DROPLETS
Importers and global manufacturers must reassess supply chains now that USTR has issued forced labor findings under Section 301, signaling potential new tariff exposure.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has concluded findings in a Section 301 investigation tied to alleged use of forced labor in foreign production, a step that historically precedes tariff action or import restrictions targeting specific sectors or countries. For in-house counsel at companies sourcing from regions implicated in the probe, the findings raise the prospect of new duties, customs enforcement, and due-diligence obligations on suppliers. Recommended next steps include reviewing supplier audit records, mapping high-risk inputs, preparing for possible exclusion processes, and updating customs compliance programs to address forced-labor screening under U.S. law.
Defense contractors and subcontractors must continue self-assessing against existing NIST SP 800-171 controls while awaiting DoD's revised CMMC framework.
On July 13, 2026, DoD/W suspended Phase II of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program, halting third-party assessments that were scheduled to expand across the DIB. The agency cited the need to reassess implementation timelines and reduce contractor burden, but expressly preserved all baseline safeguarding requirements under NIST SP 800-171 and the existing DFARS 252.204-7012 clause. Contractors cannot pause cyber hygiene work: SPRS score submissions, system security plans, and Plan of Action & Milestones remain mandatory for any award, option, or subcontract flow-down. Prime contractors should revalidate subcontractor attestations and confirm that pending awards still require current self-assessment scores. Companies previously preparing for Level 2 certification audits should pause external assessment spending and monitor DoD guidance for the revised phased approach expected later this year.
In-house counsel must recalibrate compliance and litigation playbooks as bipartisan state AG coalitions pursue aggressive enforcement in consumer protection, antitrust, DEI, AI, and pricing—often filling gaps left by federal agencies.
State attorneys general have emerged as primary enforcement actors, backed by expanded budgets, staffing, and an influx of experienced federal lawyers. Democratic AGs are litigating against the Trump administration—filing 115+ suits since January 2025—and stepping into consumer finance, pricing, and environmental enforcement as federal agencies like the CFPB face cuts. New York and California have launched investigations into algorithmic and surveillance pricing, while multistate coalitions have challenged tariffs, energy-permitting executive orders, and CFPB defunding. Republican AGs are aligning with federal priorities, issuing opinions deeming DEI programs unlawful and pursuing data privacy, ESG, and antitrust actions independently. Bipartisan coalitions are converging on youth online safety, AI, PBMs, and prediction markets. Companies should expect overlapping state and federal exposure, monitor coalition compositions, and prepare for parallel investigations across jurisdictions.
M&A counsel and corporate development teams must reassess HSR aggregation analysis: the FTC and DOJ just extracted the largest combined civil penalty ever for a failure-to-file case, holding both buyer and seller liable for splitting a single transaction to stay below the reporting threshold.
On July 13, 2026, DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint and proposed final judgment in D.D.C. against Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech for structuring Edwards' $115 million acquisition of JC Medical and a contemporaneous $25 million investment in Genesis as two separate transactions to avoid the then-applicable $119.5 million HSR size-of-transaction threshold. Edwards will pay a $10 million civil penalty and Genesis $2 million—the largest combined HSR failure-to-file penalty on record. The settlement also imposes a five-year prior-notification regime on Edwards for any TAVR-AR-related acquisition, a court-ordered antitrust compliance program, and ongoing inspection rights. Critically, the agencies pursued both sides of the deal, signaling that sellers bear independent HSR compliance risk. The matter follows the FTC's January 2026 injunction blocking Edwards' related $945 million JenaValve acquisition, where the undisclosed JC Medical deal was used against Edwards. Practitioners should treat any contemporaneous related-party consideration—minority investments, earnouts,
…
Insurance carriers, brokers, and adjusters operating in New Jersey face expanded consumer-fraud exposure after the state Supreme Court narrowed the Consumer Fraud Act's insurance-professional exemption.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Consumer Fraud Act's exemption for the business of insurance does not categorically shield insurance professionals from CFA liability. The decision limits the exemption's reach, meaning insurers, producers, and claims handlers can now be sued under the CFA for conduct tied to insurance transactions that previously fell outside the statute. In-house counsel should reassess sales, underwriting, and claims practices for CFA compliance, update consumer-facing disclosures, and review pending litigation strategy in light of the broader liability surface. The ruling also signals heightened enforcement and private litigation risk across the New Jersey market.
Broker-dealer compliance leaders must prepare for new FINRA supervisory standards governing how AI-generated and digital retail communications are reviewed before publication.
FINRA has proposed amendments to Rule 2210 that would modernize the supervision and review framework for retail communications, explicitly addressing evolving communication practices and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. The proposal signals FINRA's intent to update a framework originally built for static, pre-approved content to accommodate dynamic digital channels, social media, and AI-assisted drafting. Member firms should expect heightened expectations around principal review, recordkeeping, and the use of automated tools in the content creation pipeline. Compliance teams should map current supervisory workflows against the proposed standards, identify gaps in AI-output oversight, and prepare comment letters or internal policy updates. Early alignment will reduce enforcement risk once the rule is finalized and will position firms to demonstrate reasonable supervision of AI-assisted retail messaging.
Importers and exporters with China exposure need to track July's tariff adjustments, export-control revisions, and bilateral policy shifts to keep supply chains compliant.
Mayer Brown's July 2026 US-China Trade Monthly consolidates the month's most consequential developments affecting cross-border commerce between the two economies. The publication typically covers new or proposed Section 301 tariff actions, BIS export-control rule changes, OFAC sanctions updates, customs enforcement priorities, and any bilateral dialogue outcomes. In-house counsel at manufacturers, retailers, and technology firms should review the digest to identify goods classifications, license requirements, and origin documentation that may have shifted. The monthly format makes it a useful compliance checkpoint for trade-compliance teams updating internal tariff schedules, restricted-party screening protocols, and supplier-contract flow-down provisions ahead of the next reporting cycle.
In-house counsel with China-exposed supply chains should prepare for a likely tariff truce extension while monitoring unresolved disputes that could reignite trade tensions.
President Trump's upcoming visit to China is expected to produce an extension of the bilateral trade truce, providing short-term predictability for tariffs, export controls, and customs enforcement. However, structural disagreements over industrial subsidies, technology transfer, agricultural purchases, and semiconductor restrictions remain unresolved and could resurface as new friction points. Companies should reassess tariff classification strategies, review supply-chain contingencies, and monitor any side agreements on export controls. The truce extension reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate exposure to sudden policy reversals if negotiations stall or if enforcement actions target specific sectors or entities.
Cross-border deal teams and compliance officers must map new EU FDI screening rules before the 2028 effective date, as expanded scope and coordination reshape approval timelines.
The EU's revised Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation, set to apply in 2028, broadens the range of transactions subject to review and tightens cooperation among member states. The reform introduces harmonized minimum standards for risk assessment, expands covered sectors to include emerging technologies, critical infrastructure, and sensitive personal data, and mandates earlier notification triggers. National screening authorities gain enhanced information-sharing powers, and the European Commission may issue binding opinions on transactions affecting security or competitiveness across more than one member state. In-house counsel should reassess deal pipelines, update FDI risk matrices, and engage local counsel early in cross-border structuring. Companies with EU operations or targets should prepare for longer pre-signing review windows and document readiness for expanded information requests.
Multinational compliance officers must recalibrate self-disclosure strategies after DOJ's March 2026 Corporate Enforcement Policy introduced a three-tier framework with concrete declination and penalty-reduction benefits.
