Current Month (July 2025)
Antitrust Law
DOJ Declares Enterprise Wireless Merger Settlement a Victory
By Barbara Sicalides, Daniel Anziska, Joe Farside, and Julian Weiss, Troutman Pepper Locke
Shortly before the scheduled start of trial, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Antitrust Division (“Division”) reached a settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise (“HPE”) and Juniper Networks (“Juniper”) that allows their $14 billion merger to proceed. The settlement, described by the agency as “novel,” requires divestiture of an HPE business line to a preapproved buyer and at least one license of certain Juniper technology to one or more licensees that must be approved by the Division.
For the third time in a month, the new administration has approved a structural remedy in order to address the potential anticompetitive effects of a merger. In this case, according to public reporting, this settlement was not supported by Division staff but was instead approved by leadership of the DOJ.
Though the transaction was cleared by fourteen foreign antitrust authorities, the Division sued to block the merger in January 2025 over concerns about competition for local wireless networking technology. According to the agency’s complaint, there were three primary theories of harm: (1) loss of head-to-head competition between the merging parties’ Aruba and Mist brands, causing prices to increase; (2) elimination of a disruptive force in the industry that has introduced tools to significantly lower the cost of wireless networks; and (3) increased risk of coordination among the remaining vendors.
After the merger, HPE and Juniper’s aggregate market share would be only approximately 22–26 percent, below the 2023 Merger Guidelines’ 30 percent market share threshold for presumption of a merger’s illegality. However, the Division also alleged that the transaction would result in two firms controlling over 70 percent of the relevant market, with a significant gap between post-closing HPE and the next largest competitor in the market, allegedly making it easier for the two largest companies to reach and sustain a consensus on price, features, and reliability.
The divestiture and technology license(s) required by the settlement are intended to eliminate the alleged anticompetitive effects of the acquisition by strengthening one or more existing competitors or facilitating entry of a new competitor for enterprise-grade wireless local area network (“WLAN”) solutions.
- HPE must divest its global “Instant On” campus and branch WLAN business, including all assets, intellectual property, R&D personnel, and customer relationships within 180 days.
- The parties must also hold an auction for a perpetual, worldwide, nonexclusive license to Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist source code. The license will include optional transitional support “on reasonable commercial terms” and personnel transfers.
The settlement also assures that any winning licensee will have the right to any improvements to and derivatives of the licensed technology and the right to grant rights of use to the technology to its end users and service providers as reasonably needed. If the auction results in multiple bids exceeding $8 million, Juniper will be required to license to at least one additional bidder. This novel approach by the Justice Department reflects a commitment to solving unique challenges in mergers.
For more information, please see Business Law Today’s full-length article on this topic.
DOJ Antitrust Unit Launches Whistleblower Rewards Program
By Megan Rahman and Barbara Sicalides, Troutman Pepper Locke
The U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, has announced a new initiative aimed at enhancing the detection and prosecution of antitrust violations. On July 8, 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, in collaboration with the U.S. Postal Service, launched the “Whistleblower Rewards Program.” This program is designed to incentivize individuals to report antitrust crimes affecting the postal service, its revenues, or property, offering whistleblowers the opportunity to receive up to 30 percent of any criminal fines recovered for violations.
Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater emphasized the importance of this program in breaking down the “walls of secrecy” that often surround antitrust offenses, such as price fixing and bid rigging. The initiative aims to create a pipeline of leads from those with firsthand knowledge of criminal activities, thereby raising the stakes for offenders.
The program is part of the DOJ’s ongoing efforts to combat collusion and cartel activities, which AAG Slater has declared a priority, and builds upon the agency’s existing leniency program. Whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information leading to criminal fines or recoveries of at least $1 million may be eligible for rewards ranging from 15 percent to 30 percent of the recovery. The discretion for payment lies with the Antitrust Division.
This initiative also complements the DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force, a multi-agency effort established in 2019 to uncover antitrust violations in government procurement. The Postal Service Office of Inspector General, a key member of this strike force, actively collaborates with other agencies to incentivize reporting of collusive behavior without fear of reprisal.
This newly established program underscores the DOJ’s commitment to rooting out illicit behavior across industries, particularly those involving USPS procurement. Corporations found guilty of antitrust violations can face fines up to $100 million, while individual defendants may incur fines up to $1 million, with potential for higher penalties based on the impact of the violation.
