DROPLETS
U.S. importers, logistics providers, and e-commerce operators relying on low-value international mail shipments must adapt to CBP's elimination of the informal low-friction entry process, which imposes new mandatory compliance requirements that will increase costs and cause delays for non-compliant parties.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has formally eliminated the informal, low-friction entry pathway previously available for low-value international mail shipments arriving in the United States. Under the updated rules, all such shipments must complete formal entry processes, including mandatory advance electronic filing of full shipment data, payment of all applicable duties and fees, and compliance with CBP admissibility review requirements. Affected importers, logistics providers, and e-commerce operators should update shipping workflows to integrate required data submission steps, verify all shipments meet admissibility standards, and build buffer time for potential CBP review to avoid unexpected cost overruns and shipment delays.
In-house counsel responsible for employment, consumer, and litigation strategy at companies that use mandatory arbitration clauses must review this ruling, as it is the first appellate interpretation of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act and clarifies which claims are exempt from forced arbitration requirements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the first ever appellate decision interpreting the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act, a statute that prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses for many employment discrimination, sexual assault, and consumer protection claims. The ruling resolves key ambiguities around the scope of the Act’s exemptions, including which types of claims qualify and whether the Act applies to arbitration clauses in both employment and consumer contracts. In-house counsel should review the decision to assess whether their company’s existing mandatory arbitration provisions cover claims that are now unenforceable under the Act, and update contract templates and dispute resolution policies accordingly.
HR leaders, in-house employment counsel, compliance professionals, and workforce planning executives must immediately reassess all voluntary affirmative action and DEI programs following the EEOC’s elimination of decades-long safe harbor guidance and heightened federal enforcement scrutiny of protected-characteristic-based employment practices.
On June 30, 2026, the EEOC voted to rescind its 1979 Affirmative Action Guidelines and related Compliance Manual Section 607, which for over 40 years provided a formal framework for employers to evaluate the legality of voluntary affirmative action plans under Title VII. The EEOC stated the guidance conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent holding Title VII provides equal protections for all individuals. While the rescission does not make voluntary affirmative action plans unlawful or alter existing Supreme Court precedent recognizing limited permissible uses of such plans, it removes the safe harbor employers previously relied on to defend these programs. The action aligns with broader federal policy shifts scrutinizing DEI initiatives that consider protected characteristics including race and sex. Employers should review all affirmative action plans, DEI programs, and talent pipelines to ensure alignment with current statutory and case law, and prepare for increased EEOC enforcement of disparate treatment claims.
In-house counsel practicing in Texas and the companies that employ them have binding appellate confirmation that legal advice tied to corporate personnel decisions is protected by attorney immunity, even if the counsel also performs non-legal work, and plaintiffs cannot avoid this defense by omitting an attorney’s job title from pleadings.
On July 14, 2026, Texas’s Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus in favor of a Reynolds & Reynolds general counsel sued for tortious interference over his role in the for-cause termination of the company’s former CEO, marking the first time the new Texas Business Court has had a mandamus petition granted on the merits. The court held that attorney immunity applies to in-house counsel for legal advice tied to corporate personnel decisions, even if the counsel also performs non-legal business tasks, and that plaintiffs cannot circumvent this defense by amending pleadings to omit the attorney’s job title. In-house counsel and their employers facing similar tort claims in Texas can cite this binding precedent to seek early dismissal of suits tied to protected legal work.
In-house counsel overseeing M&A transactions must prioritize full Hart-Scott-Rodino Act compliance, as the FTC is imposing steep penalties on parties that structure deals to avoid pre-merger filing requirements.
The FTC reached a $12 million combined settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech after determining the parties structured a 2022 asset purchase to avoid triggering Hart-Scott-Rodino Act pre-merger notification requirements. The agreement included terms that delayed transfer of operational control and voting rights until after the statutory HSR waiting period would have lapsed, allowing the transaction to close without a required filing. The settlement signals the FTC’s heightened focus on enforcing HSR compliance for all transaction structures, including those designed to circumvent filing thresholds. In-house counsel should review pending and completed deals for potential HSR gaps, and ensure future transaction structuring does not include provisions intended to avoid pre-merger notification obligations.
Large institutional real estate investors and their counsel must immediately audit existing and planned single-family home portfolios for compliance with new federal restrictions, as prohibited acquisitions carry significant civil penalties.
