Podcasts about federal trade commission's ftc

This week on Franchise Today, Matt Haller, President and CEO of the International Franchise Association (IFA). offered a deep dive into various critical topics, notably the eagerly anticipated IFA Convention set to take place in less than two weeks in Phoenix. Haller shared insights into the convention, which aims to "franchise smarter" by fostering responsible business practices and enhancing the franchising community, attracting nearly 4,000 participants, including the celebrated Coach Prime. Haller, emphasized the industry's collaborative spirit and the vital role of sharing experiences to forge long-term, mutually beneficial relationships. He highlighted the IFA's role in setting realistic expectations, promoting trust, particularly among suppliers seeking immediate returns, and navigating the evolving franchising landscape. This includes adapting to the influx of external capital and its effects on operations, exemplified by successful franchises like Neighborly and School of Rock. The conversation also touched on significant challenges facing the franchise industry, such as joint employer issues and the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) review of franchising regulations. Haller urged for active participation in the Franchise Action Network to address these concerns. The upcoming convention will feature Sen.Joe Manchin as a keynote speaker, recognizing his support for small businesses and bipartisan legislative efforts. Additionally, the event will celebrate various speakers and award winners, and offer over 70 breakout sessions covering a wide range of business topics, including multiunit franchising and team building.        

A recent article published in Health Affairs, delves into the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) concerns regarding the inclusion of improper patents in the FDA's Orange Book by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The… The post Legislative Proposals to Tackle Improper Pharmaceutical Patents in the Orange Book appeared first on DrugPatentWatch - Make Better Decisions.

Welcome to the Retail Daily Minute, where we bring you the top retail headlines of the day. In our first headline from Retail Dive, we dive into the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, which is set to start no earlier than 2026. The lawsuit alleges anticompetitive behavior and raises questions about Amazon's proposed timeline. Next, we explore Amazon's efforts to reduce cardboard shipping boxes and minimize waste by testing custom packaging solutions. And in our final headline, we discover how Tonal is capitalizing on Lululemon's discontinuation of its Mirror fitness device by offering a trade-in program. Stay informed with our daily updates on the latest in the world of retail. This Retail Daily Minute is brought to you by Omni Talk.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) broad definition of “misbranding” has created some industry confusion, while the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) updates to its health products compliance guidance have done the same. In light of these recent actions, what challenges are dietary supplement manufacturers now facing? On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jack Wenik, Teddy McCormick, Zach Taylor, and Tracey Gonzalez discuss recent updates to the FDA and FTC guidelines as they apply to dietary supplement manufacturers, as well as new developments with respect to misbranding. Visit our site for more information and related resources: https://www.ebglaw.com/dhc71 Subscribe for email notifications: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe. Visit: http://diagnosinghealthcare.com. This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

On today's podcast episode, we discuss the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) case against Amazon, the tech giants' defense, and what is most likely to come of this. "In Other News," we talk about what to make of Peloton and Lululemon striking a deal and why social media burnout is back on the radar. Tune in to the discussion with our analysts Jacob Bourne and Zak Stambor.   Follow us on Instagram at:   https://www.instagram.com/insiderintelligence/   For sponsorship opportunities contact us: advertising@insiderintelligence.com For more information visit: https://www.insiderintelligence.com/contact/advertise/ Have questions or just want to say hi? Drop us a line at podcast@emarketer.com    For a transcript of this episode click here:      © 2023 Insider Intelligence    Intuit Mailchimp is an email and marketing automations platform for growing businesses. We empower millions of customers around the world to start and grow their businesses with world-class marketing technology, award-winning customer support, and inspiring content. Mailchimp puts data-backed recommendations at the heart of your marketing, so you can find and engage customers across channels— automatically and with the power of AI.  