As a result of the Whistleblowers Rewards Program, companies should anticipate increased scrutiny and enforcement actions. It is advisable for businesses to review their compliance programs and ensure robust measures are in place to prevent and detect potential antitrust violations. Organizations should be prepared to respond promptly to any inquiries or actions from the DOJ and ensure they have legal strategies in place to address potential claims.
Second FTC and DOJ Listening Session on Drug Affordability Focuses on Formulary and Benefit Practices and Regulatory Abuse in the Pharmaceutical Industry
By Melissa O’Donnell, Barbara Sicalides, and Linnea Kelly, Troutman Pepper Locke
On July 24, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) held the second of three listening sessions focused on competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace.
FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson began the session by noting the agency’s aggressive approach to combating anticompetitive practices related to pharmaceuticals. Specifically, he pointed to FTC warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies disputing the propriety of more than two hundred patent listings in the Orange Book of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). He also made clear that the agency plans to complete its 6(b) study of pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), which should inform future actions in this area. Finally, Chair Ferguson stated that incumbent PBMs and manufacturers appear to use government laws and regulations designed to promote competition and reduce costs to shield themselves from competition, resulting in higher costs for consumers.
The two panels then discussed various structural issues affecting competition, including increased consolidation, lack of transparency, and overlapping regulatory structures.
The first panel, “Benefit and Formulary Practices and Regulations that Harm Drug Competition,” discussed business relationships among pharmaceutical manufacturers, PBMs, group purchasing organizations (“GPOs”), and health care payors. The panelists generally encouraged increased transparency at all levels of the supply chain, especially at the PBM level, and favored pass-through pricing models.
The session also addressed growing vertical consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain, with a focus on the vertical integration of PBMs with insurers, administrative services organizations, and GPOs. Some panelists expressed concern that vertically integrated healthcare entities may disadvantage industry rivals by steering business to their integrated PBMs and pharmacies through exclusive contracting, and they suggested that such steering should subject entities to antitrust scrutiny. Further, panelists expressed concerns that GPOs “engage in predatory practices” by overcharging and underpaying generic manufacturers.
The second panel, “Improper Orange Book Listings and Other Regulatory Abuse by Pharmaceutical Companies to Impede Competition,” focused on the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme and how pharmaceutical manufacturers may exploit a complex regulatory system to delay or deter competition. One panelist focused on improper Orange Book listings, a hot topic in recent litigation and a focus of the FTC. She explained how improperly listed patents can harm competition by subjecting generic companies to an automatic thirty-month stay of regulatory approval.
The panelists also discussed so-called “patent thickets”—dense groups of overlapping patents used to cover a single product—especially in the biologic space; one panelist highlighted current legislation that would allow brands to assert only one patent per terminally disclaimed group. Some panelists also asserted that branded drug manufacturers improperly use citizen petitions to the FDA to attempt to delay or deter generic competition.
Participants across both panels were generally united on one issue: the need to reform the regulatory process and educate patients and providers to promote the use of biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars as alternatives to expensive brand biologics. They called for a single regulatory pathway for biosimilars that would allow approved biosimilars to be automatically substituted by pharmacies, without prescriber intervention.
For more information, please see Business Law Today’s full-length article on this topic.
Banking Law
FinCEN Order Allows Banks to Collect Taxpayer Information from Third Parties
By Rachael Aspery and Aaron Kouhoupt, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
In a significant move, on June 27, 2025 the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an order granting banks and their subsidiaries an exemption from the Customer Identification Program (“CIP”) Rule of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. Under the order, these entities are now permitted to collect taxpayer identification number (“TIN”) information from third-party sources in addition to obtaining that information directly from the customer.
The order comes more than a year after the collective governing agencies—the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”)—issued a request for information in March 2024. The agencies sought public comment on the potential risks, benefits, safeguards, and concerns surrounding the potential for banks to obtain all or part of a customer’s TIN information from a third-party source rather than from the customer directly prior to opening an account. In issuing the order, FinCEN and the agencies acknowledged the significant digital evolution in how consumers obtain and access financial services. They further acknowledged that consumers are often reluctant to provide their full TIN due to identity theft and data breach concerns.