A newly enacted federal housing law prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, reversing years of widespread institutional acquisition of residential rental stock. The statute defines covered institutional investor categories and includes narrow exceptions for small-scale purchases and qualified affordable housing projects. In-house counsel for real estate investment firms, residential housing operators, and lenders financing single-family home acquisitions must first map all current and planned holdings against the new rules, then update internal acquisition protocols and client advisory practices to avoid prohibited transactions and reduce enforcement exposure.
Federal contractors and subcontractors handling controlled unclassified information must monitor evolving CUI compliance rules as the FAR Council proposes updated safeguarding and incident reporting requirements while the DoW pauses CMMC implementation.
The FAR Council has issued a proposed rule updating federal contractor obligations for safeguarding controlled unclassified information (CUI), including revised security control standards and shortened incident reporting timelines for CUI breaches. Concurrently, the Department of Defense has paused its full Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) rollout, delaying mandatory third-party cybersecurity assessments for most defense contractors. Contractors handling CUI for federal agencies should review the proposed FAR rule for alignment with existing compliance programs, submit public comments during the open comment period, and update interim compliance roadmaps to account for the CMMC pause while monitoring for future DoW implementation updates.
In-house IP and pharma/biotech counsel must update patent drafting and litigation strategies to align with binding Federal Circuit precedent on validity requirements for method-of-use claims covering known compound genera.
The article analyzes two 2025–2026 Federal Circuit decisions clarifying 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description and enablement requirements for pharmaceutical method-of-use claims covering known compound genera. In Teva v. Eli Lilly, the court reversed a JMOL invalidity ruling in a posture-sensitive decision, finding claims for humanized anti-CGRP antibodies to treat headache satisfied § 112 because the antibodies were well-known, humanization was routine, the specification disclosed the therapeutic use, and the jury’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. In In re Xencor, the court affirmed a written description rejection for claims covering anti-C5 antibodies with specific Fc substitutions for patient treatment, holding the specification lacked support for the full scope of the claimed treatment method. In-house counsel should review existing method-of-use patent portfolios for compliance with these precedents, and adjust future claim drafting to clearly tie claimed compound genera to their specific disclosed therapeutic uses.
Multinational importers must immediately audit customs compliance controls, as DOJ’s new False Claims Act enforcement for duty evasion carries treble damages and far harsher penalties than prior CBP-only administrative actions.
The DOJ has significantly ramped up trade enforcement following the 2025 creation of its Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit and cross-agency Trade Task Force, highlighted by a $549.5 million False Claims Act (FCA) settlement with aluminum importers accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duties via falsified CBP entry documentation. This marks a sharp shift from prior customs enforcement led solely by CBP, as DOJ now frames duty evasion as fraud against the U.S. government, triggering treble damages, statutory penalties, and broader investigatory powers. Importers must audit core customs controls including tariff classification, valuation, country of origin, and AD/CVD compliance, ensure all government-facing import documents are accurate, and review UFLPA forced labor representations for consistency, as inaccuracies can support FCA claims.
Multinational importers, foreign importers of record, and customs brokers must prepare for stricter U.S. customs eligibility, disclosure, and penalty requirements under a new executive order that will reshape import compliance rules within 180 days.
A new Trump administration executive order directs DHS and CBP to implement a broad overhaul of U.S. import rules within 180 days, with 45- and 90-day interim milestones for legislative recommendations and preliminary documentation requirements. Key provisions include barring most foreign importers of record from filing informal entries or using continuous bonds, requiring all importers to maintain minimum domestic tangible assets or higher bond coverage, mandating expanded beneficial ownership, affiliate, and import volume disclosures, and tying import eligibility to the good compliance standing of both the importer and all its affiliates. The order also establishes a 50% minimum penalty floor for customs violations and loosens rules for seizing and disposing of noncompliant goods. Frequent importers should review their entity structuring, bond levels, and group-wide customs compliance history immediately, even before final implementing rules are issued, to mitigate supply chain disruption and enforcement risk.
Multinational importers and in-house customs compliance teams must avoid aggressive tariff-avoidance tactics, as CBP’s data-driven enforcement increasingly targets these strategies for audits and significant penalties.