On this day in legal history, September 28, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed an appropriations bill that abolished flogging as a punishment in the Navy. Flogging, carried out with a cat-o-nine-tails—a whip made of nine knotted ropes—was a common method for maintaining discipline on naval ships. The move to end flogging was influenced by public opinion, which had been galvanized by two significant publications: "Two Years Before the Mast" by Richard Henry Dana, Jr. in 1840, and "White-Jacket" by Herman Melville in 1850. Between December 1849 and June 1850, the Senate received 271 petitions from citizens urging the end of this cruel practice.Democratic Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire had previously attempted to abolish flogging but found success only when the public mood shifted. When Congress ended flogging, it did not immediately suggest alternative disciplinary methods. Naval officers experimented with various forms of punishment, including tattooing, branding, and confinement in irons on bread and water. However, long-term confinement was generally avoided as it took sailors away from their duties, increasing the workload for others.In 1853, President Millard Fillmore issued a "System of Orders and Instructions" to guide naval discipline, but this was deemed unconstitutional as it infringed on Congress's power to set rules for the Navy. Finally, in 1855, Congress established a new disciplinary system based on rewards and punishments. Despite these reforms, some harsh practices like branding with a hot iron or tattooing were not completely outlawed until 1872.Abraham Lincoln advocated for flogging as judicial punishment for men found guilty of spousal abuse, a crime then-referred to as “wife-beating.” It remained on the books in many states as a punishment for that crime well in to the 20th century, with the last recorded instance of it being meted out occurring in Delaware in 1951. The future of mobile sports betting in Florida is uncertain as local casinos have challenged a $2.5 billion deal between Governor Ron DeSantis and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The casinos filed a petition in the Florida Supreme Court, alleging that the 2021 agreement allowing the tribe to operate "off-reservation" mobile sports betting violates the state constitution. According to the casinos, the constitution would need to be amended to permit expanded tribal gaming beyond tribal lands. The complaint accuses the Governor and the state Legislature of circumventing the constitution by deeming online bets placed anywhere in the state as having occurred "exclusively" on tribal lands.This legal challenge is the latest development in an ongoing saga that will determine the future of sports betting in Florida, a state with a strong following for both professional and college sports. The casinos had previously lost a federal Administrative Procedure Act challenge in a federal appeals court in June. However, the court explicitly stated that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the pact under Florida law, leaving that question for the state's courts to decide. The casinos are now urging the Florida Supreme Court to clarify the law, citing the federal appellate court's reasoning as justification for state-level judicial review.Casinos Challenge DeSantis' $2.5 Billion Sports Betting DealThe Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is set to hold its first impeachment inquiry hearing against President Joe Biden on Thursday. The hearing, led by the House Oversight Committee, is not expected to reveal new information about Biden's financial ties to his son, Hunter Biden. Instead, the hearing aims to justify the ongoing probe and review the details that Republicans have gathered so far, according to James Comer, the committee's chair. The panel will hear from a forensic accountant, a former U.S. Justice Department official, and a law professor.Republicans allege that Biden and his family profited from policies he pursued as vice president under the Obama administration. They also claim that the Justice Department interfered with a tax investigation into Hunter Biden. However, no evidence has been provided to support these allegations. The White House has dismissed the inquiry as politically motivated, especially with the 2024 presidential election on the horizon.It remains uncertain whether House Republicans, who hold a narrow majority, would have enough votes to proceed with actual impeachment. Even if they do, it is unlikely that the Senate, where Democrats have a majority, would vote to remove Biden from office. The inquiry also focuses on allegations that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a top prosecutor investigating a company where Hunter Biden was a board member, a claim Ukraine's former president has denied.The timing of the hearing coincides with a looming government shutdown, which could slow down the impeachment inquiry. The White House criticized House Republicans for prioritizing "conspiracy theories" over government funding. Former President Donald Trump, who was impeached twice and faces four criminal indictments, has expressed support for the inquiry.Republican US House to hold first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing | ReutersU.S. Senator Bob Menendez is facing calls for his resignation from more than half of his Democratic colleagues after pleading not guilty to federal bribery charges. A total of 27 senators, including key figures like Dick Durbin and Gary Peters, have urged Menendez to step down. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Menendez's actions but stopped short of asking for his resignation. Prosecutors allege that Menendez and his wife accepted gold bars and significant sums of money in exchange for using their influence to interfere with law enforcement investigations and assist the Egyptian government.Menendez has vowed to remain in office and fight the charges. His Senate seat is up for grabs in the 2024 elections, and while New Jersey has not elected a Republican senator since 1972, Menendez's legal issues could jeopardize his party's narrow control of the Senate. He has so far drawn one challenger for his seat.Embattled US Senator Bob Menendez to face Democrats who want him to resign | ReutersThe judge initially assigned to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against Amazon has recused himself, according to court documents. Senior Judge John Coughenour, who was appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, did not provide a reason for his recusal in the court filing. The case was filed against Amazon in a federal court in Seattle and has now been reassigned to U.S. District Judge John Chun, who was nominated by President Joe Biden last year. Chun previously served as a judge for the Washington State Court of Appeals.The FTC's lawsuit accuses Amazon of abusing its market power in the retail sector. Specifically, the company is alleged to have given preferential treatment to its own products while penalizing merchants who wish to sell their products at lower prices on other platforms. Amazon is also facing a series of smaller, private consumer cases that are currently pending in the same federal court. These cases are overseen by Judge Ricardo Martinez.The FTC has argued that its case against Amazon should be assigned to Judge Martinez to avoid any duplication or conflict with the existing consumer cases. The reassignment of the case to Judge Chun comes amid growing scrutiny of Amazon's business practices and could have implications for how the case proceeds.Judge assigned to US antitrust case against Amazon recuses himself | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day, June 14th, in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, holding that students cannot be compelled to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.When issues of compelled patriotism are discussed, advocates of compulsion generally frame these issues as unique “problems” of modernity. So you may be surprised to hear that the Barnette decision was handed down on this day in 1943. In the midst of World War II, no less.In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling: they declared a compulsory flag salute law in public schools unconstitutional, affirming that students have First Amendment rights.The Court determined that mandatory flag salutes violated the First Amendment. The decision was made on Flag Day and overturned a previous case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940). The West Virginia statute in question imposed harsh penalties on children and their parents if the children refused to comply, including expulsion and fines of $50 or even imprisonment for parents.In the Gobitis case, two Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren were expelled for refusing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court recognized the state's interest in promoting national cohesion and considered mandatory flag salutes as a permissible means of fostering patriotism.However, in Barnette, the Court shifted its focus. It highlighted that the central issue was not whether the children could be excused from the flag salute due to religious beliefs, as in Gobitis. Rather, it examined whether the state had the power to enforce the flag salute on all schoolchildren.The Court emphasized that the compulsory flag salute and pledge required an affirmation of belief and an attitude of mind. It noted that Congress had recently recognized the Pledge of Allegiance as voluntary, indicating that compulsory salutes were not necessarily the most effective way to cultivate patriotism.Justice Robert H. Jackson's opinion in Barnette reevaluated the role of public schools in educating young citizens. The Court asserted that public education should not stifle free thinking or teach youth to disregard essential principles of government as mere platitudes. Instead, education should enable students to make informed choices.The Court, echoing Congress, concluded that patriotism is strengthened through voluntary participation rather than compulsion. Justice Jackson emphasized that no official, regardless of their position, could dictate orthodoxy in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other opinions, or force citizens to confess their faith in those matters.This landmark ruling in Barnette established the principle that students possess First Amendment rights, including the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, within the context of public schools.In the latest sign BigLaw is in a bit of a holding pattern, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, a San Francisco-based law firm, is laying off approximately 90 attorneys and staff members and delaying the start date for its incoming class due to reduced demand and market uncertainty. The layoffs will affect 40 associates and 50 staff members, amounting to around 6% of the firm's global workforce. The firm has decided to postpone the start date for its first-year class until January 16, 2024. Orrick will provide a $15,000 stipend and additional funds for health insurance to its class of 2023. The firm attributes these actions to reduced client demand in certain areas and the impact of technology and evolving work environments on the firm's operations. Orrick joins other prominent law firms such as Cooley, Gunderson Dettmer, Kirkland & Ellis, and Fenwick & West in implementing workforce reductions and start date delays in response to sluggish demand for legal services.Orrick Lays Off 90 Lawyers and Staff, Delays Start DatesA U.S. judge has granted the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request to temporarily block Microsoft's acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard and scheduled a hearing for next week. The judge set a two-day evidentiary hearing on the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction for June 22-23 in San Francisco. Without a court order, Microsoft could have closed the $69 billion deal as early as Friday. The FTC had asked an administrative judge to block the transaction in December and an evidential hearing in the administrative proceeding is set to begin on August 2. The federal court will decide based on the late-June hearing whether a preliminary injunction is necessary during the administrative review of the case. Microsoft and Activision must submit legal arguments opposing the preliminary injunction by June 16, with the FTC's reply due on June 20. The FTC argues that the deal would give Microsoft's Xbox exclusive access to Activision games, potentially excluding Nintendo and Sony consoles. Microsoft has stated that accelerating the legal process will bring more choice and competition to the gaming market.US judge temporarily blocks Microsoft acquisition of Activision | ReutersAs the indictment is being reviewed and ingested, and experts are weighing in, it seems clear: Former U.S. President Donald Trump is facing significant challenges in defending himself against charges of illegally retaining top-secret documents after leaving the White House in 2021. Yesterday, Trump pleaded not guilty to the 37 counts, which include violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Experts noted that the indictment contains a wide range of evidence, such as documents, photos, text messages, audio recordings, and witness statements, making a strong case for the prosecution's allegations. The conspiracy to obstruct justice charges may pose the greatest risk for Trump, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Legal experts believe the evidence suggests Trump knew about the documents and refused to turn them over, instructing his lawyers to mislead the FBI. Obstruction of justice is challenging to defend against and can have significant public backlash. Trump's alleged efforts to conceal documents over the years likely played a role in the decision to indict him. The classification status of the documents may be irrelevant, as the Espionage Act criminalizes the unauthorized retention of national defense information, regardless of classification. While Trump has potential defense strategies, such as challenging witness accounts or blaming others, the case could be delayed until after the 2024 election, and opinions vary on whether he could pardon himself if he wins.Here's what happens next in the case against Donald Trump. It could be a year or more before a trial takes place and all indications are Trump will continue to seek to win back the presidency. Federal prosecutors will begin handing over evidence to Trump's lawyers, including years of correspondence related to the documents in question. Trump's lawyers are expected to file a motion to dismiss the case, citing reasons such as his claim that he declassified the documents before taking them. However, motions to dismiss in criminal cases rarely succeed.The trial timeline will likely be extended as the parties review evidence and argue legal disputes. Trump testifying in the case would be his decision, but it is unlikely as defendants often choose not to testify. If Trump were to win the 2024 presidential election, it is unlikely that the prosecution would proceed due to the Department of Justice's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the policy can be deviated from with the approval of the U.S. attorney general. But that would almost certainly be Trump's attorney general. So it is clear to me, as it is probably clear to Trump, that his best chance at kicking this can down the road will be to delay the trial long enough to win back the presidency and pardon himself. 2024 is going to be a helluva year. Trump faces difficult odds in documents case | ReutersTrump documents case: what happens now that he pleaded not guilty? | ReutersIllinois has become the first state in the United States to pass a law aimed at curbing book bans in public libraries. The legislation comes in response to the growing trend of conservative efforts to suppress books addressing topics such as race, history, and LGBTQ issues. Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024. Under the new law, Illinois public libraries will only be eligible for state grants if they adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, which prohibits the removal of materials due to partisan or doctrinal disapproval. The push to ban books has intensified during the 2021-2022 school year, particularly in conservative Republican-dominated states like Florida and Texas. According to the American Library Association, there were 67 attempts to ban books in Illinois alone in 2022, with many of the targeted books focusing on LGBTQ people or people of color. Critics of book bans argue that librarians should be the ones selecting books, not politicians, and that such bans infringe on freedom of expression. The Illinois law is seen as a step in the right direction by supporters who believe that books in libraries should be chosen by professionals, not extremist politicians.Illinois becomes first state to pass law curtailing book bans | ReutersThe European Commission, Europe's top antitrust regulator, has announced that it may pursue the breakup of Google's ad-tech business. The commission has charged Google with abusing its dominant position in the online advertising technology industry. It alleges that Google used its control over the buying and selling of online ads across third-party websites and apps to favor its own advertising auction house. The commission's preliminary view is that Google must divest parts of its ad-tech business to address the inherent conflicts of interest. Google will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint, and if found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide revenue. This move by the European Commission aligns with the ongoing antitrust scrutiny Google is facing in the United States and would mark a major sea change in the online advertising space. EU Says It May Seek Breakup of Google's Ad-Tech Business - WSJ Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The CyberPHIx Roundup is your quick source for keeping up with the latest cybersecurity news, trends, and industry-leading practices, specifically for the healthcare industry.  In this episode, our host Britton Burton highlights the following topics trending in healthcare cybersecurity this month:  The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) first Health Breach Notification Rule Enforcement action against GoodRx  An unsurprising report from OCR on security rule compliance areas that HIPAA-regulated entities need improvement plus the most common remediation actions taken by breached entities  Semi-definitive information about the date and final rule content of the SEC's looming rule for publicly traded companies on Cybersecurity disclosures and risk management  NIST's announcement on a new lightweight cryptography algorithm that can be used by IoT and Medical Devices  The disheartening cyber attack on the 988 suicide and mental health helpline  Interesting new trend data on the lower volume of healthcare breaches but higher count of individuals affected by those breaches  A recent surge in Wiper malware attacks, thanks in large part to the Russia/Ukraine war  A fascinating narrative on cyber insurance involving exclusion of nation-state attack vectors from policies, sharper focus on TPRM programs, and a ransomware gang's unusual request to its victims