Prior to the order, banks were required to obtain TIN information directly from the customer before opening an account, with the exception of credit card accounts where the bank was permitted to obtain some customer information from a third-party source.
Banks are still required to comply with the CIP requirements that implement Section 326 of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. As such, a bank must still have written CIP procedures that
- enable the bank to obtain TIN information prior to opening an account;
- are based on the bank’s assessment of the relevant risks; and
- are risk-based for the purpose of verifying the identity of each customer to the extent reasonable and practicable, enabling the bank to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of each customer.
This change is particularly impactful and allows banks, and bank service providers, to integrate automated methods to obtain TIN information, which in turn leads to a smoother customer onboarding process. Notably, FinCEN stated that it had not identified heightened money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit finance risks associated specifically with alternative collection methods when appropriately managed under the existing exception for credit card accounts.
FinCEN and the agencies also acknowledge that banks have access to reliable alternative processes for verification, allowing them to form a reasonable belief that they know the identity of each customer. Utilization of alternative processes for verification would need to be part of a bank’s risk assessment and factored into a risk-based program. However, if for any reason a bank chooses to continue obtaining full TIN information directly from the customer, they may continue to do so.
Banks and their partners should be aware of the flexibility the order provides when complying with CIP obligations.
Business Crimes & Corporate Compliance
Small Business Administration Set to Audit Its 8(a) Program for Small Disadvantaged Businesses
By Margaret M. Cassidy, Cassidy Law PLLC
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Administrator Kelly Loeffler directed the SBA’s Office of General Contracting and Business Development to immediately audit the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program (“8(a) Program”).
The 8(a) Program is designed to support socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses in growing their business in essentially two ways. First, the SBA provides these businesses counseling, training, and management and technical guidance. Second, 8(a) business are given preferential access to federal government contracts and subcontracts through contracting opportunities that are “set aside” for 8(a) businesses, which means generally that only 8(a) businesses may bid on the contract. Similarly, the 8(a) Program requires large government contractors to subcontract with 8(a) businesses on certain federal government contracts. To participate in the 8(a) Program a business must apply, and, if it meets Program criteria, the SBA certifies the business as an 8(a) business. See 13 C.F.R. pt. 124; 48 C.F.R. subpt. 19.8.
The audit is driven because a U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation uncovered a multiyear fraud and bribery scheme involving a former federal government contracting officer and 8(a) businesses that had been improperly awarded federal government contracts. The investigation uncovered over $550 million in federal government contracts that were fraudulently awarded through bribery and other wrongdoing to U.S. Agency for International Development (“USAID”) 8(a) contractors, including an instance in which USAID identified a 8(a) contractor as lacking integrity yet still awarded it an $800 million federal government contract.
Loeffler noted in her audit directive that the 8(a) Program has seen “rampant fraud” and that abuse of the Program has grown “increasingly egregious.” The audit will look back fifteen years and will focus on ferreting out wrongdoing, whether by federal government contracting officers or 8(a) businesses. Initially, high-dollar federal government contracts awarded with limited competition to 8(a) businesses will be the focus of the audit. The SBA will work with other federal agencies to conduct the audit.
Audit findings will be referred to the SBA Office of Inspector General and to the DOJ for further investigation and prosecution.
Both large federal government contractors and 8(a) contractors should be prepared to be audited or to be issued subpoenas or civil investigative demands for information related to their federal government contracts and to their business operations. 8(a) contractors should review eligibility for the 8(a) Program, while large contractors should review 8(a) Program eligibility of their 8(a) subcontractors. All contractors and subcontractors should review their compliance with their federal government contracts and with regulatory requirements. They should also review their practices for pursuing federal government contracts and engaging with government employees.
If a contractor uncovers “credible evidence” of a False Claims Act violation or violation of criminal law related to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuities, Federal Acquisition Regulations mandate that the findings be disclosed to the Office of Inspector General and the contracting officer at the agency where they have the contracts. See 48 C.F.R. 52.203-13.
Army Failed to Effectively Review Bidder’s Organizational Conflict of Interests in Competition for Army Cybersecurity Contract
By Tara Flanagan, Cassidy Law PLLC, and Margaret M. Cassidy, Cassidy Law PLLC
In a recent bid protest of an Army cybersecurity contract, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), the government agency that in many cases adjudicates protests of federal government contract awards, determined that the Army improperly concluded that the contract awardee did not have an organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”). DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366 et al. (Comp. Gen. June 11, 2025).