The final installment of this customs enforcement series details 10 high-risk, often unlawful tariff-saving tactics importers pursue to cut landed costs, including misclassification to avoid Section 232/301 duties, underreporting dutiable assists and royalties, and unbundling costs to lower declared value. CBP now uses cross-entry data analytics to flag anomalous patterns like sudden classification shifts or outlier valuation compared to peer importers. Importers should conduct regular, product-focused classification and valuation reviews led by legal counsel, avoid outcome-driven customs planning, and ensure cross-functional teams (procurement, engineering) disclose all relevant costs to customs staff to reduce enforcement exposure.
Entities with foreign involvement that hold or invest in U.S. agricultural land, and their legal advisors, must assess the proposed USDA rule, which would expand AFIDA reporting requirements to foreign persons with decision-making authority over the land or its holding entity even if they hold no equity interest.
In June 2026, USDA published a proposed rule to overhaul the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA), which governs foreign person reporting for U.S. agricultural land transactions. The rule would replace AFIDA’s existing equity-only
Companies using website tracking tools including cookies, pixels and session replay software face elevated litigation risk as unsettled standing rules and new pre-consent tracking theories expand the scope of privacy claims against them.
Recent court rulings have not resolved nationwide website tracking litigation risk, with ongoing splits in Article III standing standards across federal circuits, including a forthcoming Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal on whether unauthorized disclosure of IP addresses and similar identifiers constitutes concrete injury. Plaintiffs are shifting tactics to focus on pre-consent data collection, gaps between corporate privacy disclosures and actual practices, and non-functional opt-out mechanisms, even as defendants secure some dismissals. Companies should audit their tracking technologies, consent tools and privacy disclosures to align stated practices with actual data collection, and test opt-in/opt-out functionality to reduce exposure to state and federal privacy claims.
Hedge funds, activist investors, issuers and crowdfunding sponsors must reassess Section 13 reporting, proxy disclosure and tender-offer dissemination practices following new SEC Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.
On July 9, 2026, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance released several Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations addressing Total Return Equity Swaps (Questions 105.08–105.10), Section 13 reporting (Questions 110.09–110.10), proxy rules (Question 155.02), Regulation Crowdfunding (Question 202.02), and tender-offer dissemination (Questions 104.03 and 131.04). The Staff confirmed that a cash-settled TRS referencing a single class of equity, without voting or acquisition rights, does not by itself create Section 13 beneficial ownership, but arrangements designed to evade reporting—particularly those directing counterparty voting or pre-arranging acquisitions—may trigger beneficial-ownership status. Activist vehicles formed to target a specific issuer must disclose all investors in Schedule 13D filings and identify investors contributing more than $500 as proxy participants. Crowdfunding issuers must continue reporting until holder counts drop below 300 or specified Rule 202(b) events occur. Tender-offer bidders may now use a press release plus active hyperlink in lieu of summary ne
…
In-house counsel overseeing UK workforces must prepare now, as a 2027 state enforcement regime will allow whole-workforce holiday pay investigations with 6-year lookbacks and penalties up to 200% of arrears, replacing most individual tribunal claims.
The UK government launched a June 30, 2026 consultation on the Fair Work Agency’s (FWA) new role enforcing statutory holiday pay and entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998, with enforcement set to begin in 2027. The FWA, a new state labor enforcement agency established in April 2026, will have power to investigate entire workforces (not just individual claims), review records going back 6 years, issue notices of underpayment, and impose civil penalties of 200% of arrears per worker (capped at £20,000, minimum £100) for non-compliance. The regime prioritizes employer compliance support, with full penalty waivers for employers who repay all arrears before an investigation starts. In-house counsel should audit current holiday pay arrangements for complex pay structures (irregular hours, variable pay, commission) and ensure 6-year detailed record retention ahead of the 2027 rollout.
Companies sending consumer text messages across multiple U.S. circuits face conflicting TCPA compliance obligations after the Seventh Circuit held texts are not 'telephone calls' under §227(c)(5), creating a split with the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling holding that text messages do not qualify as 'telephone calls' under Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the provision that authorizes private lawsuits for violations of FCC telemarketing rules. This decision directly conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit ruling that classified text messages as telephone calls under the TCPA, creating a formal circuit split. For organizations that send text-based communications to consumers, this split means compliance requirements vary by jurisdiction: entities operating in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) may face different liability exposure for text message campaigns than those operating in the Ninth Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington) or other circuits that have not yet issued rulings on the issue. In-house counsel should audit current cross-jurisdictional text messaging practices, verify consent and opt-out protocols align with the applicable circuit's interpretation, and monitor for potential Supreme Court review to resolve th
…
Defense contractors holding or bidding on U.S. Department of Defense contracts must meet new Anthropic usage certification requirements to retain eligibility for existing and future work.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s ban on use of Anthropic’s AI tools by contractors took effect in July 2026, paired with a new mandatory certification requirement for all contractors to confirm they are not using prohibited Anthropic services in performance of DoD work. The rule creates a fragmented compliance landscape, as contractors using third-party AI tools that integrate Anthropic models, or operating across multiple jurisdictions, face unclear verification processes. In-house counsel for defense contractors should immediately audit all AI tools used in contract performance, update vendor compliance questionnaires, and establish internal protocols to document adherence to the ban to avoid contract termination or debarment risks.