As promised, the Cyberlaw Podcast devoted half of this episode to an autopsy of Gonzalez v. Google LLC , the Supreme Court's first opportunity in a quarter century to construe section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And an autopsy is what our panel—Adam Candeub, Gus Hurwitz, Michael Ellis and Mark MacCarthy—came to perform. I had already laid out my analysis and predictions in a separate article for the Volokh Conspiracy, contending that both Gonzalez and Google would lose. All our panelists agreed that Gonzalez was unlikely to prevail, but no one followed me in predicting that Google's broad immunity claim would fall, at least not in this case. The general view was that Gonzalez's lawyer had hurt his case with shifting and opaque theories of liability, that Google's arguments raised concerns among the Justices but not enough to induce them to write an opinion in such a muddled case. Evaluating the Justices' performance, Justice Neil Gorsuch's search for a textual answer drew little praise and some derision while Justice Ketanji Jackson won admiration even from the more conservative panelists. More broadly, there was a consensus that, whatever the fate of this particular case, the court will find a way to push the lower courts away from a sweeping immunity for platforms and toward a more nuanced protection. But because returning to the original intent of section 230 is not likely after 25 years of investment based on a lack of liability, this more nuanced protection will not have much grounding in the actual statutory language. Call it a return to the Rule of Reason. In other news, Michael summed up recent developments in cyber war between Russia and Ukraine, including imaginative attacks on Russia's communications system. I wonder whether these attacks—which are sexy but limited in impact—make cyber the modern equivalent of using motorcycles as a weapon in 1939.  Gus brings us up to date on recent developments in competition law, including a likely Department of Justice's challenge to Adobe's $20 Billion Figma deal, new airline merger challenge, the beginnings of opposition to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed ban on noncompete clauses, and the third and final nail in the coffin of the FTC's challenge to the Meta-Within merger.  In European cyber news, the European Union is launching a consultation designed to make U.S. platforms pay more of European telecom networks' costs. Adam and Gus note the rent-seeking involved but point out that rent-seeking in U.S. network construction is just as bad, but seems to be extracting rents from taxpayers instead of Silicon Valley. The EU is also getting ready to fix the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in the sense that gamblers fix a prize fight. The new fix will make sure Ireland never again wins a fight with the rest of Europe over how aggressively to extract privacy rents from U.S. technology companies. I am excited about Apple's progress in devising a blood glucose monitor that could go into a watch. Adam and Gus tell me not to get too excited until we know how many roadblocks The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will erect to the use and analysis of the monitors' data. In quick hits,  Gus confirms our suspicion that generative AI Is coming for the lawyers' jobs And that Illinois' biometric privacy law has gone from a really bad idea to a social, economic, and litigation catastrophe.  The Illinois Supreme Court could have staved this one off and didn't.  Download 445th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

