On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit issued what might be the most business-friendly Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) decision we have seen in a long time in Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mailed almost $2 million to consumers for bogus weight loss products while Amazon launched the refund process as part of its deal with the agency in an action involving in-app purchases by children.
Many large private landowners record notices under the provisions of the Civil Code in order to ensure that public use of their property does not morph into an implied dedication of their land to the public.
Senate Republicans introduced a “discussion draft” of their ACA repeal and replace bill, the “Better Care Reconciliation Act” (BCRA), which maintains authority for the ACA Medicaid expansion but eliminates enhanced federal funding over a three-year period beginning in 2021.
The new Secretary of Labor officially withdrew the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) guidance on joint employment and independent contractors, although the agency cautioned in a news release that the removal does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under applicable law.
On the heels of dozens of letters sent by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to influencers and marketers, cautioning them to make appropriate disclosures on social media, Instagram announced that it will make the disclosure process easier for its users.
With more than 3 billion users worldwide, messaging apps have surpassed social networks in both reach and retention.
On May 8, 2017, a London High Court made a landmark ruling in favor of the Serious Fraud Office—England’s equivalent of the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—in its quest to obtain documents prepared in an internal investigation that were claimed to be ...
On June 22, Senate leadership released their proposed substitute for the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA), as a discussion draft.
The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of regulatory takings and, instead, made the law more confusing and less protective of the rights of property owners.