In-house counsel and HR leads for companies offering severance packages must review 409A exemption eligibility, as non-compliant arrangements trigger 20% excise taxes and adverse tax consequences for both employers and departing employees.
A recent guide clarifies that severance may qualify as deferred compensation subject to Section 409A’s strict timing rules, but multiple exemptions apply to common severance structures. Key exemptions include the short-term deferral rule for payments made within 2.5 months of the year the right is no longer subject to forfeiture, the involuntary separation pay plan exemption for payments up to $720,000 (2026 limit) paid within two years of separation, and exemptions for COBRA premium reimbursements, outplacement costs, and limited separation pay under $24,500 (2026). Arrangements can also stack multiple exemptions for different payment components, and non-exempt severance can be structured to comply with 409A’s fixed payment date and permissible event requirements, including a mandatory six-month delay for specified employees of public companies.
Data center developers, hyperscalers, and AI infrastructure investors must monitor New York’s first-of-its-kind statewide AI data center moratorium and planned tax exemption repeal, as the policy signals emerging state-level regulatory risk that could reshape U.S. data center site selection and project economics as multiple other states consider similar restrictions.
New York has become the first U.S. state to enact a statewide moratorium on certain AI data center development projects, marking a shift from prior municipal-level restrictions on the infrastructure. The policy does not apply to all data center projects, and New York is not a top hyperscale development market, so immediate national impact on data center growth is limited. However, six other states are considering similar legislation, and Governor Hochul has also announced plans to repeal the state’s sales tax exemption for large data centers, which would raise equipment and construction costs for in-development projects. Industry stakeholders should monitor state and local legislative activity to adjust site selection, capital planning, and regulatory risk assessments for upcoming data center builds.
U.S. importing companies and their trade compliance teams must implement proactive tariff mitigation steps to reduce landed costs and avoid compliance penalties amid ongoing tariff volatility.
Foley & Lardner’s guidance outlines five proactive best practices for U.S. importers navigating ongoing tariff volatility that drives unpredictable landed costs and supply chain disruptions. The recommended steps include auditing core customs determinations (tariff classification, valuation, country of origin) for accuracy, identifying the most tariff-sensitive products and supplier relationships, evaluating eligibility for duty-saving programs such as foreign-trade zones or duty drawback, reviewing commercial contracts for clear tariff cost allocation terms, and building a cross-functional escalation process for new tariff announcements. These measures help companies shift from reactive tariff response to deliberate risk reduction, minimizing exposure to overpaid duties, unexpected cost increases, and customs audit penalties.
Companies using website tracking tools including cookies, pixels and session replay software face elevated litigation risk as unsettled standing rules and new pre-consent tracking theories expand the scope of privacy claims against them.
Recent court rulings have not resolved nationwide website tracking litigation risk, with ongoing splits in Article III standing standards across federal circuits, including a forthcoming Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal on whether unauthorized disclosure of IP addresses and similar identifiers constitutes concrete injury. Plaintiffs are shifting tactics to focus on pre-consent data collection, gaps between corporate privacy disclosures and actual practices, and non-functional opt-out mechanisms, even as defendants secure some dismissals. Companies should audit their tracking technologies, consent tools and privacy disclosures to align stated practices with actual data collection, and test opt-in/opt-out functionality to reduce exposure to state and federal privacy claims.
In-house counsel overseeing M&A transactions must prioritize full Hart-Scott-Rodino Act compliance, as the FTC is imposing steep penalties on parties that structure deals to avoid pre-merger filing requirements.
