Commercial Litigation Update

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently announced its long awaited proposed changes to its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Endorsement Guides”). The Endorsement Guides were first enacted in 1980 and are intended to help businesses ensure that their endorsement and testimonial advertising conforms with Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” including false advertising. Among the proposed changes to the Endorsement Guides, are those related to social media platforms and their users, deceptive endorsements by online “influencers,” businesses’ use of consumer reviews, and the impact of advertising on children.

The Court has started the week with three decisions emphasizing textual readings, two of them unanimous and a third drawing Justice Kagan into the majority with the Court’s six nominal jurisprudential conservatives.

Imagine you’re a longtime employee of a company that operates in a highly regulated industry. Your employment has seen its ups and downs throughout the years, and you have witnessed many transitions: new policies and procedures implemented, new leadership appointed, and new rules and regulations with which your company must comply to remain in lawful standing with regulators. Occasionally, you’ve observed activity that might be questionable but you never thought much about it. That is, until you’re called into a meeting with your company’s lawyers who inform you that “the U.S. Attorney’s Office wants to meet with you.” What do you do next?

Despite a large list of argued cases pending decision, the Court decides just two of them today—neither of them Dobbs.

Has private equity’s role in the nursing home industry led to lower quality of care? In an article for Thomson Reuters Westlaw Today, “Is Private Equity Really the Boogeyman in Nursing Home Quality of Care?” attorneys Sarah Hall and Eleanor Chung consider both sides of the issue and look at some possible solutions.

It is fair, I think, to say that a substantial majority of those who heard the argument in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate doubted that, irrespective of whatever they might think of Ted Cruz, it was highly likely that he and his campaign organization would prevail in challenging the federal campaign finance law limitation on the use of post-election funds to repay a candidate's personal loans as violative of the First Amendment rights of candidates who want to make expenditures on behalf of their own candidacy through personal loans. But, by a six-three division between the Court's judicial conservatives and liberals, that is precisely what has occurred. Those who criticize the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), likely will feel much the same way about the Cruz case.

A new Ohio law substantially changes the landscape for real property tax valuation challenges in the state. In general, it substantially curtails school districts’ rights to initiate and appeal property tax valuation challenges. Governor DeWine signed the bill on April 21, 2022. It will become effective on July 19, 2022, and will affect valuation complaints that relate to tax year 2022 valuations.

On April 26, 2022 the Supreme Court of New Jersey heard arguments about whether New Jersey should retain the judicially created “new business rule”. Since 1936 the rule has held that in the context of calculating damages “prospective profits of a new business are considered too remote and speculative to meet the legal standard of reasonable certainty.” RSB Lab. Servs., Inc. v. BSI, Corp. This case is interesting for aggrieved business litigants as well as interested observers of the appellate process.

Further evidencing an ongoing shift from more absolutist thinking about the intersection between the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and an individual's or group's right of free speech, we find this morning's unanimous decision in Shurtleff v. Boston in which the Court, reversing the First Circuit, held that the city of Boston violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment when it refused to let a group fly a Christian flag outside city hall. As Justice Breyer explained, in what will be among the last of his opinions:

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. is a very important case for employment and benefits practitioners. The Court, divided 6-3 along conservative/liberal lines, has held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the case affects potential results under four statutes that Congress has enacted pursuant to its Spending Clause authority that prohibit recipients of federal funds from discriminating with respect to matters including race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U. S. C. §2000d; Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX, 20 U. S. C. §1681; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, 29 U. S. C. §794; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), §1557, 42 U. S. C. §18116. The Court previously held that victims of intentional violations of these statutes may bring private lawsuits seeking to recover, among other things, compensatory damages. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 76 (1992). Today, the Court holds that the damages available under these statutes cannot include compensation for emotional suffering.