Insights

Will the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit’s unique Server Test for online copyright infringement? After the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the Server Test, a photographer and copyright owner has requested certiorari. Petitioner-Plaintiff, Elliot McGucken, is a landscape photographer. Respondent-Defendant, Valnet, Inc., is the owner of a travel website located at “www.thetravel.com.” McGucken sued Valnet for copyright infringement when Valnet embedded on its site a number of links to McGucken’s Instagram posts. The district court, bound by the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Perfect 10, granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Server Test foreclosed McGucken’s direct infringement claim as a matter of law, because Valnet linked to the images and did not store them on its own servers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a panel decision. McGucken now requests the Supreme Court to review the validity of the Server Test, which is unique to the Ninth Circuit.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities”.

In 2023 and 2024, several U.S. states enacted extensive “Right to Repair” laws, reflecting a growing legislative focus on ensuring consumers have access to the parts and resources needed to repair their own products without relying on the product’s original manufacturer. Most recently, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon implemented comprehensive regulations aimed at providing consumers direct access to tools, parts, and information for the repair of various electronic devices and equipment, including digital products and agricultural machinery. As the “Right to Repair” movement continues to gain significant traction across the United States, it is critical that manufacturers understand these laws and how these laws will impact their individual businesses.

In what may be the first lawsuit of its kind, a student has sued Yale University alleging that he has been falsely accused of using artificial intelligence on a final exam. The complaint, filed in February, could have far-reaching implications for both the use of AI by students and issues related to academic honesty.

On February 14th, 2025, the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued a Dear Colleague letter (the “Letter” or “DCL”) addressing what the Department thinks may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other authorities. The Department also announced that it will begin “vigorously enforce[ing] the law” and assessing compliance no later than February 28th, and threatens that educational institutions that fail to comply with the Department’s new view of the federal nondiscrimination laws face investigation and loss of federal funding.

Significant shifts in U.S. technology policy are taking shape at the start of the new administration. This is especially true in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), where President Trump revoked President Biden’s Executive Order 14110, titled “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” as part of his flurry of Day One executive actions. The administration is now moving quickly to put its own stamp on this area in an effort to strengthen U.S. AI leadership and competitiveness and outpace other nations, particularly the People’s Republic of China.

President Trump has issued several executive orders relevant to institutions of higher education. Below we detail key provisions of these executive orders to help colleges and universities stay abreast of the everchanging policy landscape, and to provide takeaways to consider while awaiting further federal guidance. 

On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security (“Trump’s FCPA Order” or the “Order”), whose stated goal is “to restore American competitiveness and security by ordering revised, reasonable enforcement guidelines” for the FCPA. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restores American Competitiveness and Security in FCPA Enforcement (“Fact Sheet”). Trump’s FCPA Order is part of his administration’s policy of “eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad.”

Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders (“EOs”). Three of these EOs rescind Biden Administration guidance extending the nondiscrimination protections under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) to discrimination based on gender identity.[1] These protections have had a tumultuous history since Section 1557 was enacted in 2010, with each administration reversing course from the last. The new administration has reverted to the position taken in President Trump’s last presidency – that the protections against discrimination “on the basis of sex” do not apply to gender identity.

Over the last year, the California Law Revision Commission (“CLRC”), the influential body that makes recommendations to the legislature, has been considering sweeping reforms to California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act. Recently, the CLRC voted to propose several changes to the Cartwright Act aimed at expanding the reach and scope of the law. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to this ongoing process because of the potentially dramatic impact such new state laws could have, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the CLRC’s recommendations.

On Wednesday, October 16, 2024, New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced new guidance aimed at identifying and providing a blueprint for protecting against AI-specific cybersecurity risks.  Motivated primarily by advancements in AI that substantially impact cybersecurity—including facilitating new ways to commit cybercrime—DFS’s guidance aims to specifically protect New York businesses but applies to all companies concerned with increasing their cybersecurity and managing risks posed by emerging technologies. The guidance addresses “most significant” AI-related threats to cybersecurity that organizations should consider when they are developing a cybersecurity program, internal protocols, or implementing cybersecurity controls—as well as recommendations for those cybersecurity programs.

Recently, there has been a significant increase in scams targeting users of the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).  Active SAM registrations are required for federal government contractors, including to receive contracts and payments.  The non-public portions of these registrations include bank account information, tax information, and other sensitive information about a company.  Recent phishing scams and efforts to gain access to registrations indicate sophisticated actors are attempting to manipulate SAM registrations, possibly for access to payments from the government, among other reasons.  Company SAM registration Administrators should protect the company’s SAM registration from unauthorized access to the greatest extent possible.

As Crowell covered in a recent alert, the Department of Defense (DoD) on October 11, 2024 released a final rule (the “Final Program Rule”) formalizing the requirements, assessment processes, and related governance for its Cyber Maturity Model Certification Program (CMMC).

On October 11, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a final rule (the “Final Program Rule”) formalizing the requirements, assessment processes, and related governance for its Cyber Maturity Model Certification Program (CMMC).[1] 

On Monday, September 23, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ), released an update to its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) guidance.  The ECCP guidance was last revised in March 2023, which brought a number of significant changes, including a focus on compensation and incentive structures (e.g., clawbacks), and third party messaging applications.  This 2024 update, while not as significant in scope as its predecessor, nonetheless highlights the DOJ’s focus on new and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), as part of its evolving assessment of what makes a corporate compliance program truly effective, and how prosecutors should evaluate risk assessments and other management tools at the time of a corporate resolution.

On Monday, September 8, 2024, the United States Department of the Treasury, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Tri-Agencies”) issued a final rule (“the Final Rule”) implementing new regulations applicable to nonquantitative treatment limitations (“NQTLs”) under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”). The Final Rule codifies many of the requirements set forth in the (the “Proposed Rule”), while pulling back on some of the Tri-Agencies’ more controversial proposals. 

On August 5, 2024, in United States ex rel. Relator LLC v. Howard D. Kootstra and Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00924-TLN-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a motion to dismiss allegations that a mortgage lender made false or fraudulent statements on its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application in violation of the False Claims Act where the relator could not overcome the FCA’s public disclosure bar.

On August 1, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco unveiled the Department of Justice’s new Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. The announcement marks the conclusion of the Department’s previously announced “sprint” towards a pilot program, as DAG Lisa Monaco first previewed back in March of this year. 

As reported in earlier Client Alerts, on November 7, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission challenged 100 patents as improperly listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” publication, commonly known as the Orange Book. The FTC sent warning letters to ten drug and medical device manufacturers identifying patents for inhalers, autoinjectors and anti-inflammatory multi-dose bottles that the FTC believes are improperly listed. In response, some manufacturers withdrew their patents, and others agreed to cap certain out-of-pocket costs for their drugs, resulting in a “victory lap” of media activity from the FTC in April.