A bidder for the Army contract, DirectViz, claimed, among other things, that the contract awardee, Peraton, had an unmitigated OCI and so should not have been awarded the contract.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations require government bidders and government contractors to certify that they have no OCIs or to disclose any OCIs to the government and provide a mitigation plan. See 48 C.F.R. 9.5.
The GAO agreed with DirectViz, finding that Peraton’s work on an existing contract it had with the Army Cyber Command posed the potential that Peraton would have a “significant” OCI if Peraton performed the new contract with the Army Global Cyber Center (“GCC”), a subordinate component of the Army Cyber Command.
According to the GAO, Peraton’s existing scope of work at Army Cyber Command required that it provide services related to Army cyberspace operations such as creating and maintaining policies and procedures as well as addressing vulnerabilities. DirectViz, B-423366 at 9. Under the GCC contract, Peraton would provide, among other things, cybersecurity services related to securing Army information systems and networks as well as address vulnerabilities consistent with Army cybersecurity procedures. Id.
The GAO determined that Peraton’s responsibilities under these two contracts appeared to overlap and would give Peraton the opportunity and incentive to favorably assess how it managed GCC’s cyberoperations, since Peraton was essentially developing procedures under its Army Cyber Command contract that dictated how GCC was to manage its cyberoperations. The GAO concluded this presented a likely impaired objectivity OCI because Peraton would be reviewing and evaluating its own work.
The GAO also found that the contracting officer acted unreasonably by failing to review Peraton’s scope of work under its existing Army Cyber Command contract in relation to the work Peraton would perform under the new contract. Instead of conducting this review, the contracting officer made conclusory findings and relied on Peraton’s “self-serving” explanations that it did not have a conflict. Id. at 11–13.
Since Peraton likely has an unmitigated OCI, DirectViz was prejudiced in the competition for the award of the contract, and the GAO directed the Army to reconsider if Peraton should be disqualified because of an unmitigated OCI. Id. at 27.
This case reminds government contractors and bidders that they must assess if they have an OCI by reviewing statements of work under their existing contracts and under contracts they are bidding on in light of the OCI definitions and the framework for assessing OCIs in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. See 48 C.F.R. 9.5.
CTA Lessons on Good Corporate Hygiene and Administratively Dissolved Entities
By William E. H. Quick, Polsinelli PC
Visit Business Law Today’s July 2025 in Brief: Corporations, LLCs & Partnerships to read the full update on the Corporate Transparency Act.
Consumer Finance Law
Budget Bill, Supreme Court Ruling Raise Renewed Prospect of CFPB Mass Layoffs
By Eric Mogilnicki and Jacob Feldmann, Covington & Burling LLP
The cuts in the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in the recent reconciliation act, and the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of a lower court order that blocked layoffs in large parts of the federal workforce, may have helped pave the way for mass terminations of CFPB employees. The American Banker reported on July 16 that Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought is expected to issue a new Reduction in Force if the U.S. Court of Appeals lifts a lower court injunction that specifically blocked the CFPB from conducting such mass layoffs.
CFPB Reaches Settlement with FirstCash for Military Lending Act Violations
By Eric Mogilnicki and Cormac Dugan, Covington & Burling LLP
On July 11, the CFPB and FirstCash reached a settlement resolving alleged violations of the Military Lending Act (“MLA”). The CFPB had alleged that FirstCash made pawn loans to service members with annual interest rates that exceeded the 36 percent maximum rate allowed under the MLA. The CFPB had also alleged that FirstCash failed to make required loan disclosures and improperly required arbitration of disputes covered by the MLA. The settlement will require FirstCash to pay $5 million to harmed service members and $4 million to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.
This resolution is a rare case of the current CFPB following through on an enforcement action begun by the prior administration and is consistent with the current administration’s pledge to focus on protecting service members.