The FTC reached a $12 million combined settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech after determining the parties structured a 2022 asset purchase to avoid triggering Hart-Scott-Rodino Act pre-merger notification requirements. The agreement included terms that delayed transfer of operational control and voting rights until after the statutory HSR waiting period would have lapsed, allowing the transaction to close without a required filing. The settlement signals the FTC’s heightened focus on enforcing HSR compliance for all transaction structures, including those designed to circumvent filing thresholds. In-house counsel should review pending and completed deals for potential HSR gaps, and ensure future transaction structuring does not include provisions intended to avoid pre-merger notification obligations.
HR leaders, in-house employment counsel, compliance professionals, and workforce planning executives must immediately reassess all voluntary affirmative action and DEI programs following the EEOC’s elimination of decades-long safe harbor guidance and heightened federal enforcement scrutiny of protected-characteristic-based employment practices.
On June 30, 2026, the EEOC voted to rescind its 1979 Affirmative Action Guidelines and related Compliance Manual Section 607, which for over 40 years provided a formal framework for employers to evaluate the legality of voluntary affirmative action plans under Title VII. The EEOC stated the guidance conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent holding Title VII provides equal protections for all individuals. While the rescission does not make voluntary affirmative action plans unlawful or alter existing Supreme Court precedent recognizing limited permissible uses of such plans, it removes the safe harbor employers previously relied on to defend these programs. The action aligns with broader federal policy shifts scrutinizing DEI initiatives that consider protected characteristics including race and sex. Employers should review all affirmative action plans, DEI programs, and talent pipelines to ensure alignment with current statutory and case law, and prepare for increased EEOC enforcement of disparate treatment claims.
In-house counsel overseeing UK workforces must prepare now, as a 2027 state enforcement regime will allow whole-workforce holiday pay investigations with 6-year lookbacks and penalties up to 200% of arrears, replacing most individual tribunal claims.
The UK government launched a June 30, 2026 consultation on the Fair Work Agency’s (FWA) new role enforcing statutory holiday pay and entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998, with enforcement set to begin in 2027. The FWA, a new state labor enforcement agency established in April 2026, will have power to investigate entire workforces (not just individual claims), review records going back 6 years, issue notices of underpayment, and impose civil penalties of 200% of arrears per worker (capped at £20,000, minimum £100) for non-compliance. The regime prioritizes employer compliance support, with full penalty waivers for employers who repay all arrears before an investigation starts. In-house counsel should audit current holiday pay arrangements for complex pay structures (irregular hours, variable pay, commission) and ensure 6-year detailed record retention ahead of the 2027 rollout.
Federal contractors and subcontractors handling controlled unclassified information must monitor evolving CUI compliance rules as the FAR Council proposes updated safeguarding and incident reporting requirements while the DoW pauses CMMC implementation.
The FAR Council has issued a proposed rule updating federal contractor obligations for safeguarding controlled unclassified information (CUI), including revised security control standards and shortened incident reporting timelines for CUI breaches. Concurrently, the Department of Defense has paused its full Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) rollout, delaying mandatory third-party cybersecurity assessments for most defense contractors. Contractors handling CUI for federal agencies should review the proposed FAR rule for alignment with existing compliance programs, submit public comments during the open comment period, and update interim compliance roadmaps to account for the CMMC pause while monitoring for future DoW implementation updates.
Defense contractors holding or bidding on U.S. Department of Defense contracts must meet new Anthropic usage certification requirements to retain eligibility for existing and future work.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s ban on use of Anthropic’s AI tools by contractors took effect in July 2026, paired with a new mandatory certification requirement for all contractors to confirm they are not using prohibited Anthropic services in performance of DoD work. The rule creates a fragmented compliance landscape, as contractors using third-party AI tools that integrate Anthropic models, or operating across multiple jurisdictions, face unclear verification processes. In-house counsel for defense contractors should immediately audit all AI tools used in contract performance, update vendor compliance questionnaires, and establish internal protocols to document adherence to the ban to avoid contract termination or debarment risks.
Data center developers, hyperscalers, and AI infrastructure investors must monitor New York’s first-of-its-kind statewide AI data center moratorium and planned tax exemption repeal, as the policy signals emerging state-level regulatory risk that could reshape U.S. data center site selection and project economics as multiple other states consider similar restrictions.
New York has become the first U.S. state to enact a statewide moratorium on certain AI data center development projects, marking a shift from prior municipal-level restrictions on the infrastructure. The policy does not apply to all data center projects, and New York is not a top hyperscale development market, so immediate national impact on data center growth is limited. However, six other states are considering similar legislation, and Governor Hochul has also announced plans to repeal the state’s sales tax exemption for large data centers, which would raise equipment and construction costs for in-development projects. Industry stakeholders should monitor state and local legislative activity to adjust site selection, capital planning, and regulatory risk assessments for upcoming data center builds.
U.S. importers, logistics providers, and e-commerce operators relying on low-value international mail shipments must adapt to CBP's elimination of the informal low-friction entry process, which imposes new mandatory compliance requirements that will increase costs and cause delays for non-compliant parties.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has formally eliminated the informal, low-friction entry pathway previously available for low-value international mail shipments arriving in the United States. Under the updated rules, all such shipments must complete formal entry processes, including mandatory advance electronic filing of full shipment data, payment of all applicable duties and fees, and compliance with CBP admissibility review requirements. Affected importers, logistics providers, and e-commerce operators should update shipping workflows to integrate required data submission steps, verify all shipments meet admissibility standards, and build buffer time for potential CBP review to avoid unexpected cost overruns and shipment delays.
Multinational importers must immediately audit customs compliance controls, as DOJ’s new False Claims Act enforcement for duty evasion carries treble damages and far harsher penalties than prior CBP-only administrative actions.
The DOJ has significantly ramped up trade enforcement following the 2025 creation of its Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit and cross-agency Trade Task Force, highlighted by a $549.5 million False Claims Act (FCA) settlement with aluminum importers accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duties via falsified CBP entry documentation. This marks a sharp shift from prior customs enforcement led solely by CBP, as DOJ now frames duty evasion as fraud against the U.S. government, triggering treble damages, statutory penalties, and broader investigatory powers. Importers must audit core customs controls including tariff classification, valuation, country of origin, and AD/CVD compliance, ensure all government-facing import documents are accurate, and review UFLPA forced labor representations for consistency, as inaccuracies can support FCA claims.
Multinational importers, foreign importers of record, and customs brokers must prepare for stricter U.S. customs eligibility, disclosure, and penalty requirements under a new executive order that will reshape import compliance rules within 180 days.
A new Trump administration executive order directs DHS and CBP to implement a broad overhaul of U.S. import rules within 180 days, with 45- and 90-day interim milestones for legislative recommendations and preliminary documentation requirements. Key provisions include barring most foreign importers of record from filing informal entries or using continuous bonds, requiring all importers to maintain minimum domestic tangible assets or higher bond coverage, mandating expanded beneficial ownership, affiliate, and import volume disclosures, and tying import eligibility to the good compliance standing of both the importer and all its affiliates. The order also establishes a 50% minimum penalty floor for customs violations and loosens rules for seizing and disposing of noncompliant goods. Frequent importers should review their entity structuring, bond levels, and group-wide customs compliance history immediately, even before final implementing rules are issued, to mitigate supply chain disruption and enforcement risk.
Multinational importers and in-house customs compliance teams must avoid aggressive tariff-avoidance tactics, as CBP’s data-driven enforcement increasingly targets these strategies for audits and significant penalties.
The final installment of this customs enforcement series details 10 high-risk, often unlawful tariff-saving tactics importers pursue to cut landed costs, including misclassification to avoid Section 232/301 duties, underreporting dutiable assists and royalties, and unbundling costs to lower declared value. CBP now uses cross-entry data analytics to flag anomalous patterns like sudden classification shifts or outlier valuation compared to peer importers. Importers should conduct regular, product-focused classification and valuation reviews led by legal counsel, avoid outcome-driven customs planning, and ensure cross-functional teams (procurement, engineering) disclose all relevant costs to customs staff to reduce enforcement exposure.
U.S. importing companies and their trade compliance teams must implement proactive tariff mitigation steps to reduce landed costs and avoid compliance penalties amid ongoing tariff volatility.
Foley & Lardner’s guidance outlines five proactive best practices for U.S. importers navigating ongoing tariff volatility that drives unpredictable landed costs and supply chain disruptions. The recommended steps include auditing core customs determinations (tariff classification, valuation, country of origin) for accuracy, identifying the most tariff-sensitive products and supplier relationships, evaluating eligibility for duty-saving programs such as foreign-trade zones or duty drawback, reviewing commercial contracts for clear tariff cost allocation terms, and building a cross-functional escalation process for new tariff announcements. These measures help companies shift from reactive tariff response to deliberate risk reduction, minimizing exposure to overpaid duties, unexpected cost increases, and customs audit penalties.