1First Amendment Issues in Lawsuit Against FTCNCLA filed a Motion to Dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) lawsuit againstPrecision Patient Outcomes, Inc. (PPO), and its CEO, Margrett Lewis. NCLA argues FTC cannotrightfully exercise executive power by initiating and prosecuting this lawsuit, especiallyconsidering the Justice Department refused to bring this case. Congress cannot empower FTCCommissioners to file lawsuits while shielding them from at-will removal by the President.Vec discusses the First Amendment issues in FTC v. PPO.2 NCLA Supports Doctors' Suits Against California Law Censoring Covid Medical AdviceNCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in supportof plaintiffs challenging Assembly Bill 2098, which empowers the Medical Board of Californiato discipline physicians who “disseminate” information regarding Covid-19 that departs from the“contemporary scientific consensus.” Last month, NCLA obtained a preliminary injunction onbehalf of five doctors in a successful challenge to the same law in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, etal. The State of California is not appealing that loss. It apparently prefers to defend appealsagainst the unsuccessful plaintiffs in McDonald v. Lawson (from the Central District of Calif.)and Couris v. Lawson (from a stay in the Southern District of Calif.). NCLA's amicus brief willensure that the Ninth Circuit sees the arguments that prevailed before Judge William Shubb inthe Eastern District of Calif. in Høeg v. Newsom.Mark and Vec discuss NCLA's amicus brief against AB 2098.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rhode Island Oral Surgeon Continues Battling Gov't Retaliation over Opposing Vaccine Mandate The State of Rhode Island unlawfully prevented Dr. Stephen Skoly from practicing critically needed dental care in retaliation for his public opposition to the temporary emergency regulation mandating that “all health care workers and health care providers be vaccinated against COVID- 19.” Statements by and behavior of state officials make clear that administrative actions against Dr. Skoly were taken precisely because he publicly voiced his opposition and would not have been taken but for Dr. Skoly's speech. NCLA has filed a response to the government's Motion to Dismiss Skoly v. McKee, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Mark talks through Dr. Skoly's opposition to summary judgment in Skoly v. Mckee.  Humphrey's Executor in FTC v. PPO NCLA has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) lawsuit against Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. (PPO), a California-based company which develops precision medical solutions for burn and wound care, scar management, and skin-renewing technologies, and its CEO, Margrett Lewis. Among other things, NCLA argues the Supreme Court's blessing the FTC of yesteryear in Humphrey's Executor does not imply that the Commission newly vested with truly executive powers would be similarly endorsed. When Humphrey's Executor was decided, the FTC did not possess the power to initiate suits or to seek any penalties. This core executive power was only added to the FTC's authority in the 1970s. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that its 1935 “conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time." Vec discusses Humphrey's Executor in FTC v. PPO.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Federal Trade Commission's (“FTC”) proposed rule banning the use of non-competes with employees and workers could regulate nearly every employer in the nation. If a final rule emerges from this proposal it could potentially prohibit non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and non-recruitment agreements and functional non-compete clauses. How can individual firms and industry groups alike weigh in on one of the most substantial regulatory actions facing employers right now? And what should businesses do to prepare? Kelley Drye's Labor and Employment practice shares practical guidance to help employers prepare for a world without noncompetes. https://www.adlawaccess.com/2023/01/articles/ftc-insights-how-employers-can-prepare-for-a-world-without-noncompetes/ William MacLeod wmacleod@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8811 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/William-C-MacLeod Mark Konkel mkonkel@kelleydrye.com (212) 808-7959 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Mark-A-Konkel Blythe Lovinger blovinger@kelleydrye.com (212) 808-7825 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Blythe-E-Lovinger Shea O'Meara someara@kelleydrye.com (212) 808-5042 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Shea-O-Meara Jessica Rich jrich@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8580 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Jessica-L-Rich Kate White kwhite@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8855 https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Katherine-White Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.adlawaccess.com/subscribe/ Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - https://www.kelleydrye.com/News-Events/Publications/Newsletters/Ad-Law-News-and-Views?dlg=1 View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - https://www.kelleydrye.com/Advertising-and-Privacy-Law-Resource-Center Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach

This week, we take a closer look at the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) proposed nationwide ban on non-compete agreements, New York State's expansion of breastfeeding accommodations, and pay transparency guidance released by the California Labor Commissioner. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw285 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/. Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com. The EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and DIAGNOSING HEALTH CARE podcasts are presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments.  Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments.  These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his guest and colleague Brooke Conkle as they discuss the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) recent consent order with Passport Auto Group. The FTC alleged Passport violated the law in three areas: Passport had a practice of marking up fees from the advertised price; Passport had a discretionary markup practice that caused Black and Latino customers to pay higher fees; and it charged Black and Latino customers additional fees for markups for extra services. The consent order requires Passport to pay $3.38 million, with the FTC redistributing the money to affected customers. Chris and Brooke further discuss the FTC's proposed rule relating to disclosure of fees and how this affects auto dealerships.Associate Brooke Conkle focuses her practice on complex litigation and federal consumer protection statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and UDAP laws.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his guests and colleagues Alan Wingfield and Brooke Conkle as they discuss the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking governing voluntary products in automobile finance transactions. During the podcast, they examine the requirements imposed on both advertising practices and the sales process and what it means for the automotive industry.Consumer Financial Services Partner Alan Wingfield helps consumer-facing clients navigate compliance, litigation, and regulatory risks posed by the complex web of state and federal consumer protection laws, including Section 5 of the FTC Act and state equivalents of the Unfair and Deceptive Act and Practices Act (UDAP). He is a trusted advisor and tireless advocate, helping clients develop practical compliance and dispute-resolution strategies.Associate Brooke Conkle focuses her practice on complex litigation and federal consumer protection statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and UDAP laws.