Federal Judge Vacates CFPB Medical Debt Rule
By Eric Mogilnicki and Cormac Dugan, Covington & Burling LLP
On July 11, U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan (E.D. Tex.) vacated the CFPB’s Biden-era medical debt rule, which was finalized in January 2025 and would have prohibited creditors from considering medical debt in credit eligibility determinations. Judge Jordan wrote that the rule exceeds the CFPB’s authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CFPB and the plaintiffs in the litigation had previously entered a joint motion for consent judgment on April 30, agreeing that the rule exceeds the agency’s authority. The CFPB under former Director Rohit Chopra’s leadership estimated that the rule would remove nearly $50 billion of medical debt from the credit reports of 15 million Americans.
Congress Passes Reconciliation Bill Slashing CFPB Funding
By Eric Mogilnicki and Tyler Smith, Covington & Burling LLP
The final version of the reconciliation bill, which the president signed on July 4, reduces the cap on the CFPB’s budget from 12 percent to 6.5 percent of the Federal Reserve’s combined earnings. This change is unlikely to matter under the current administration, which is already committed to a much less expensive and expansive CFPB. However, the new cap (if unchanged) will reduce the funds available to future administrations to levels substantially below the CFPB’s historic annual spending.
By Eric Mogilnicki and Tyler Smith, Covington & Burling LLP
On July 1, the CFPB terminated its consent order with Navy Federal Credit Union. Because the order was filed administratively within the CFPB, the Bureau did not have to seek a court’s approval.
The Navy Federal consent order, issued in November of last year, was based on the CFPB’s allegation that the credit union had engaged in improper overdraft practices, and it required Navy Federal to pay the CFPB a civil money penalty of $15 million and redress to customers of nearly $81 million. The termination order simply “terminates th[e] Consent Order” and “waives any alleged noncompliance therewith.” The Order specifically ends “any obligations under Paragraphs 67 and 68 of Section IX,” which are the provisions requiring redress.
In a statement, Navy Federal maintained that the case should never have been brought: “Our overdraft program allows our members to make necessary, everyday purchases without going into long-term debt or turning to payday lenders. Navy Federal complied with all applicable laws and regulations at the time and continues to do so. We firmly believe the CFPB’s decision to terminate the order was appropriate.”
CFPB Terminates Consent Order Against Fay Servicing
By Eric Mogilnicki and Tyler Smith, Covington & Burling LLP
On July 1, the CFPB terminated its administrative consent order against Fay Servicing, LLC. The CFPB initially issued an order against the nationwide mortgage servicer in 2017, alleging that Fay violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and its implementing Regulation X. In August 2024, the Bureau issued a new consent order finding that Fay Servicing continued to violate RESPA and Regulation X over the prior seven years, and finding new violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Homeowners Protection Act. In addition to prohibiting further legal violations, the consent order required $3 million in consumer redress and a $2 million civil money penalty, and it required Fay Servicing to invest at least $2 million in updating its servicing technology and compliance management systems. The termination order notes that “Fay Servicing has fulfilled several obligations under the Consent Order,” including by paying all required penalties and consumer redress.
CFPB Considers Using Civil Money Penalty Fund to Refund Losses in Synapse Bankruptcy
By Eric Mogilnicki and Jacob Feldmann, Covington & Burling LLP
On June 20, the CFPB indicated that it may seek to tap into the Civil Money Penalty Fund to refund consumers harmed by Synapse, a Banking-as-a-Service middleware provider that promised to track transactions between fintechs and partner banks. Synapse filed for bankruptcy last year. The CFPB’s new statement of interest asks the bankruptcy court to allow the Bureau to bring “an unsecured claim against the debtor for monetary and other relief to address consumer harm resulting from the debtor’s conduct.” Even a nominal settlement with the Synapse bankruptcy estate would allow the CFPB to dedicate funds from the Civil Money Penalty Fund to compensate consumers harmed by Synapse.
Illinois Legislature Passes Two Bills Significantly Amending the Collection Agency Act
By Ariel Hodges, Pilgrim Christakis LLP
On May 22, 2025, the Illinois Legislature passed two bills that, once signed into law, will bring notable changes to the Illinois Collection Agency Act (“ICAA”). These amendments—contained in Senate Bill 2457 and House Bill 3352—signal a shift in Illinois’ approach to debt collection, with an emphasis on regulatory clarity and consumer protection.
