Insights

Three years have passed since the EU Pay Transparency Directive ("PTD") came into existence, and it now appears highly likely that very few EU Member States will have fully transposed its provisions into national law by the 7 June 2026 deadline.  For employers operating across the EU, this creates a deeply uncomfortable question: what are your obligations right now?

On May 27, 2026, the California State Assembly advanced AB 2564, which would prohibit surveillance pricing by retailers. Assemblymember Christopher Ward originally introduced AB 2564 on February 20, 2026, to “ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics.”

On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced a landmark set of enforcement actions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting 60 economies worldwide for failing to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. This is one of the most sweeping forced labor-related trade enforcement actions in U.S. history. USTR has proposed new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on all products from these economies. Interested parties may file public comments, due by July 6, and the USTR has scheduled a public hearing on July 7 before final implementation. Companies sourcing from any of the 60 affected economies should assess exposure immediately.

On June 2, 2026, President Trump signed a highly anticipated artificial intelligence and cybersecurity Executive Order, “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security” (the EO), directing several national security and civilian agencies to ramp up scrutiny of cutting-edge AI models and bolster federal cybersecurity defenses against AI-enabled threats.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released its revised 2026 Arbitration Rules (the 2026 Rules), which entered into force on 1 June 2026. The revisions represent a significant update to the 2021 ICC Rules (the 2021 Rules) and reflect a clear institutional focus on efficiency, procedural flexibility, and expedited dispute resolution.

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.

With the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) poised to determine which organ procurement organizations (OPO) will retain their Medicare certification and service territories under a controversial new performance framework, a coalition of OPOs is fighting to have its day in court — but first, it must convince a federal judge that the courthouse doors are open to it at all. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is actively weighing whether it has jurisdiction to hear a pre-enforcement challenge to a 2020 Final Rule, which introduced a competitive three-tier performance model that threatens lower-performing OPOs with the loss of their designated service areas (DSA) and, potentially, their Medicare certifications. The resolution of this threshold question will determine whether the plaintiff OPOs can seek judicial relief ahead of decertification proceedings, which CMS has signaled will occur after it finalizes its 2026 Proposed Rule at the end of the year.

On April 8, 2026, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied an appeal arguing that a concern’s early submission of its proposal with pricing was an attempt to “end-run the regulations” for when size is determined. In Size Appeal of DecisionPoint Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-6379, OHA confirmed that a company’s size is determined on the date it submits its initial offer which includes price, even if the proposal is submitted in advance of the proposal submission deadline and the offeror becomes large before the provided deadline.

On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.

California’s COMPETE Act (AB 1776) narrowly passed the California State Assembly by three votes on Wednesday and now moves to the California State Senate. The bill — introduced in March by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — is modeled closely on draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission in September. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but, based on recent amendments, would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to AB 1776. 

On May 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued a sweeping decision in Clover Insurance Company v. HHS that could ultimately lead to the invalidation of nearly half of all Star Ratings measures and, potentially, lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to seek statutory changes to Medicare law.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (the Division) revealed criminal charges against China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (CIMC) and several other major Chinese companies and executives involved in the manufacture and sale of standard dry shipping containers, which are used for shipping dry, unrefrigerated cargo on ships around the world. One of the executives was arrested at an airport in France and is awaiting extradition to the U.S. The indictment charged these defendants with violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrict output and fix prices of standard dry containers, including in the U.S. market, from 2019 to 2024.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.

Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton has embarked on an aggressive campaign of regulation through enforcement against some of the world’s largest technology companies.

Colorado’s original AI Act (SB 24-205), signed in May 2024, imposed broad obligations on developers and deployers of “high-risk AI systems” — including requiring risk management programs, impact assessments, and affirmative steps to prevent algorithmic discrimination across employment, housing, lending, insurance, health care, and education decisions. The operative date for SB 24-205 was extended twice, and a court temporarily suspended enforcement in early 2026, following a lawsuit filed by xAI, which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened to support. Industry feedback on SB 24-205 was generally negative. In response to this environment, Colorado’s legislature undertook a rewrite, drafting and passing SB 26-189 in a matter of weeks. SB 26-189 reflects the legislature’s effort to preserve the policy goal of filling the AI oversight vacuum given the lack of a comprehensive federal law, but within a more workable compliance framework.

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stark warning to government contractors: when a bid protest is filed involving your contract, failing to timely intervene can cost you the ability to defend your award.  In Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit upheld the denial of K2 Solutions, Inc.’s motion to intervene, finding that K2 had waited too long to act despite having sufficient reason to do so.

On May 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of no infringement in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-1641. The decision offers important guidance for patent holders and generic manufacturers on the role of industry standards in interpreting scientific terminology during claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and the disclosure-dedication rule.

The UK has successfully concluded a milestone free trade agreement (FTA) with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. We set out below a high-level comment on the FTA’s chapters and some of the key provisions.

On 30 April 2026, the European Commission published draft merger guidelines that will replace both the 2004 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the 2008 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, consolidating them into a single analytical framework.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is having a big year. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmance of the CIT tariff ruling may be at the top of the headlines, the CIT is also making its mark on Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. In late April 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (DNJ) reassigned numerous Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases involving 10 different drugs to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the CIT, sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey. The cases currently assigned to Judge Choe-Groves relate to several different drug products, including LYNPARZA® (olaparib), RADICAVA ORS® (edaravone), NEXLETOL®/NEXLIZET® (bempedoic acid), ZEJULA® (niraparib), QULIPTA® (atogepant), UBRELVY® (ubrogepant), CREXONT® (carbidopa and levodopa), EVRYSDI® (risdiplam), SUFLAVE® (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, magnesium sulfate, and sodium chloride for oral solution), and CAPLYTA® (lumateperone).