DOJ's March 2026 Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy creates three outcomes: full declinations for prompt self-disclosure plus cooperation and remediation (still requiring disgorgement); reduced-penalty resolutions for 'near miss' cases offering NPAs under three years, no monitor, and 50-75% Sentencing Guidelines reductions; and discretionary credit for non-self-disclosing cooperators. The Balt SAS declination—$1.2 million disgorgement, no prosecution—signals the policy's practical floor. Simultaneously, DOJ is dismissing high-profile matters like the Adani prosecution, citing the Blanche Memorandum's narrower bases for FCPA charges, while continuing individual trials (Hobson conviction, Wilson and Cigarroa guilty pleas). The SEC has stayed quiet on FCPA. Abroad, the UK SFO inked its first DPA in years and the EU adopted a new Anti-Corruption Directive, while China tightened commercial bribery enforcement. Companies should reassess disclosure timing, remediation documentation, and parallel-resolution coordination now that the tiered benefits are operational.
M&A counsel and corporate development teams must reassess HSR aggregation analysis: the FTC and DOJ just extracted the largest combined civil penalty ever for a failure-to-file case, holding both buyer and seller liable for splitting a single transaction to stay below the reporting threshold.
On July 13, 2026, DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint and proposed final judgment in D.D.C. against Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech for structuring Edwards' $115 million acquisition of JC Medical and a contemporaneous $25 million investment in Genesis as two separate transactions to avoid the then-applicable $119.5 million HSR size-of-transaction threshold. Edwards will pay a $10 million civil penalty and Genesis $2 million—the largest combined HSR failure-to-file penalty on record. The settlement also imposes a five-year prior-notification regime on Edwards for any TAVR-AR-related acquisition, a court-ordered antitrust compliance program, and ongoing inspection rights. Critically, the agencies pursued both sides of the deal, signaling that sellers bear independent HSR compliance risk. The matter follows the FTC's January 2026 injunction blocking Edwards' related $945 million JenaValve acquisition, where the undisclosed JC Medical deal was used against Edwards. Practitioners should treat any contemporaneous related-party consideration—minority investments, earnouts,
…
M&A counsel and corporate development teams must reassess HSR aggregation analysis: the FTC and DOJ just extracted the largest combined civil penalty ever for a failure-to-file case, holding both buyer and seller liable for splitting a single transaction to stay below the reporting threshold.
On July 13, 2026, DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint and proposed final judgment in D.D.C. against Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech for structuring Edwards' $115 million acquisition of JC Medical and a contemporaneous $25 million investment in Genesis as two separate transactions to avoid the then-applicable $119.5 million HSR size-of-transaction threshold. Edwards will pay a $10 million civil penalty and Genesis $2 million—the largest combined HSR failure-to-file penalty on record. The settlement also imposes a five-year prior-notification regime on Edwards for any TAVR-AR-related acquisition, a court-ordered antitrust compliance program, and ongoing inspection rights. Critically, the agencies pursued both sides of the deal, signaling that sellers bear independent HSR compliance risk. The matter follows the FTC's January 2026 injunction blocking Edwards' related $945 million JenaValve acquisition, where the undisclosed JC Medical deal was used against Edwards. Practitioners should treat any contemporaneous related-party consideration—minority investments, earnouts,
…
Broker-dealer compliance leaders must prepare for new FINRA supervisory standards governing how AI-generated and digital retail communications are reviewed before publication.
FINRA has proposed amendments to Rule 2210 that would modernize the supervision and review framework for retail communications, explicitly addressing evolving communication practices and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. The proposal signals FINRA's intent to update a framework originally built for static, pre-approved content to accommodate dynamic digital channels, social media, and AI-assisted drafting. Member firms should expect heightened expectations around principal review, recordkeeping, and the use of automated tools in the content creation pipeline. Compliance teams should map current supervisory workflows against the proposed standards, identify gaps in AI-output oversight, and prepare comment letters or internal policy updates. Early alignment will reduce enforcement risk once the rule is finalized and will position firms to demonstrate reasonable supervision of AI-assisted retail messaging.