In-house counsel responsible for employment, consumer, and litigation strategy at companies that use mandatory arbitration clauses must review this ruling, as it is the first appellate interpretation of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act and clarifies which claims are exempt from forced arbitration requirements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the first ever appellate decision interpreting the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act, a statute that prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses for many employment discrimination, sexual assault, and consumer protection claims. The ruling resolves key ambiguities around the scope of the Act’s exemptions, including which types of claims qualify and whether the Act applies to arbitration clauses in both employment and consumer contracts. In-house counsel should review the decision to assess whether their company’s existing mandatory arbitration provisions cover claims that are now unenforceable under the Act, and update contract templates and dispute resolution policies accordingly.
In-house counsel practicing in Texas and the companies that employ them have binding appellate confirmation that legal advice tied to corporate personnel decisions is protected by attorney immunity, even if the counsel also performs non-legal work, and plaintiffs cannot avoid this defense by omitting an attorney’s job title from pleadings.
On July 14, 2026, Texas’s Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus in favor of a Reynolds & Reynolds general counsel sued for tortious interference over his role in the for-cause termination of the company’s former CEO, marking the first time the new Texas Business Court has had a mandamus petition granted on the merits. The court held that attorney immunity applies to in-house counsel for legal advice tied to corporate personnel decisions, even if the counsel also performs non-legal business tasks, and that plaintiffs cannot circumvent this defense by amending pleadings to omit the attorney’s job title. In-house counsel and their employers facing similar tort claims in Texas can cite this binding precedent to seek early dismissal of suits tied to protected legal work.
In-house IP and pharma/biotech counsel must update patent drafting and litigation strategies to align with binding Federal Circuit precedent on validity requirements for method-of-use claims covering known compound genera.
The article analyzes two 2025–2026 Federal Circuit decisions clarifying 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description and enablement requirements for pharmaceutical method-of-use claims covering known compound genera. In Teva v. Eli Lilly, the court reversed a JMOL invalidity ruling in a posture-sensitive decision, finding claims for humanized anti-CGRP antibodies to treat headache satisfied § 112 because the antibodies were well-known, humanization was routine, the specification disclosed the therapeutic use, and the jury’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. In In re Xencor, the court affirmed a written description rejection for claims covering anti-C5 antibodies with specific Fc substitutions for patient treatment, holding the specification lacked support for the full scope of the claimed treatment method. In-house counsel should review existing method-of-use patent portfolios for compliance with these precedents, and adjust future claim drafting to clearly tie claimed compound genera to their specific disclosed therapeutic uses.
Companies using website tracking tools including cookies, pixels and session replay software face elevated litigation risk as unsettled standing rules and new pre-consent tracking theories expand the scope of privacy claims against them.
Recent court rulings have not resolved nationwide website tracking litigation risk, with ongoing splits in Article III standing standards across federal circuits, including a forthcoming Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal on whether unauthorized disclosure of IP addresses and similar identifiers constitutes concrete injury. Plaintiffs are shifting tactics to focus on pre-consent data collection, gaps between corporate privacy disclosures and actual practices, and non-functional opt-out mechanisms, even as defendants secure some dismissals. Companies should audit their tracking technologies, consent tools and privacy disclosures to align stated practices with actual data collection, and test opt-in/opt-out functionality to reduce exposure to state and federal privacy claims.
Companies sending consumer text messages across multiple U.S. circuits face conflicting TCPA compliance obligations after the Seventh Circuit held texts are not 'telephone calls' under §227(c)(5), creating a split with the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling holding that text messages do not qualify as 'telephone calls' under Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the provision that authorizes private lawsuits for violations of FCC telemarketing rules. This decision directly conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit ruling that classified text messages as telephone calls under the TCPA, creating a formal circuit split. For organizations that send text-based communications to consumers, this split means compliance requirements vary by jurisdiction: entities operating in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) may face different liability exposure for text message campaigns than those operating in the Ninth Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington) or other circuits that have not yet issued rulings on the issue. In-house counsel should audit current cross-jurisdictional text messaging practices, verify consent and opt-out protocols align with the applicable circuit's interpretation, and monitor for potential Supreme Court review to resolve th
…
Large institutional real estate investors and their counsel must immediately audit existing and planned single-family home portfolios for compliance with new federal restrictions, as prohibited acquisitions carry significant civil penalties.