Gus is joined by Neil Chilson, a senior research fellow for technology and innovation at Stand Together. Prior to his current role, Neil was the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) chief technologist. Together they discuss the FTC's recently released ANPR (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) on commercial surveillance and data security.Follow Neil on Twitter @neil_chilsonLinksNeil ChilsonNebraska Governance and Technology CenterText of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding the Commercial Surveillance and Data Security

In the newest episode of Season 2: Driving the Deal, Krist Werling, McDermott partner and co-head of the Private Equity Practice Group, and Brian Fortune, senior managing director at Farragut Square Group, are joined by Ashley Fischer, McDermott health antitrust partner. Together, they discuss the following concerning healthcare antitrust in the Biden administration: The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) signaled interest in the effect of private equity on competition How the FTC views hospital consolidation Major cases in the physician market and subsequent enforcement activity Tips for investing with new scrutiny Labor market competition and recent significant cases

The landscape of data privacy is changing on the heels of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) amendments to the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) and as states enact their own data privacy laws in an effort to fill gaps not covered by federal laws. 

This episode highlights the important role that PBMs play in lowering prescription drug costs amid the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) recent interest in conducting a PBM study. The episode features Ross Margulies, a Partner with the law firm Foley Hoag. Mr. Margulies outlines the role that PBMs play in Medicare, and how PBM tools and technology are working to lower drug costs for patients as well as improving their pharmacy experience.

This second episode in our series on consolidation in healthcare centers around the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) role of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws and ensuring competition within the industry. Special guest Mark D. Seidman, Assistant Director for the Mergers IV Division at the FTC, explains how the agency investigates mergers and their impact on the future of healthcare delivery.  Guest: Mark D. Seidman, Assistant Director for the Mergers IV Division at the Federal Trade Commission Host: Douglas Lundy, MD, MBA, FAAOS, AAOS Advocacy Council Chair 