Defense contractors and subcontractors must continue self-assessing against existing NIST SP 800-171 controls while awaiting DoD's revised CMMC framework.
On July 13, 2026, DoD/W suspended Phase II of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program, halting third-party assessments that were scheduled to expand across the DIB. The agency cited the need to reassess implementation timelines and reduce contractor burden, but expressly preserved all baseline safeguarding requirements under NIST SP 800-171 and the existing DFARS 252.204-7012 clause. Contractors cannot pause cyber hygiene work: SPRS score submissions, system security plans, and Plan of Action & Milestones remain mandatory for any award, option, or subcontract flow-down. Prime contractors should revalidate subcontractor attestations and confirm that pending awards still require current self-assessment scores. Companies previously preparing for Level 2 certification audits should pause external assessment spending and monitor DoD guidance for the revised phased approach expected later this year.
Insurance carriers, brokers, and adjusters operating in New Jersey face expanded consumer-fraud exposure after the state Supreme Court narrowed the Consumer Fraud Act's insurance-professional exemption.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Consumer Fraud Act's exemption for the business of insurance does not categorically shield insurance professionals from CFA liability. The decision limits the exemption's reach, meaning insurers, producers, and claims handlers can now be sued under the CFA for conduct tied to insurance transactions that previously fell outside the statute. In-house counsel should reassess sales, underwriting, and claims practices for CFA compliance, update consumer-facing disclosures, and review pending litigation strategy in light of the broader liability surface. The ruling also signals heightened enforcement and private litigation risk across the New Jersey market.
Importers and global manufacturers must reassess supply chains now that USTR has issued forced labor findings under Section 301, signaling potential new tariff exposure.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has concluded findings in a Section 301 investigation tied to alleged use of forced labor in foreign production, a step that historically precedes tariff action or import restrictions targeting specific sectors or countries. For in-house counsel at companies sourcing from regions implicated in the probe, the findings raise the prospect of new duties, customs enforcement, and due-diligence obligations on suppliers. Recommended next steps include reviewing supplier audit records, mapping high-risk inputs, preparing for possible exclusion processes, and updating customs compliance programs to address forced-labor screening under U.S. law.
Importers and exporters with China exposure need to track July's tariff adjustments, export-control revisions, and bilateral policy shifts to keep supply chains compliant.
Mayer Brown's July 2026 US-China Trade Monthly consolidates the month's most consequential developments affecting cross-border commerce between the two economies. The publication typically covers new or proposed Section 301 tariff actions, BIS export-control rule changes, OFAC sanctions updates, customs enforcement priorities, and any bilateral dialogue outcomes. In-house counsel at manufacturers, retailers, and technology firms should review the digest to identify goods classifications, license requirements, and origin documentation that may have shifted. The monthly format makes it a useful compliance checkpoint for trade-compliance teams updating internal tariff schedules, restricted-party screening protocols, and supplier-contract flow-down provisions ahead of the next reporting cycle.
In-house counsel with China-exposed supply chains should prepare for a likely tariff truce extension while monitoring unresolved disputes that could reignite trade tensions.
President Trump's upcoming visit to China is expected to produce an extension of the bilateral trade truce, providing short-term predictability for tariffs, export controls, and customs enforcement. However, structural disagreements over industrial subsidies, technology transfer, agricultural purchases, and semiconductor restrictions remain unresolved and could resurface as new friction points. Companies should reassess tariff classification strategies, review supply-chain contingencies, and monitor any side agreements on export controls. The truce extension reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate exposure to sudden policy reversals if negotiations stall or if enforcement actions target specific sectors or entities.
Cross-border deal teams and compliance officers must map new EU FDI screening rules before the 2028 effective date, as expanded scope and coordination reshape approval timelines.
The EU's revised Foreign Direct Investment Screening Regulation, set to apply in 2028, broadens the range of transactions subject to review and tightens cooperation among member states. The reform introduces harmonized minimum standards for risk assessment, expands covered sectors to include emerging technologies, critical infrastructure, and sensitive personal data, and mandates earlier notification triggers. National screening authorities gain enhanced information-sharing powers, and the European Commission may issue binding opinions on transactions affecting security or competitiveness across more than one member state. In-house counsel should reassess deal pipelines, update FDI risk matrices, and engage local counsel early in cross-border structuring. Companies with EU operations or targets should prepare for longer pre-signing review windows and document readiness for expanded information requests.
In-house counsel must recalibrate compliance and litigation playbooks as bipartisan state AG coalitions pursue aggressive enforcement in consumer protection, antitrust, DEI, AI, and pricing—often filling gaps left by federal agencies.
State attorneys general have emerged as primary enforcement actors, backed by expanded budgets, staffing, and an influx of experienced federal lawyers. Democratic AGs are litigating against the Trump administration—filing 115+ suits since January 2025—and stepping into consumer finance, pricing, and environmental enforcement as federal agencies like the CFPB face cuts. New York and California have launched investigations into algorithmic and surveillance pricing, while multistate coalitions have challenged tariffs, energy-permitting executive orders, and CFPB defunding. Republican AGs are aligning with federal priorities, issuing opinions deeming DEI programs unlawful and pursuing data privacy, ESG, and antitrust actions independently. Bipartisan coalitions are converging on youth online safety, AI, PBMs, and prediction markets. Companies should expect overlapping state and federal exposure, monitor coalition compositions, and prepare for parallel investigations across jurisdictions.
Multinational compliance officers must recalibrate self-disclosure strategies after DOJ's March 2026 Corporate Enforcement Policy introduced a three-tier framework with concrete declination and penalty-reduction benefits.
DOJ's March 2026 Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy creates three outcomes: full declinations for prompt self-disclosure plus cooperation and remediation (still requiring disgorgement); reduced-penalty resolutions for 'near miss' cases offering NPAs under three years, no monitor, and 50-75% Sentencing Guidelines reductions; and discretionary credit for non-self-disclosing cooperators. The Balt SAS declination—$1.2 million disgorgement, no prosecution—signals the policy's practical floor. Simultaneously, DOJ is dismissing high-profile matters like the Adani prosecution, citing the Blanche Memorandum's narrower bases for FCPA charges, while continuing individual trials (Hobson conviction, Wilson and Cigarroa guilty pleas). The SEC has stayed quiet on FCPA. Abroad, the UK SFO inked its first DPA in years and the EU adopted a new Anti-Corruption Directive, while China tightened commercial bribery enforcement. Companies should reassess disclosure timing, remediation documentation, and parallel-resolution coordination now that the tiered benefits are operational.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- Circuit-by-circuit guide to the new US Supreme Court term
In-house appellate teams should map pending Supreme Court cases to their circuits to gauge which rulings could reshape litigation strategy nationwide.
- Institutional AI Bias Emerges as New Governance Risk
Risk officers and AI governance leads must audit models trained on proprietary data, since institution-specific outputs can diverge silently from peer systems.
- UK Public M&A June 2026: Eight Offers, Apollo Tops Castlelake for easyJet
In-house counsel tracking UK takeovers should note eight June firm offers—including a £9.5B EQT-led bid for Intertek and Apollo's late £5.7B topping offer for easyJet—plus an all-share Prologis approach to SEGRO.
- USMCA Non-Renewal, Connected Vehicle Ban, and Auto Tariff Talks Reshape Industry
Automotive counsel and supply-chain teams must track USMCA renegotiation timelines, a Senate vote banning China-linked connected vehicles, and Section 232 tariff talks that could redraw North American sourcing.
- NAD Ad Challenge Tips: Tracks, Substantiation, and Confidentiality
Brand marketers and in-house ad teams face shifting NAD evidentiary expectations and must choose the right challenge track before launching or defending a claim.