In House: Government Relations Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in Government Relations Category

Is your company engaging in false advertising? Are you sure? When was the last time someone from the marketing department walked through your door to make sure they were on the up-and-up?

Maybe it's time you checked. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating "outlet stores" -- those low-priced colonies of large clothing labels like Saks, J. Crew, Gap, and so on -- that live in outlying outlet malls around the nation.

Last year, in the wake of two well-known startups (Uber and Square) clashing with local laws and regulations, we asked who was at fault -- the disruptor or the disrupted, the startups or the state?

Both startups, but especially Uber, had run headfirst into local ordinances, regulations, and cartels bent on preserving the status quo, but also hadn't done their homework or made an effort to play the political game before entering the market and upsetting the (legal) status quo -- easier to get forgiveness than permission, we suppose.

Now, Uber has pulled a U-turn and hired a noted behind-the-scenes political figure to glad-hand politicians: David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaign manager.

Think that data stored in overseas data centers are outside the reach of U.S. law? Think again. A U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan has affirmed a magistrate's ruling ordering Microsoft to give overseas-stored data to federal prosecutors.

The ruling -- which Microsoft vows to appeal -- has implications for companies that store their data in other countries. In fact, email providers like Google -- which provide non-Google-branded email services that are hosted by Google -- store files in data centers around the world. Many corporations use Gmail to host their email because it's cheaper than maintaining their own email systems on-site or in-house.

If your company stores files abroad -- and there's a good chance it does -- then those files may very well be within the reach of American law enforcement.

It's not about the size of the company -- it's about the culpability and level of misconduct during the subprime mortgage bubble that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. That's the message the Department of Justice is sending after today's settlement with Citigroup.

While the company opened negotiations with a $363 million offer, and the DOJ demanded $12 billion, the approximately $7 billion deal struck is this: a $4 billion civil penalty paid to the Justice Department, $500 million paid to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and several states. The bank will also allocate $2.5 billion for "consumer relief," such as modifying mortgages for struggling homeowners and financing affordable multi-family rental housing.

We got fee-shifting, thanks to the Supreme Court. And the Innovation Act passed the House ... before it hit a dead end in the Senate.

Well, here's another one to keep patent reform advocates satiated in the meantime: curbing abusive demand letters. The Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act (TROL Act) would target patent troll letters that, in most instances, are frivolous demands for settlements with no legal merits.

Ideas for curbing frivolous demand letters were considered and left out of the Innovation Act, as that bill's sponsor, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), noted that it would be difficult to balance speech interests, and legitimate defense of intellectual property, with a law that restricts demand letters.

Congratulations: Your closely held corporation is a person. And when it comes to religious beliefs, that fictional person, it seems, takes after its figurative parents -- its closely held owners.

What does the Supreme Court's landmark Hobby Lobby ruling mean for your company, your religious beliefs, and your requirement to provide either contraceptive coverage or insurance coverage for other services that run contrary to your beliefs?

Depending on the level of accommodation you're requesting, you may only need to fill out a form or send a letter, though for objections to anything other than contraception, you may be forced to litigate.

The nation's fastest growing cell phone carrier is about to meet the Federal Trade Commission in a courtroom, and the fallout could be more than a few fines -- the PR hit from allegedly cramming bogus fees on customers' bills could cost the company dearly.

The FTC announced earlier this week that it filed a complaint [PDF] against T-Mobile, accusing it of knowingly passing along unauthorized fraudulent third-party charges to consumers, while taking a thirty-five to forty percent cut. The charges would be hidden in bills that were dozens of pages long, and the refund rate was only 40 percent, according to the agency.

For those hoping for a stunning reversal of pro-Environmental Protection Agency rulings from the Supreme Court, well, it hasn't happened yet, and doesn't seem like it will any time soon.

Yesterday, the nation's High Court mostly reaffirmed prior holdings that upheld the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses, but narrowed that power just a bit, by striking down the agency's "tailoring rule," as an agency's overstep into rewriting its enabling statute, the Clean Air Act.

What companies are left with is this: if your emissions are already regulated, the EPA is well within its rights to limit the amount of greenhouse gases that you produce -- which is pretty much exactly what the EPA was aiming for.

Privacy policies. They're a thing of beauty, aren't they?

Most are jargon-filled nonsense that you'd need a law degree and intimate familiarity with the latest data privacy and tracking trends just to get the overall gist. Then again, nobody reads them anyway, nor do they read companies' Terms of Service or other shrinkwrap licenses. And almost nobody knows about data mining and the failed "Do Not Track" (DNT) standard.

The truth is, most online companies play some part in data mining for advertising purposes, either directly (Google) or indirectly (embedded third-party advertising networks). There's a saying: you either pay for the product, or you are the product.

Executives have been axed. Thirty-five million dollar fines have been imposed. Lawsuits have been filed. And legal reinforcements have been called in to make arguments in bankruptcy court about New GM's liability for Old GM's defective ignition switches.

Legally, it's a nightmare (unless you are outside counsel). And the nightmare is about to get worse for GM's legal department as federal investigators turn their attention to the company's in- house attorneys, who quietly settled a series of cases, refused to turn over documents, and either refused to investigate or kept a lid on the defective ignition switches that have led to at least thirteen deaths, possibly hundreds of accidents, and millions of recalled vehicles.