A newly enacted federal housing law prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, reversing years of widespread institutional acquisition of residential rental stock. The statute defines covered institutional investor categories and includes narrow exceptions for small-scale purchases and qualified affordable housing projects. In-house counsel for real estate investment firms, residential housing operators, and lenders financing single-family home acquisitions must first map all current and planned holdings against the new rules, then update internal acquisition protocols and client advisory practices to avoid prohibited transactions and reduce enforcement exposure.
Entities with foreign involvement that hold or invest in U.S. agricultural land, and their legal advisors, must assess the proposed USDA rule, which would expand AFIDA reporting requirements to foreign persons with decision-making authority over the land or its holding entity even if they hold no equity interest.
In June 2026, USDA published a proposed rule to overhaul the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA), which governs foreign person reporting for U.S. agricultural land transactions. The rule would replace AFIDA’s existing equity-only
Hedge funds, activist investors, issuers and crowdfunding sponsors must reassess Section 13 reporting, proxy disclosure and tender-offer dissemination practices following new SEC Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.
On July 9, 2026, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance released several Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations addressing Total Return Equity Swaps (Questions 105.08–105.10), Section 13 reporting (Questions 110.09–110.10), proxy rules (Question 155.02), Regulation Crowdfunding (Question 202.02), and tender-offer dissemination (Questions 104.03 and 131.04). The Staff confirmed that a cash-settled TRS referencing a single class of equity, without voting or acquisition rights, does not by itself create Section 13 beneficial ownership, but arrangements designed to evade reporting—particularly those directing counterparty voting or pre-arranging acquisitions—may trigger beneficial-ownership status. Activist vehicles formed to target a specific issuer must disclose all investors in Schedule 13D filings and identify investors contributing more than $500 as proxy participants. Crowdfunding issuers must continue reporting until holder counts drop below 300 or specified Rule 202(b) events occur. Tender-offer bidders may now use a press release plus active hyperlink in lieu of summary ne
…
In-house counsel and HR leads for companies offering severance packages must review 409A exemption eligibility, as non-compliant arrangements trigger 20% excise taxes and adverse tax consequences for both employers and departing employees.
A recent guide clarifies that severance may qualify as deferred compensation subject to Section 409A’s strict timing rules, but multiple exemptions apply to common severance structures. Key exemptions include the short-term deferral rule for payments made within 2.5 months of the year the right is no longer subject to forfeiture, the involuntary separation pay plan exemption for payments up to $720,000 (2026 limit) paid within two years of separation, and exemptions for COBRA premium reimbursements, outplacement costs, and limited separation pay under $24,500 (2026). Arrangements can also stack multiple exemptions for different payment components, and non-exempt severance can be structured to comply with 409A’s fixed payment date and permissible event requirements, including a mandatory six-month delay for specified employees of public companies.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- QSBS Entity Choice Can Save Founders and Investors Millions in Federal Tax
Startup founders and early-stage investors structuring new entities must weigh C-corp election now to preserve a potential 100% federal capital-gains exclusion under Section 1202.
- ERISA Education vs. Advice Line: Sponsors Must Avoid Fiduciary Liability
Plan sponsors seeking to lift participant retirement fluency must keep communications within DOL Interpretive Bulletin 96-1's education safe harbor, since any drift into individualized advice triggers ERISA fiduciary exposure.
- Ontario Court Upholds Verbal Bonus Policy, Denies Ex-Employee Bonus Claim
Ontario in-house employment counsel and employers operating in the province can rely on this precedent to enforce verbal bonus policies requiring active employment at payout, reducing exposure to post-termination bonus claims.
- Bank Lending Pullback Creates Risks, Opportunities for Private Credit Funds
Private credit fund operators and their in-house counsel must monitor evolving bank lending pullback trends, as these shifts are reshaping deal flow, risk profiles, and compliance obligations across the private credit market.
- Ohio Courts Dismiss Duplicative IP Suits Against Metals Firm, Award $307K Fees
In-house counsel defending against serial post-judgment IP infringement claims should note this ruling upholding summary judgment on trademark likelihood of confusion and awarding full attorneys’ fees for frivolous follow-on suits.
- Walden Robotics Launches With $1.1B Valuation, $300M Funding Round
In-house counsel for robotics, automotive, and venture capital portfolio companies must monitor this deal as a signal of surging humanoid robotics investment and evolving corporate structuring precedents for high-growth hardware startups.