Current Month (March 2026)
Business Crimes & Corporate Compliance
The DoD–Anthropic Litigation: A Federal Government Contract Ending in a Ban
By Margaret M. Cassidy, Cassidy Law
Contract negotiations between the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and Anthropic to revise an existing contract ended in a spectacular fashion when at the end of February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on social media and in other public statements declared that Anthropic was a “supply chain risk” and banned the federal government and any federal government contractor from doing business with Anthropic, even commercial transactions.
Anthropic sued for relief in federal court in both California and D.C.
According to Anthropic’s March 9 federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California (Anthropic PBC vs. U.S. Department of War, No. 3:26-cv-01996-RFL (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 9, 2026)), DoD demanded the right to use Claude, Anthropic’s artificial intelligence platform, for “any lawful use.” Anthropic objected to Claude being used for mass domestic surveillance because that is inconsistent with human rights and objected to it being used with fully autonomous weapons systems operating without human involvement because of the risk involved.
DoD invoked a military procurement statute, 10 U.S.C. § 3252 (Requirements for information relating to supply chain risk), and another procurement statute that applies across the federal government, 41 U.S.C. § 4713 (Authorities relating to mitigating supply chain risks in the procurement of covered articles), to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk. Since 41 U.S.C. § 4713 was used, Anthropic also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because under the statute the court has original jurisdiction (Anthropic PBC vs. U.S. Department of War, No. 26-1049 (D.C. Cir. filed Mar. 9, 2026)).
Under both statutes, DoD can take procurement action against a contractor but only after determining, based on evidence, that a company poses a national security risk because it may somehow compromise DoD IT systems or the IT systems of other federal agencies. The procurement actions the government may take are essentially excluding a business from government procurements and directing prime contractors from using subcontractors that have been designated as a supply chain risk.
In its lawsuits, Anthropic characterizes DoD’s actions as retaliatory; violating its First Amendment rights; failing to provide it due process; and inconsistent with the Administrative Procedures Act given the breadth of the government’s actions. Anthropic noted that from a factual perspective, Claude was being used in DoD’s classified IT systems; DoD was permitting a six-month wind-down period; and that the government had determined that it met cybersecurity requirements for being used in government IT systems.
On March 26, the California court granted a preliminary injunction finding that the government’s actions were “likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.” The court determined that the government’s actions were “classic illegal First Amendment retaliation” and that the government failed to follow the procedures required by 10 U.S.C. § 3252. As of the date of this briefing, the D.C. Court has not ruled.
Consumer Finance Law
House Financial Services Committee Aims to Restore Cohesion to Financial Data Privacy Legal Landscape by Modernizing GLBA
By Olivia (Liv) Lawless, Pilgrim Christakis LLP
On March 17, 2026, the United States House Committee on Financial Services met to discuss potential updates to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) aimed at restoring cohesion to consumer financial data privacy laws. Currently, the GLBA serves as a federal floor for financial data privacy protections, allowing states to implement stricter regulations on financial institutions. The result is a challenging regulatory landscape that requires businesses to navigate state-specific data privacy laws to ensure compliance. Representatives involved in the Committee stressed the need to modernize the GLBA, including Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Chairman Andy Barr, who warned of the “nationwide patchwork of standards” resulting in “increased compliance costs and competition killing barriers to entry” that harm consumers in the long run.
Representative Bill Huizenga circulated a discussion draft to the Committee purporting to significantly update Title V of the GLBA. The revisions would require covered entities to partake in data minimization practices regarding the collection, use, retention, and disclosure of nonpublic personal information, as well as significantly update their notices to consumers to include a consumer’s ability to request access to, or deletion of, nonpublic personal information. While the Committee has not yet voted on the draft, Chairman French Hill urged members to “use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer” when revising the statute.
Sports Law
26 Charged for Alleged Criminal Conspiracy to Fix NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball and Chinese Basketball Association Games
By Megan Carrasco, Snell & Wilmer LLP, and Monique Reyes, South Texas College of Law Houston
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged twenty-six people for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to fix NCAA Division I men’s basketball games and Chinese Basketball Association (“CBA”) games.
According to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a two-year investigation in collaboration with the FBI resulted in the evidence used to charge NCAA players, alumni, and sports betting professionals with conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and bribery in sporting contests (18 U.S.C. § 224), and with aiding and abetting these crimes (18 U.S.C. § 2). The U.S. Attorney’s Office claims that “fixers” orchestrated the conspiratorial scheme starting in September 2022 by recruiting players and bribing them with cash payments to influence the outcome of CBA games, primarily by shaving points. Players recruited to shave points then went on, according to the government, to recruit other players. Shaving points, as alleged in the indictments, meant that the involved CBA players intentionally underperformed during the game so that their team did not make the point spreads. Meanwhile, those betting on the game who were aware of the shaving were able to benefit through their wagers on the game.
According to the indictment, those fixing the games and recruiting the players for the CBA used the same scheme to recruit NCAA Division I men’s basketball players to also influence the outcome of games in exchange for bribes to do so. The government claims that the sports bribes involved basketball players being paid anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per game to influence the game. Those involved in the conspiracy made bets in the millions of U.S. dollars, which resulted in significant sums for those making the bets and for the players involved. Participants used social media, texts, calls, and in-person meetings to discuss the scheme, which resulted in conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges for some of those involved. Those charged face prison time and fines if convicted.
The U.S. Attorney’s office alleges that more than thirty-nine basketball players across about seventeen different NCAA Division I men’s basketball teams were involved in the scheme, although all were not charged as of the date of this brief.
After the indictments were announced, NCAA President Charlie Baker issued a statement acknowledging that the information released was not entirely new to the organization. The NCAA enforcement team opened integrity investigations into approximately forty student-athletes across twenty schools within the past year, and, he said, “11 student-athletes from seven schools were recently found to have bet on their own performances, shared information with known bettors, and/or engaged in game manipulation.” Wide-scale bribery allegations continue to fuel the fire for the dispute on college sports betting. With March Madness in full swing, students, and bettors, should expect additional scrutiny.
