DROPLETS
Antitrust counsel for any company using third-party pricing software must reassess exposure after the Third Circuit revived parallel claims against competitors sharing a common algorithm.
In Cornish-Adebiyi, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of a hub-and-spoke price-fixing action targeting competitors that used the same third-party pricing software. The court held that allegations of parallel adoption, knowledge of rivals' use, and software-driven price alignment can plausibly establish a conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, even without direct competitor communications. The decision lowers the pleading bar for algorithmic coordination cases and signals that vendors of pricing, wage, and dynamic-pricing tools may face treble-damages exposure. Companies should audit their use of shared pricing platforms, review vendor agreements for information-sharing provisions, and evaluate whether competitor data flows could support an inference of concerted action. Litigation risk now extends beyond direct competitors to the software providers themselves.
U.S. importers, manufacturers, and retailers with China-linked supply chains must immediately audit all vendor relationships, as any dealings with the 43 newly listed entities will trigger automatic customs detentions and potential seizure of goods under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act effective August 3.
On July 31, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security announced the largest single expansion of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List to date, adding 43 companies allegedly tied to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, with the restrictions taking effect August 3, 2026. The update expands the pool of entities subject to the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption that goods produced in whole or in part in Xinjiang are made with forced labor and barred from entry into the United States. In-house counsel for U.S. importers and supply chain-dependent businesses must immediately screen all active and pending supplier and vendor relationships for ties to the listed entities, update compliance workflows to flag future UFLPA list additions, and assess inventory of in-transit goods linked to the listed firms to mitigate detention, seizure, and enforcement penalty risk.
Foreign-owned commercial real estate stakeholders, including developers, infrastructure operators, and holders of timberland or conservation land, will face new mandatory AFIDA disclosure obligations if the USDA’s proposed rule is finalized, as it expands the definition of agricultural land and eliminates long-standing exemptions for small parcels, short-term leases, and easements.
On June 25, 2026, the USDA published a proposed rule (Docket No. USDA-2026-0001) to overhaul Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) reporting requirements, with targeted changes impacting commercial real estate. The proposal replaces outdated 1987 SIC codes with 2022 NAICS codes to capture renewable energy generation, agricultural supply chain, and research activities as covered agricultural use, eliminates the 10-acre de minimis exemption, narrows the lease exemption to terms under one year (with no exemption for foreign adversary-controlled entities), and removes the easement and right-of-way exemption entirely. It also clarifies that local zoning designations do not remove land from the agricultural land definition, and expressly includes conservation program enrollments that could be used for agricultural production. Foreign-owned commercial real estate stakeholders should review existing land holdings, lease portfolios, and easement interests for potential AFIDA exposure, and monitor the rulemaking process for finalization.
Companies using shared third-party pricing algorithms that process competitors' non-public pricing or occupancy data now face viable algorithmic price-fixing antitrust claims after the Third Circuit became the first federal appellate court to reverse dismissal of such a suit.
On July 29, 2026, the Third Circuit ruled in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment that a class action alleging Atlantic City casino-hotels fixed guest room rates via a shared pricing algorithm could proceed, reversing a district court dismissal. The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a horizontal antitrust conspiracy, finding the algorithm’s pooling of competitors’ non-public, real-time pricing and occupancy data, plus a 90% adherence rate to its recommendations, supported an inference of collusion. The ruling diverges from the 2025 Ninth Circuit’s Gibson decision, which dismissed similar claims due to no allegations of confidential data sharing between competitors. In-house counsel should review their organizations’ pricing tool terms and data sharing practices to assess antitrust risk.
UK importers and retailers of timber, palm oil, soy, cocoa, rubber, and cattle products face new due-diligence duties under the Forest Risk Commodity regime.
The UK Forest Risk Commodity Regulation imposes supply-chain due-diligence obligations on businesses placing forest-risk commodities on the UK market, mirroring the EU Deforestation Regulation but with distinct scope and timing. Covered entities must map products to land plots, conduct risk assessments, and file due-diligence statements before import or placement on the UK market. Penalties include fines, product withdrawal, and disqualification of directors. Companies should audit their commodity sourcing, build traceability systems, and align supplier contracts with the new evidentiary requirements. Non-EU firms with UK distribution channels are within scope, making early gap analysis critical ahead of enforcement.
