to end...more
On Friday, August 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit affirmed dismissal of an antitrust action brought by the Federal Trade Commission regarding Endo Pharmaceuticals’s grant of an...more
In perhaps the first case addressing transfer of a federal antitrust action to an MDL court, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Alexandria Division of the EDVA recently denied a motion to transfer an antitrust action against Google...more
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the distinct advantage of being able to bring enforcement actions before its own administrative tribunals....more
Last week, in FTC v. AbbVie et al., the Third Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was not authorized to seek disgorgement as a remedy under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act –...more
This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers...more
Can participation in a business or trade association and allegiance to its rules trigger antitrust liability for association members under the Sherman Act? Next term, the Supreme Court will hear Osborn v. Visa Inc., the...more
Antitrust practitioners, enforcers and industry professionals came together in Washington, D.C. for the 64th installment of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law's annual Spring Meeting. The Spring Meeting provides a look at the...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
The Supreme Court has ruled that when an oversight mechanism created by a State —here a State Board — is under the control of those it was supposed to be regulating (sometimes referred to by economists as “regulatory...more
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Action Immunity Does Not Apply to State Boards If the Board Is Controlled by Active Market Participants - On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a state...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...more
In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more
On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the North Carolina Dental Board (“Board”) was not insulated from federal antitrust liability under the so-called “state action” doctrine when it engaged...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more
In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more
On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, finding that North Carolina’s state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act...more