The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) other foot, I argue, is lodged firmly in its mouth. Tatyana Bolton defends the agency, which released what can only be described as a regulatory blog post in response to the log4j vulnerability, invoking the $700 million in fines imposed on Equifax to threatening “to use its full legal authority to pursue companies that fail to take reasonable steps to protect consumer data from exposure as a result of Log4j.” She stresses that this is the best way to get companies to patch quickly and notes that only “reasonable steps” are required. I think we'll hear that a lot from the FTC, now that it turns out that fixing the Log4j mess is going to require a lot more that regulatory flexing. Especially, since the FTC's blog post seems to pull back from its tough-guy pose when talking about the open source maintainers who actually have to do much of the patch generation; unlike the companies it threatened with wrath, the FTC understands that open source coders “don't always have adequate resources and personnel,” something the FTC “will consider as we work to address the root issues that endanger user security.” Speaking of fallible regulators, Glenn Gerstell gives us a tour of China's tech regulatory landscape, and the remarkable decline in the fortunes of consumer tech firms in that country, as the New York Times covered in detail last week. Is that good news for Silicon Valley or U.S. competitiveness? Sadly, probably not, I conclude. Mark MacCarthy explains why the proposal to marry cryptocurrency to Signal is causing angst among Signal's supporters about the end-to-end encrypted service's ”regulatory attack surface.” Glenn covers the latest story about security risks and telecom gear from China. Mark and I dig into the growing enthusiasm for regulating big Silicon Valley companies as gatekeepers. The Germans are about to apply that approach to Google. And the South Koreans are doing the same to Apple and its app store payment policies. Tatyana notes the press coverage about possible tensions between two talented and strong cybersecurity officials in the White House: Anne Neuberger and Chris Inglis. I put Glenn on the spot about claims that Anne has “a particular tendency to clash with lawyers.” That would only make me love her more, but Glenn (who, as the National Security Agency's top lawyer, worked with her for years) absolves her of the charge.   Mark and I handicap the probability that the plaintiff will succeed in a highly charged lawsuit against Facebook/Meta Platforms for bringing together the boogaloo conspirators who killed a federal protective officer. It's a long shot, but if “negligent design” turns out to create liability for software and algorithms, Signal will have an even greater attack surface than its fans are worried about. Glenn explains the charges brought in China against Walmart for breaches of cybersecurity laws (hint: it's mostly not breaches of cybersecurity laws). Speaking of surprises that aren't surprises, Glenn also covers the announcement by Lloyd's of London that cyber insurance won't cover cyberattacks attributable to nation-states. Finally, I devote a few minutes to rant about the Justice Department's decision to expand charges against Joe Sullivan, Uber's former chief information security officer, for his role in payment of “bug bounties” to hackers who looked more like crooks than bounty hunters. More than a year after charging Sullivan with obstruction of justice, the department piled on new charges of wire fraud for failing to tell Uber's drivers about the breach. Glenn and I both question the decision to do this without any new facts to base the charges on. And I point out that the result of exposing breach response into wire fraud charges will (or should be) fatal to the FBI's desire to be called in while companies are dealing with breaches. If the company delays notice to the public for longer than the government thinks proper, wire fraud charges start to hang heavy in the air. If so, why would any general counsel want to have an FBI agent sitting in the room for the debate about when notice to customers is required? Download the 389th Episode (mp3)   You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001DmoQmZGawGFuIrtFSsppf_qjr-ms8700xt7tFnTAeFWg6WAYvOfQH6NmUt0XXq5SVg5ngdHQ3LV_f3OXUbBTgOgApWaSL0xw0H_LdDT7W5Xqam6nWCeTwBlXArhPwGKXHHXjOM09O17LJbsw9OlAKf06gxgn2Yn4O9lrKQneYVhfnmNA3qxl77jeLOjMxRk4xQh_GEYyW8DHDVkxADYJYY-PFI3Uo3HtGsDm_9WPF0dhAHhxEEAYJbatvYatn1VmsHwOHqqhkLhDGkxtIJHLnvs6jb6GUPXLPJuNN9gEa2m2jvieCHNri0IM0AuEl_3w_9-vh27puIw=&c=gNSKdKi7IxJnC9qBDlXigimvpt1enw9pgGSiRkknrlzLPDQ_1DwqSQ==&ch=F8np4XgtAaV0q_qqp41F0Vt-ynhOQn0fqLtk6Ys6WsAVvWgiViFgkA== (statement) from Sept. 15, 2021 clarifying the definition of a personal health record under its Health Breach Notification Rule to include third-party apps and the FTC's intent to hold non-HIPAA covered third-parties responsible for the disclosure of that personal health information. This is good right. Well, like everything in the world there are always tradeoffs. We explore the tradeoffs on today's show.