In-house counsel defending California Invasion of Privacy Act class actions must note this ruling, which applies the Popa v. Microsoft standard to require individualized proof of standing for each class member, raising the bar for class certification in these cases.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in a California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) action, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 Popa v. Microsoft precedent. The court held that individualized questions of whether each class member suffered a concrete, particularized injury required for Article III standing predominated over common questions, precluding class treatment. For in-house counsel, this ruling creates a viable defense pathway for CIPA class actions: defendants can challenge class certification by highlighting variations in alleged privacy harms across class members, while plaintiffs will face higher hurdles to prove common issues predominate for class certification.
Fintech and crypto firms seeking national trust banking charters must address enterprise-wide AML/CFT controls and governance gaps, as the OCC will reject applications tied to digital asset operations with unresolved compliance deficiencies.
The OCC denied Wise US Inc.’s application to launch Wise National Trust, a proposed national trust bank with planned crypto and stablecoin interoperability services, citing unaddressed AML/CFT deficiencies, weak governance, and management unfamiliarity with national banking rules. The denial references Wise’s 2025 $4.2 million multistate AML settlement and notes the proposed trust’s elevated financial crime risk from its planned digital asset services. The decision signals that the OCC will hold crypto-adjacent fintechs to strict enterprise-wide compliance standards even for small, subsidiary banking operations, and requires applicants to demonstrate robust, organization-wide AML frameworks tailored to digital asset risks before charter approval.
Companies using shared third-party pricing algorithms that process competitors' non-public pricing or occupancy data now face viable algorithmic price-fixing antitrust claims after the Third Circuit became the first federal appellate court to reverse dismissal of such a suit.
On July 29, 2026, the Third Circuit ruled in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment that a class action alleging Atlantic City casino-hotels fixed guest room rates via a shared pricing algorithm could proceed, reversing a district court dismissal. The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a horizontal antitrust conspiracy, finding the algorithm’s pooling of competitors’ non-public, real-time pricing and occupancy data, plus a 90% adherence rate to its recommendations, supported an inference of collusion. The ruling diverges from the 2025 Ninth Circuit’s Gibson decision, which dismissed similar claims due to no allegations of confidential data sharing between competitors. In-house counsel should review their organizations’ pricing tool terms and data sharing practices to assess antitrust risk.
Antitrust counsel for any company using third-party pricing software must reassess exposure after the Third Circuit revived parallel claims against competitors sharing a common algorithm.
In Cornish-Adebiyi, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of a hub-and-spoke price-fixing action targeting competitors that used the same third-party pricing software. The court held that allegations of parallel adoption, knowledge of rivals' use, and software-driven price alignment can plausibly establish a conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, even without direct competitor communications. The decision lowers the pleading bar for algorithmic coordination cases and signals that vendors of pricing, wage, and dynamic-pricing tools may face treble-damages exposure. Companies should audit their use of shared pricing platforms, review vendor agreements for information-sharing provisions, and evaluate whether competitor data flows could support an inference of concerted action. Litigation risk now extends beyond direct competitors to the software providers themselves.
Companies using shared third-party pricing algorithms that process competitors' non-public pricing or occupancy data now face viable algorithmic price-fixing antitrust claims after the Third Circuit became the first federal appellate court to reverse dismissal of such a suit.
On July 29, 2026, the Third Circuit ruled in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment that a class action alleging Atlantic City casino-hotels fixed guest room rates via a shared pricing algorithm could proceed, reversing a district court dismissal. The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a horizontal antitrust conspiracy, finding the algorithm’s pooling of competitors’ non-public, real-time pricing and occupancy data, plus a 90% adherence rate to its recommendations, supported an inference of collusion. The ruling diverges from the 2025 Ninth Circuit’s Gibson decision, which dismissed similar claims due to no allegations of confidential data sharing between competitors. In-house counsel should review their organizations’ pricing tool terms and data sharing practices to assess antitrust risk.
UK importers and retailers of timber, palm oil, soy, cocoa, rubber, and cattle products face new due-diligence duties under the Forest Risk Commodity regime.
