Insights

On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap agreements and for online contract formation and enforcement more generally. A sign-in wrap is a type of online agreement in which the agreement is hyperlinked on the website, but the user is not required to access, review, confirm an understanding, or otherwise affirmatively “assent” to be bound. If the Ninth Circuit does not grant ClassPass’ request and issue a new ruling in Chabolla, this case may signal the death knell for sign-in wraps, resulting in significant disruption, friction, and ultimately lower conversion for online companies who will be forced to redesign their sign-up flows to be click-wrap agreements (online agreements that require the user to affirmatively accept a company’s terms of use by clicking an assent box or button). Short of that, this decision increases business risk given that there are now conflicting opinions both within the Ninth Circuit and between the various Circuits.

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.

On April 3, 2025, the United States Department of Justice’ Antitrust Division hosted a forum on “Big-Tech Censorship” in which key Trump Administration Officials announced their desire to reform, or entirely overhaul, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In March 2025, we wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) inquiry into “tech censorship” and its associated request for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” That RFI remains open, and its deadline is May 21, 2025.

On March 18, President Trump fired the Federal Trade Commission’s two Democratic Commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. The move represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to exert greater control over executive-branch agencies, including bi-partisan independent agencies like the FTC.

On February 20, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission launched an “inquiry” into “tech censorship” by calling for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” The deadline for comments is May 21, 2025.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.

The U.S. Copyright Office has released Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This part of the Report, issued on January 29, 2025, focuses on the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. Overall, the Copyright Office concludes that existing law is sufficient to resolve questions of AI usage in copyrighted works, and sufficient human contributions to AI-generated outputs that would constitute authorship will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. The Office declined to support a separate copyright registration analysis for AI works, but provided new examples of how using AI as a tool could support sufficient authorship for copyrightability.

Artificial intelligence is now a mainstay in our daily lives. It’s in our phones and computers. It helps us draft emails and learn math. It recommends purchases and guides our online searches. It’s everywhere—and every sign suggests that it’s here to stay.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently approved a final consent order against Sitejabber, an artificial intelligence-enabled consumer review platform, for deceiving consumers by misrepresenting that the ratings and reviews it published came from customers who actually experienced the reviewed product or service. In reality, the reviews were collected before reviewers received the products or services, artificially inflating average star ratings and review counts. 

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).

On September 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced a settlement with Keurig Dr Pepper Inc (“Keurig”).  The SEC alleged that Keurig made incomplete and inaccurate statements in the Company’s annual reports for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 touting the recyclability of its K-Cup products. Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. 

As we’ve previously reported, FTC practitioners and businesses alike have been anxiously awaiting details about the rule that will prohibit purportedly deceptive practices in connection with reviews and testimonials. Our readers likely recall the FTC’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking from November 2022, the notice of proposed rulemaking from June 2023, and the informal hearing on the proposed rule which occurred in February 2024. The wait is finally over: just yesterday, August 14, 2024, the agency announced the “Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials” (the “Rule”). The final Rule, which the Commissioners unanimously approved, is a formal step to address alleged ongoing non-compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act and the agency’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Endorsement Guides”), particularly in the consumer review space.

The USPTO has proposed a rule rendering a patent unenforceable if it is disclaimed over another patent that is subsequently found invalid.  The FTC filed a comment letter in support of the USPTO’s proposed rule, noting that “the proposed rule would reduce the costs incurred by potential competitors challenging weak patents or defending against assertions of patent claims that are obvious variants of a single invention.”

Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group., represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), have sued online music AI generators, Suno AI (“Suno”) and Udio AI (“Udio”), for alleged copyright infringement, accusing them of replicating their artists’ music using AI technology. The Suno complaint is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the Udio complaint is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuits also target Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. The RIAA is asking for damages amounting to up to $150,000 per infringing song, which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. 

On May 14, 2024, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (the “ACM”) revealed that they were fining Epic Games 1,125,000 Euros for violating “professional diligence,” following ACM’s 2023 finding that the developer of Fortnite created an environment that pressured children into make purchases in its video game. In issuing the fine, the Decision declared that “ACM is making it known that unfair treatment of children in the digital world is particularly grave and will be dealt with severely.” 

On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Warner Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al., Case No. 22-1078, resolving a circuit split in federal courts as to whether it is possible to recover copyright damages beyond the three-year filing statute of limitations. The court held in a 6-3 ruling that there is no time limit on monetary recovery, while leaving the three-year filing deadline intact.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published revised draft guidelines in the Federal Register on promotional labeling and advertising considerations for the biologic and biosimilar industry, updating guidance from 2020. The quick revisions emphasize the fast-changing and rapidly growing nature of this industry.

Last week, based on a referral from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a complaint against Williams-Sonoma alleging that the company violated a previous Federal Trade Commission decision and order dated July 13, 2020 (the “2020 Order”) pursuant to which Williams-Sonoma was prohibited from making unsubstantiated U.S. origin claims. The complaint alleged that, following entry of the 2020 Order, Williams-Sonoma made “numerous false and unsubstantiated representations that their home goods or other products are ‘Made in USA’ or otherwise of U.S. origin, when, in fact, they are wholly imported or contain significant imported components.”

On April 12, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision in I DIG Texas LLC v. Kerry Creager, which analyzed country-of-origin claims in a manner that diverged from the well-established Federal Trade Commission’s “Made in USA” policy.

On April 10, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property convened Part III to an ongoing discussion and exploration of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) rights. The session, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part III - IP Protection for AI-Assisted Inventions and Creative Works,” delved into the nuanced debate over what IP protections should exist for AI-generated or AI-assisted works.