The New SCOTUS Cert Petition in Axon v. FTC  Axon Enterprise will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its constitutional challenge to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) merger review process. The body camera manufacturer failed in its bid to escape FTC administrative jurisdiction when a split panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lower court.  Justice Thomas Takes Shot at Qualified Immunity for School Officials In a statement on the denial of certiorari in Hoggard v. Rhodes, Justice Thomas criticized the jurisprudence that affords school officials the same immunity given to police officers.  "But why should university officers, who have time to make calculated choices about enacting or enforcing unconstitutional policies, receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting?" Thomas wrote. "We have never offered a satisfactory explanation to this question." You can find Justice Thomas's statement here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-1066_ihdk.pdf See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Simon Shares Level 4 lockdown. Remember the podcast of last week when I delved into the various leisure socks. Argent (JSE code: ART) results. Long a stock not worth covering or owning, but they've changed things up the last few years. Invicta (JSE code: IVT) another successful turnaround and really good results. JSE (JSE code: JSE) trading update, no surprise earnings under pressure. Nike (NYSE code: NKE) results absolutely crushed it last week. Revenue +96%. Anchor Capital published a note showing that the US had increased the number of US$ in circulation (M3) has gone up 33% over the course of the pandemic. Absa's Q2 2021 manufacturing survey shows very positive manufacturer confidence. EOH (JSE code: EOH) new board suing founder Asher Bohbot for R1.6billion. A US judge kicks out the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) antitrust case against Facebook. It was requesting that Facebook sell their Whatsapp and Instagram businesses. They can bring the case back again, but the bigger issue is antitrust cases against big tech in the US and EU. SAB Zenzele Kabili (JSE code: SZK) has been coming down, now around R120. Still, double far value. Thungela Resources (JSE code: TGA) trading at almost 4000c. Coal may be dirty and coal may be dead in time. But so far it's been a great investment, but this is probably fair value. South African Reserve Bank (SARB) turned 100 years old on Wednesday 30 June. Euro Zone inflation slipped to 1.9% for June. Popia is live from today. SA recorded another trade surplus in May of R54.6billion. This is the 3rd month in a row that the surplus has been above R50billion. Watch ~ Rand, stronger for longer

Our interview is with Alex Stamos, who lays out a complex debate over child sexual abuse that's now roiling Brussels. The application of European privacy standards and artificial intelligence (AI) hostility to internet communications providers has called into question the one tool that has reduced online child sex predation. Scanning for sex abuse images works well, and even scanning for signs of “grooming” is surprisingly effective. But they depend on automated monitoring of communications content, something that has come as a surprise to European lawmakers hoping to impose more regulation on American tech platforms. Left unchanged, the new European rules could make it easier to abuse children.  Alex explains the rushed effort to head off that disaster—and tells us what Ashton Kutcher has to do with it (a lot, it turns out). Meanwhile, in the news roundup, Michael Weiner breaks down the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) (and the states') long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Facebook. Maybe the government will come up with something as the case moves forward, but its monopolization claims don't strike me as overwhelming.  And, Mark MacCarthy points out, the likelihood that the lawsuit will do something good on the privacy front is vanishingly small.  Russia's SVR, heir of the KGB, is making headlines with a remarkably sophisticated and well-hidden cyberespionage attack on a lot of institutions that we hoped were better at defense than they turned out to be. Nick Weaver lays out the depressing story, and Alex offers a former CISO's perspective, arguing for a federal breach notification law that goes well beyond personal data and includes disciplined after-action reports that aren't locked up in post-litigation gag orders. Jamil Jaffer tells us that won't happen in Congress any time soon. Jamil also comments on the prospects for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), chock full of cyber provisions and struggling forward under a veto threat. If you're not watching the European Parliament tie itself in knots trying to avoid helping child predators, tune in to watch American legislators tie themselves into knots trying to pass an important defense bill without drawing the ire of the President. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in an Ajit Pai farewell, has been hammering Chinese telecoms companies. In one week, Jamil reports, the FCC launched proceedings to kick China Telecom out of the U.S. infrastructure, reaffirmed its exclusion of Huawei from the same infrastructure and adopted a “rip and replace” mandate for U.S. providers who still have Chinese gear in their networks. Nick and I clash over the latest move by Apple and Google to show their contempt for US counterterrorism efforts—the banning of a location data company whose real crime was selling the data to (gasp!) the Pentagon. Mark explains the proposals for elaborate new regulation of digital intermediaries now working their way through—where else? Brussels. I offer some cautious interest in regulation of “gatekeeper” platforms, if only to prevent Brussels and the gatekeepers from combining to slam the Overton window on conservatives' fingers.  Mark also reports on the Trump administration's principles for U.S. government use of AI, squelching as premature my celebration at the absence of “fairness” and “bias” can't. Those who listen to the roundup for the porn news won't be disappointed, as Mark and I dig into the details of Pornhub's brush with cancellation at the hands of Visa and Mastercard—and how the site might overcome the attack. In short hits, Nick and I disagree about Timnit Gebru, the “ethicist” who was let go at Google after threatening to quit. I report on the enactment of a modest but useful internet-of-things cybersecurity law and on the doxxing of the Chinese Communist Party membership rolls as well as the adoption of the most law-enforcement-hostile technology yet to come out of Big Tech—Amazon's Sidewalk.  And More! You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Jeffrey A. Greenbaum, Managing Partner of Frankfurt Kurnit, returns to talk to Bennet about the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) increased focus on Influencer Marketing. They discuss a formal request that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigate and bring enforcement actions related to the practice of non-disclosed advertising through “influencer” user profiles on Instagram.Based on an investigation conducted by Public Citizen and what is clear to anyone who browses popular Instagram profiles, Instagram has become a platform for disguised advertising directed towards young consumers.