An antitrust revolution is upon us. Numerous pundits and political leaders blame many of today’s societal and economic ills on what they claim is the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few. Perceived lax antitrust enforcement and permissive antitrust laws, many claim, is the cause of that. Indeed, President Joe Biden has placed antitrust enforcement at the forefront of his administration and aims to use antitrust enforcement to remedy social inequities and restore democratic ideals. Continue Reading
In a significant decision handed down last Thursday, April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cannot, in the first instance, seek monetary remedies in federal court. Rather, it must first obtain a cease and desist order and, only after a violation of that order, can it seek penalties or other monetary relief, such as disgorgement. Read on for why this should matter to you.
Two recent actions aimed at maximizing domestically-produced goods, products, materials and services may have significant impact on contractors and supply chains. In January 2021, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council published a final rule “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials” that amended the requirements for products to be classified as American-made under the Buy American Act (BAA). Less than a week later, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14005, titled “Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers,” to further strengthen the BAA requirements and close loopholes that allowed companies to engage in offshore production and manufacturing.
A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court and held that the 1996 amended catch-all provision of the Pennsylvania Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) imposes strict liability. Writing for the 4-3 majority, Justice David Wecht, based upon a professed review of the plain language of the statute, concluded the General Assembly’s addition of “or deceptive conduct” to the catch-all provision of the CPL dictated a lesser, more relaxed standard. Thus, the majority characterized that aspect of the statute as imposing strict liability.