S.B. 2457: Expanded Exemptions and Updated Definitions
Senate Bill 2457 makes key updates to the ICAA’s defined terms, including “collection agency” and “exemptions.” Significantly, the list of exempt entities has been expanded to include motor vehicle retail sellers and those licensed under various consumer finance laws. In addition, the newly expanded definition of a “collection agency” captures a broader range of business activities, including debt buying, collecting debts acquired from affiliated entities, and using third-party appearances to collect debts. These changes increase the regulatory reach of the ICAA and may subject additional entities to licensing and compliance obligations. Aligned with this goal, the bill also makes several administrative updates to tighten regulations on collection agencies operating in Illinois.
H.B. 3352: Introducing “Coerced Debt” Protections
House Bill 3352 introduces a novel and consumer-focused concept to Illinois law: “coerced debt.” This refers to debts incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or the nonconsensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information. These types of debts typically arise in the context of domestic violence, abuse, exploitation, or human trafficking.
The bill outlines a formal process for consumers to assert coerced debt claims. A debtor must submit a written statement of coerced debt with supporting documentation to the collection agency. If a debtor initially provides oral notice, the agency must notify them within fourteen days that a written submission is required.
The bill also sets forth important compliance requirements for collection agencies. Once a claim is initiated, the collection agency must notify the consumer reporting agency that the debt is disputed. If the agency determines in good faith that the debt qualifies as coerced debt, it must request deletion of the relevant credit information. The agency must cease collection activities within ten days of receiving a complete written statement. If a debtor fails to cure an incomplete statement within thirty days, the agency may resume collection efforts.
Notably, the debtor’s right to assert coerced debt cannot be waived, and such a claim can be used as an affirmative defense in court. Noncompliance by a collection agency may result in damages of up to $2,500 per debt, along with court costs and attorney fees.
Final Thoughts
With these bills likely to become law, Illinois’s regulatory landscape is making a meaningful shift towards consumer protection in debt collection. However, the changes will likely require collection agencies to review and revise compliance protocols, particularly in handling coerced debt claims and fulfilling related investigation and reporting obligations.
Environmental Law
EPA Grants Two-Year Extension on Coke Oven Air Toxics Compliance Following Industry Input
By Michael Blumenthal, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has officially extended key compliance deadlines for air toxics standards affecting steel-sector coke oven operations, reflecting industry concerns about the feasibility of implementing the Biden-era rules within the original timeline.
Published as an interim final rule on July 8, 2025, the EPA’s decision moves the compliance deadlines from July 7, 2025, and January 6, 2026, to a new unified deadline of July 5, 2027. This two-year extension aligns with the timeline already granted to integrated iron and steel facilities and provides critical breathing room for operators to address technical and operational challenges in meeting the stringent requirements.
The agency acknowledged that, based on detailed input from stakeholders, several provisions of the rule are “infeasible” to implement as originally scheduled. The revised timeline applies to eleven currently operating coke plants across the U.S. steel sector.
While the interim final rule takes immediate effect, the EPA is accepting public comments for a thirty-day period following its publication in the Federal Register, allowing further industry and stakeholder engagement.
This extension marks a significant step toward a more practical, phased approach to emissions compliance—one that considers the complexities of coke production, capital planning cycles, and the need for technological adaptation across the industry.
Sports Law & Gaming Law
College Student Athletes to Receive Nearly $2.6 Billion for Name, Image, and Likeness Violations in Class Action Settlement
By Megan Carrasco, Snell & Wilmer LLP, and Monique Reyes, South Texas College of Law Houston
On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken (N.D. Cal.) approved a landmark settlement agreement between a class of college student athletes and defendants National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”), The Big Ten Conference, Inc. (“Big Ten”), The Big 12 Conference, Inc. (“Big 12”), Pac-12 Conference (“Pac-12”), and Southeastern Conference (“SEC”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). Under the now-approved settlement, Defendants will pay an estimated 389,700 athletes $ 2.576 billion. In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025).
This settlement, which apportions no fault or liability to the Defendants, stems from NCAA rules that restricted or disallowed athletes from receiving pay from third parties, schools, and conferences for the use of their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), as well as for their athletic services (pay-for-play), and capped scholarship awards that purportedly violated federal antitrust laws.
