The U.S. Department of Justice's announcement this week that it is elevating trade fraud to an economic and national security imperative sends an unmistakable message to multinational corporations, importers, compliance professionals and supply chain managers that the days of laissez-faire enforcement are over, says Markus Funk at White & Case.

A recent legislative change to the Texas Property Code overhauls the state's eviction process and makes it more difficult for nonpaying tenants to challenge evictions, likely yielding a faster and cheaper procedure that will encourage timely rent payment and lease compliance, says Maddison Craig at Munsch Hardt.

While recent climate-related cases brought by state attorneys general in Michigan, Nebraska and Texas take different ideological positions, they are united by their embrace of classical antitrust principles and the traditional consumer welfare standard — but these cases deploy this framework in new ways, says Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley at Lindsay Cooley Law.

Recently finalized Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. rules enhance the flexibility of signage requirements for bank websites, digital banking applications and ATMs, but new compliance hurdles will require cross-functional resources to avoid risk ahead of next year's compliance deadline, say attorneys at Winthrop & Weinstine.

Three recent enforcement actions against Spero Therapeutics, Lottery.com and Archer-Daniels-Midland demonstrate that while public companies are subject to liability for misrepresentations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is focused on individual liability when disclosure violations involve so-called half-truths, say attorneys at Cooley.

A New York federal court's ruling, in U.S. v. Heppner, that documents created by a defendant using an artificial intelligence tool were not privileged, can serve as a guide to attorneys for retaining attorney-client or work-product privilege over client documents created with AI, say attorneys at Sher Tremonte.

Evolving in different contexts, property and maritime insurance take almost opposite views on the foundational concepts of good faith and bad faith, but, as evidenced by two recent decisions, they dovetail on the idea that trust is the currency of risk, says Nicole Connors at Cozen O'Connor.

A fumbled response to False Claims Act allegations can doom lower-middle-market businesses, and with FCA enforcement hitting record levels for two years, smaller companies must have offensive strategies ready that focus their limited resources on defeating civil qui tam and federal criminal actions, says Derrelle Janey at Olshan Frome.

As the Aug. 2 deadline approaches to comply with provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act governing high-risk AI systems, intellectual property and AI leaders should consider steps to leverage documentation requirements to surface patentable subject matter, reinforce inventive-step narratives and align regulatory timelines with patent filing strategy, say Lestin Kenton, Roozbeh Gorgin and Ananth Josyula at Sterne Kessler.

In Villarino v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that commuting does not become compensable simply because an employer offers transportation, emphasizing that courts will examine whether employees retain meaningful choice and how policies operate, says Lauren Swanson at Hinshaw.

Both chambers of the Florida Legislature are currently considering bills that would impose strict caller identification requirements on companies doing business in the state, but as drafted, they reach far beyond bad actors, affecting any business that places calls or sends text messages to Florida consumers, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

Artificial intelligence is now ingrained in banking mergers and acquisitions, and bankers should learn the key elements of the technology's competency and limits, such as that AI-enhanced reviews do not replace compliance, despite their speed and depth, say attorneys at Spencer Fane.

For law firm leaders, ensuring a newly combined law firm lives up to its promise, both in its first days of operation and well after, includes tough decisions, clear and specific communication, and cheerleading, says Peter Michaud at Ballard Spahr.

While concerns about possible manipulation and insider trading in event contracts have increasingly been raised by market observers, distinguishing a speculative position from a hedge and effective surveillance make regulation difficult, particularly as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission argues for exclusive jurisdiction to do so, say economic consultants at the Brattle Group.

Comprehensive federal AI regulation remains fragmented and uncertain — but U.S. courts, applying long-standing doctrines of liability and responsibility, are actively shaping how AI systems are designed, deployed and governed, and companies are aligning their AI practices because courts may hold them accountable if they do not, says Alexander Lima at Wesco International.

While the Federal Trade Commission's new thresholds and filing fees for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act are not expected to materially affect the number of required HSR filings, or the percentage or focus of second requests, increased filing fees may give agencies dedicated resources to bring enforcement actions, say attorneys at Sidley.

A pair of rulings from the D.C. Circuit reveal a growing dilemma in digital privacy jurisprudence for investigative targets, technology companies and transparency advocates — even when courts set the bar higher for broad nondisclosure requests, the public may never be allowed to learn why orders get approved, say attorneys at RJO.

In its recently released False Claims Act statistics, the U.S. government's emphasis on record healthcare recoveries and government-initiated healthcare matters last year indicates robust enforcement ahead, though the administration's focus on current policy objectives also extends beyond the healthcare sector, say attorneys at Epstein Becker.

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Barry v. DePuy, addressing whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court's claim construction, suggests that exclusion via a Daubert motion is appropriate only when the line to improper testimony is clearly crossed, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.