The UK Forest Risk Commodity Regulation imposes supply-chain due-diligence obligations on businesses placing forest-risk commodities on the UK market, mirroring the EU Deforestation Regulation but with distinct scope and timing. Covered entities must map products to land plots, conduct risk assessments, and file due-diligence statements before import or placement on the UK market. Penalties include fines, product withdrawal, and disqualification of directors. Companies should audit their commodity sourcing, build traceability systems, and align supplier contracts with the new evidentiary requirements. Non-EU firms with UK distribution channels are within scope, making early gap analysis critical ahead of enforcement.
Fintech and crypto firms seeking national trust banking charters must address enterprise-wide AML/CFT controls and governance gaps, as the OCC will reject applications tied to digital asset operations with unresolved compliance deficiencies.
The OCC denied Wise US Inc.’s application to launch Wise National Trust, a proposed national trust bank with planned crypto and stablecoin interoperability services, citing unaddressed AML/CFT deficiencies, weak governance, and management unfamiliarity with national banking rules. The denial references Wise’s 2025 $4.2 million multistate AML settlement and notes the proposed trust’s elevated financial crime risk from its planned digital asset services. The decision signals that the OCC will hold crypto-adjacent fintechs to strict enterprise-wide compliance standards even for small, subsidiary banking operations, and requires applicants to demonstrate robust, organization-wide AML frameworks tailored to digital asset risks before charter approval.
In-house counsel defending California Invasion of Privacy Act class actions must note this ruling, which applies the Popa v. Microsoft standard to require individualized proof of standing for each class member, raising the bar for class certification in these cases.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in a California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) action, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 Popa v. Microsoft precedent. The court held that individualized questions of whether each class member suffered a concrete, particularized injury required for Article III standing predominated over common questions, precluding class treatment. For in-house counsel, this ruling creates a viable defense pathway for CIPA class actions: defendants can challenge class certification by highlighting variations in alleged privacy harms across class members, while plaintiffs will face higher hurdles to prove common issues predominate for class certification.
Foreign-owned commercial real estate stakeholders, including developers, infrastructure operators, and holders of timberland or conservation land, will face new mandatory AFIDA disclosure obligations if the USDA’s proposed rule is finalized, as it expands the definition of agricultural land and eliminates long-standing exemptions for small parcels, short-term leases, and easements.
On June 25, 2026, the USDA published a proposed rule (Docket No. USDA-2026-0001) to overhaul Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) reporting requirements, with targeted changes impacting commercial real estate. The proposal replaces outdated 1987 SIC codes with 2022 NAICS codes to capture renewable energy generation, agricultural supply chain, and research activities as covered agricultural use, eliminates the 10-acre de minimis exemption, narrows the lease exemption to terms under one year (with no exemption for foreign adversary-controlled entities), and removes the easement and right-of-way exemption entirely. It also clarifies that local zoning designations do not remove land from the agricultural land definition, and expressly includes conservation program enrollments that could be used for agricultural production. Foreign-owned commercial real estate stakeholders should review existing land holdings, lease portfolios, and easement interests for potential AFIDA exposure, and monitor the rulemaking process for finalization.
U.S. importers, manufacturers, and retailers with China-linked supply chains must immediately audit all vendor relationships, as any dealings with the 43 newly listed entities will trigger automatic customs detentions and potential seizure of goods under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act effective August 3.
On July 31, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security announced the largest single expansion of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List to date, adding 43 companies allegedly tied to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, with the restrictions taking effect August 3, 2026. The update expands the pool of entities subject to the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption that goods produced in whole or in part in Xinjiang are made with forced labor and barred from entry into the United States. In-house counsel for U.S. importers and supply chain-dependent businesses must immediately screen all active and pending supplier and vendor relationships for ties to the listed entities, update compliance workflows to flag future UFLPA list additions, and assess inventory of in-transit goods linked to the listed firms to mitigate detention, seizure, and enforcement penalty risk.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- July 2026 Consumer Financial Services Law Update Review
Consumer financial services in-house counsel must review this roundup of key July 2026 regulatory, enforcement, and circuit court developments shaping ongoing compliance obligations.
- California Court Limits No-Arrest-Record Protections for Out-of-State Remote Workers
Multi-state employers with California-hired remote staff in other states need to reassess background-check policies after Saberin v. Alation narrowed Labor Code section 432.7's reach.
- Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Co-Authors 250-Year Legal Practice Lessons from Declaration
In-house counsel and legal practitioners can apply five time-tested foundational principles to modern legal practice, professionalism, and rule of law work, drawn from the Declaration of Independence’s 250-year legacy.