The settlement will be divided between two funds. First, $1.976 billion belongs to the NIL claims settlement fund for athletes with NIL-related injuries. These injuries are further broken down into categories including losses related to video games that used the athlete’s NIL, broadcast media related to NIL, and third-party use of the athlete’s NIL. For some of the damages only certain classes of plaintiffs will be eligible—for example, the “Women’s Basketball” class.
Second, $600 million will be allocated to the Additional Compensation fund for class claims related to pay-for-play claims. The Court’s opinion on the settlement approval generally refers to these damages as payments athletes did not receive but should have received for “athletic services.”
The parties have agreed that the Defendants will not oppose a fee and cost award of $20 million for class counsel.
The settlement also includes myriad kinds of injunctive relief, including the requirement that “each student-athlete [] will have the right to enter into an exclusive or non-exclusive license and/or endorsement agreement for that student-athlete’s NIL.” Additionally, some defendants now must report certain information related to students entering into NIL agreements and must report information about the institution involved in the NIL arrangement. The ability for student athletes to be well compensated for their talent will forever alter the calculus for colleges, third parties, and students as NIL deals make their way into recruitment efforts. See Athlete v. Coach: Name, Image, and Likeness Conflict Hits the Sunshine State.
College Athletes May Be Allowed to Bet on Professional Sports
By Megan Carrasco, Snell & Wilmer LLP, and Ashley Fortner, South Texas College of Law Houston
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) Division I Council recently proposed changing its policy on sports betting for student-athletes, coaches, and staff. Currently, placing bets on amateur, intercollegiate, and NCAA-sponsored sporting events is prohibited.
The proposed change would allow student-athletes and staff members to participate in sports betting on professional sports. The NCAA would continue to provide resources such as mental health support and guidance to student-athletes about the risks involved with sports betting.
Prior to this proposed change, coaches, staff, and student-athletes who bet on sports would lose an entire season of eligibility without an option for recovery. Under the proposed changes, individuals currently banned for sports betting could recover their eligibility by participating in a sports betting education class but only for certain offenses. This revision is presumably in response to the broader integration of sports betting into the fabric of American sports.
The proposed changes to the NCAA sports betting policy only allow betting on professional sports, and the NCAA has been resolute in their statements that the policy would not allow betting on college sports or allow individuals to share information to others about college sports for the purposes of betting.
A major concern for the NCAA is the impact sports betting has on college students. There are concerns about online harassment and addictive gambling behaviors. The NCAA is preemptively combatting its own sports betting concerns by creating sports betting education programs, including in-person workshops, on-demand resources, and e-learning modules. These resources will not only be used as part of the penalty for violations; they are available to all NCAA schools and conferences for education and guidance. Additionally, NCAA is regularly monitoring game officials to protect the integrity of competition.
If the proposal is accepted by the Division I Council, it will also need to be accepted by the Division II and III Councils before it is enacted. Voting on the proposal will take place in October.
Tax Law
IRS Agrees That Political Speech Is Permitted in Houses of Worship
By Douglas W. Charnas, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
The Internal Revenue Service has reached a settlement, subject to court approval, that would permit political speech in houses of worship.
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code defines an organization exempt from federal income tax to include one that is organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, “no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The language that is italicized is referred to as the Johnson Amendment and is designed to prevent tax-exempt charitable organizations, including churches and other houses of worship, from directly or indirectly engaging in political activities.
In 2024, the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and certain churches filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service alleging that the Johnson Amendment “facially and as applied violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” On July 7, 2025, the parties to the lawsuit filed a joint motion for entry of a consent judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to resolve all claims in the lawsuit. National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, No. 6:24-cv-00311-JCB (E.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2025).
In the Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment, the parties agree to the following interpretation of the Johnson Amendment:
When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign. . . . Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.
This interpretation of the Johnson Amendment is consistent with the IRS’s treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice, and in compliance with Executive Order 13798, which provides, in part:
All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.
The Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment’s conclusion regarding the Johnson Amendment is that “the Johnson Amendment does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.”
Given the agreed-upon interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, the IRS is unlikely to challenge speech that occurs within a house of worship. It is less clear how the IRS will treat speech that occurs outside a house of worship. Negative campaign ads sponsored and paid for by a house of worship that target the general public and are designed to influence votes likely would be subject to the prohibition of the Johnson Amendment. The devil lies in the details of the circumstances surrounding the political speech.
