Insights

On March 6, 2026, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued a significant proposed contract clause, GSAR 552.239-7001, Basic Safeguarding of Artificial Intelligence Systems (“Clause”), for inclusion in GSA Schedule solicitations and contracts for AI capabilities.  The proposed clause would impose substantial new requirements related to AI sources, intellectual property rights, data use, change management, and performance standards.  The Clause would also take precedence over any other contract terms (including commercial licensing terms) related to AI, including a Seller’s terms of sale and service to which the Government had previously agreed.  GSA requests comments by March 20, 2026.

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice released the first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “Department-wide CEP” or “Policy”), which applies to all non-antitrust corporate criminal cases across the Department. The new policy has been anticipated since December 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Department’s plans to release a new, single corporate enforcement policy for all criminal matters. According to the Department, the new policy is designed to “help ensure consistency across the Department” and “transparently describe the Department’s policies and decisionmaking.”

The EU Pharma Package represents the most significant reform of EU pharmaceutical legislation in over two decades, setting the stage for a new era in medicine regulation. Introduced by the European Commission back in April 2023, the proposals are designed to promote innovation, strengthen medicine availability and affordability, reduce regulatory burdens, ensure a fair and competitive European pharmaceutical market, and modernize the EU's pharmaceutical framework. The EU Pharma Package will replace the more than twenty-year-old Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation 726/2004, and incorporates the separate regulations on orphan and pediatric medicines, thereby bringing the entire regulatory framework up to date.

On March 3, 2026, a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general and state charity regulators (the “States”) sent a letter[1]to GoFundMe expressing their concerns about GoFundMe's creation of donation web pages for more than 1.4 million charities without their prior knowledge or consent.

In March 2026, the UK Government published its Fraud Strategy 2026–2029, part of a broader economic-crime policy package building on the Economic Crime Plan 2 (March 2023) and the Anti-Corruption Strategy, published in December 2025. The strategy's headline message for fraud victims is striking: do not wait for the state to act, but rather, seek redress from the court yourself.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a significant ruling that clarifies the rules governing evidence disclosure in competition damages litigation. The judgment addresses three critical questions: (1) whether pre-action disclosure falls within the scope of the EU Damages Directive, (2) what evidence is needed to establish that there is a plausible damages claim, and that therefore a disclosure request should be granted, and (3) how the plausibility threshold should be assessed.

On February 26, 2026, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted 22-1 to advance the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026. Sponsored by a bipartisan group — led by HELP Committee Chair Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA); and Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and John Cornyn (R-TX) — the bill represents perhaps the most significant federal legislative effort to overhaul health care cybersecurity since the passage of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in 2009, and would compel health care companies to make major investments in cybersecurity.

On March 6, 2026, the White House released its National Cyber Strategy (Strategy) and issued an accompanying Executive Order, “Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens” (EO). These documents outline the administration’s priorities for combating cybercrime and call for coordination across the federal government and the private sector to invest in new technologies, continue innovation, and prioritize the United States’ cyber capabilities. Key sectors of concern include energy, financial services, telecommunications, data centers, water, and health care. The Strategy and EO encourage increased public-private coordination, signal greater latitude for private sector offensive cyber operations, prioritize securing critical infrastructure, elevate cybercrime as a national security priority, outline a path for victim compensation, and promote streamlining cyber regulations.

On 26 February 2026, the EU published Directive (EU) 2026/470 (the Omnibus I Directive). Adopted as part of the European Commission's (Commission) simplification agenda and after a year of debates and negotiations between the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament, this text effectuates far-reaching changes to both the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D).

On February 12, 2026, a bipartisan group of legislators in Maryland proposed the Maryland Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act. This proposed legislation would amend the Maryland Consumer Protection Act to establish a sweeping regulatory framework for AI-enabled toys sold in the state, covering any device that uses machine learning, conversational AI, behavioral modeling, or similar computational processes and is marketed to or primarily used by children. This proposed legislation adds to a growing trend of increasing efforts, at both the federal and state levels, to regulate the use of AI in products and services used by children.  

Chambers Ranks Crowell & Moring International Trade Practice and Lawyers in 2026 Global Guide

On March 3, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (TREAS) — collectively, the “Tri-Agencies” — published their fourth annual report to Congress on enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The 2025 Report demonstrates a shift in approach by the Tri-Agencies in its tone and content and suggests that federal regulators, and the DOL in particular, are not as active as they previously were in MHPAEA enforcement. However, federal enforcement remains ongoing, and state enforcement of mental health parity laws continues to grow. Plans and issuers must continue to maintain comprehensive compliance processes and documentation for MHPAEA compliance.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed another revision to independent contractor regulations, one that would provide for more leeway in classifying workers as contractors. DOL’s proposed rule, published on February 26, 2026, would rescind the Biden DOL’s March 2024 independent contractor regulation and reinstate a framework substantially tracking the prior Trump rule of January 2021. The proposed rule would also apply the narrower analysis to worker classifications under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The comment period closes in late April 2026; until then, the 2024 rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. 1st Choice Accident & Injury, LLC, No. 24-20275 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026), offers important lessons for health care payors and other potential plaintiffs considering civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although the Fifth Circuit’s decision focused on a procedural issue, the underlying case turned on a fundamental pleading failure: the plaintiff insurers did not adequately describe the fraudulent network they were suing as a RICO “enterprise.” The result was dismissal of a $14 million fraud case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, in an issue of first impression for that court, that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) renders an employer’s pre-dispute arbitration agreement unenforceable as to a plaintiff's entire lawsuit, whenever the lawsuit includes a viable sexual harassment claim.

Clinical trial sponsors and all other stakeholders involved in conducting commercial clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in the UK.

Ex parte reexamination is seeing a resurgence in popularity as a cost-effective means to challenge a patent’s validity and should be part of your patent strategy. An ex parte reexamination is a proceeding in which any party — including a patent owner or an anonymous third party — may submit prior art to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess an issued patent's validity. Once overshadowed by the introduction of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) following the enactment of the America Invents Act in 2012, ex parte reexamination is now experiencing a significant resurgence as a strategic alternative to both proceedings. This client alert explains what is driving ex parte reexamination’s resurgence and what it means for your patent strategy.

On February 17, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by conducting an event limited to female employees. The EEOC’s lawsuit is one of several recent actions from the EEOC in furtherance of its efforts to end what it refers to as “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” See EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision.