Administrative & Regulatory – Page 15

Russia’s AI Manipulation Playbook: How Chatbots Are Being Tricked by Propaganda

In today’s digital landscape, AI chatbots have become go-to sources for information. However, a disturbing trend is emerging where bad actors—particularly Russia—are systematically manipulating these systems to spread false narratives.
The Washington Post reports that Russia has developed sophisticated methods to influence AI chatbot responses, creating a blueprint for others to follow. Russia’s efforts particularly focus on Ukraine-related topics, with debunked stories about “French mercenaries” and staged videos appearing in responses from major chatbots.
How the Manipulation Works
Rather than traditional social media campaigns, Russia now uses what experts call “information laundering.” Stories originate on state-controlled outlets like Tass (banned in the EU), then spread to seemingly independent websites in the “Pravda network” (named after the Russian word for “truth”).
What makes this strategy unique is that these sites aren’t designed for human visitors—they’re targeting web crawlers that collect content for search engines and AI language models. AI systems that search the current web are particularly vulnerable to picking up false information, especially when numerous websites repeat the same narratives.
According to McKenzie Sadeghi from NewsGuard, “Operators have an incentive to create alternative outlets that obscure the origin of these narratives. And this is exactly what the Pravda network appears to be doing.”
The Amplification Strategy
The operation has even managed to insert links to these propaganda stories into Wikipedia and Facebook groups, sources that many AI companies give special weight to as reliable information providers.
These AI-driven campaigns are significantly cheaper than traditional influence operations. Ksenia Iliuk from LetsData explains, “A lot of information is getting out there without any moderation, and I think that’s where the malign actors are putting most of their effort.”
Why This Matters
Giada Pistilli, principal ethicist at Hugging Face, notes that most chatbots have “basic safeguards against harmful content but can’t reliably spot sophisticated propaganda,” adding that “the problem gets worse with search-augmented systems that prioritize recent information.”
Louis Têtu, CEO of AI software provider Coveo, warns: “If the technologies and tools become biased—and they are already—and then malevolent forces control the bias, we’re in a much worse situation than we were with social media.”
As more people rely on chatbots for information while social media companies reduce content moderation, this problem is likely to worsen. The fundamental weakness is clear: chatbot answers depend on the data they’re fed, and when that data is systematically polluted with false information, the answers reflect those falsehoods.
While Russia currently focuses on Ukraine-related narratives, the same techniques could be used by anyone targeting specific topics—from political candidates attacking opponents to businesses undermining competitors.
The AI industry must address this vulnerability quickly, or risk becoming yet another battlefield for information warfare where truth is the first casualty.

Increased Workplace Protections for Veterans: Dole Act Amends USERRA

Takeaways

The Dole Act modifies USERRA’s anti-retaliation provisions, potential remedies, and more.
It expands safeguards for veterans transitioning back to civilian life and returning to work.
The Dole Act is the most recent enhancement to USERRA, but it is unlikely to be the final one.

Federal Circuit Vacates Summary Judgement: Limitations from Specifications Should Not Have Been Imported Into the Claims

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgement of noninfringement, finding that the lower court had improperly construed the claim term “pull cord.” The district court had erroneously limited the term to a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle. The Federal Circuit determined that these restrictions were unsupported by the intrinsic evidence and directed the district court to apply the correct claim construction in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s guidance and redetermine infringement using the correct claim construction.
Case Background
IQRIS Technologies LLC sued Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. and National Molding, Inc. in the Southern District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,567 and 8,256,020. These two patents share a common specification and are both directed to quick release systems on tactical vests, designed to allow soldiers and first responders to quickly remove their vests in emergency situations. According to the patent specifications, removal and reassembling of prior art tactical vests are time-consuming, and the asserted patents overcome these problems by providing a protective garment with “a reduction in operating parts, faster release, and quicker reassembly than the systems currently in use.”
The accused products – Point Blank’s tactical vests equipped with National Molding’s “Quad Release” and “Evil Twin” quick-release systems – use Bowden cables, which consist of a wire inside a sheath, to activate the trigger, which in turn disengage the vest by releasing the buckles.
During the litigation, the parties disputed the meaning of the team “pull cord” in the asserted claims. IQRIS argued the term should be construed as “a component which, when put into tension, can result in activating the releasable fastener,” while the defendants proposed construing the term as “a cord on the exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasable hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” The parties also disputed the location of the pull cord, but the district court did not address this issue, and instead construed the term to mean “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook.” The district court further decided that the patents “disparage” prior art systems that include “a handle that is attached to the cables[.]” Therefore, when analyzing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the district court interpreted “pull cord” to exclude pull cords that include a handle. Based on its construction of “pull cord”, the district court granted summary judgement of noninfringement, holding the accused products lacked a claimed “pull cord.”
Issues
The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court had erred in construing “pull cord” to (1) require a user to pull on the pull cord directly; and (2) exclude cords that include a handle.
Holding and Reasoning
1. Directly pulled
The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in its construction of “pull cord” by imposing requirements that neither the claim language nor the specification supported. The court found that nothing in the claim explicitly required the pull cord to be directly pulled by a user. The claims merely suggest a “pull cord” is a cord that actuates a releasable hook when pulled, without specifying who or what pulls the cord, or whether the pulling is direct or indirect.
While the preferred embodiment depicted a pull cord that is directly pulled, Federal Circuit precedent instructed that limitations from specifications should not be imported into claims when the claims do not expressly require them.
2. Excluding a handle
The court also rejected the district court’s construction that a pull cord cannot include a handle. The patent figures depict a circular ball at the end of the pull cord, which suggests that the inventors contemplated cords with handles. Further, while the patent specification criticizes prior-art cutaway vests for requiring a time-consuming reassembly process, it does not disparage the use of handles. The district court had incorrectly inferred that the pull cord should exclude handles because the specification did not clearly disavow such claim scope where the pull cord includes handles.
Because the district court’s summary judgement was based on an erroneous claim construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the ruling. The court declined to decide whether the accused products infringe under the correct construction, and remanded for future proceedings.
Listen to this post

Administration Proposes Rescinding the Endangered Species Act Regulatory Definition of “Harm”

On April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively, the “Services”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would rescind the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) regulatory definition of “harm,” which currently incorporates habitat modification or degradation into the ESA statutory definition of “take.” 90 Fed. Reg. 16,102 (Apr. 17, 2025). Comments on the proposed rule are due by May 19, 2025.
This proposed rule reflects a significant reset of a core element of the ESA to narrow the application of the statute and is the first salvo in the Trump Administration’s anticipated efforts to revise the regulatory framework implementing the ESA. Following Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (Jan. 20, 2025), the Secretary of the Interior released a corresponding Secretarial Order 3418 directing, in part, actions to suspend, revise, or rescind the Biden Administration’s 2024 ESA rules that revised the regulations implementing Sections 4, 4(d), and 7. This next suite of proposed rules are anticipated to be published in October 2025.
Background
The ESA prohibits the “take” of endangered species, and the prohibition can be applied to threatened species. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(a)(1)(B)-(C) & 1533(d). The term “take” is statutorily defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Id. § 1532(19) (emphasis added). A person can receive authorization to incidentally take an ESA-listed species through the Section 7 consultation process or a permit issued pursuant to Section 10.
By regulation, the Services have defined “harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 (FWS’s definition); see also 50 C.F.R. § 22.102 (NMFS’s materially identical definition). In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court, relying on Chevron, upheld the regulation in a 6-3 decision, holding that the Services reasonably construed the intent of Congress by including the “significant habitat modification or destruction” provision within the definition of “harm.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 708 (1995) (Justice Scalia authored the dissent).
Proposed Rescission
In the proposed rule, relying on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Sweet Home and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (which overruled the Chevron doctrine), the Services state that the regulatory definition of “harm” is inconsistent with the historical understanding of “take.” As the Services explain, “take” has long meant “to reduce [wild] animals, by killing or capturing, to human control.” Accordingly, “harm,” when read in conjunction with the other verbs in the statutory definition of “take,” requires an “affirmative act[] . . . directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal—not [an] act[] or omission[] that indirectly and accidentally cause[s] injury to a population of animals.”
Pursuant to Loper Bright, the Services concluded that the existing regulatory definition of “harm” does not match “the single, best meaning of the statute.” Instead of proposing a replacement, the Services intend to rely on the definition of “take” in the ESA statute because further elaborating on one subcomponent of that definition is unnecessary given the comprehensive statutory definition. The recission of the regulatory definition of “harm” would apply prospectively and would not affect already granted permits.
Implications
While prospective in application, if finalized, the recission of the definition of “harm” would have significant, nationwide implications. First, the scope of what constitutes “take” would be much narrower, given the removal of habitat modification and the apparent focus on acts directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal. As a result, many future activities and projects would have reduced exposure to liability for a potentially prohibited take. Second, in the permitting context, the narrower scope of “take” would likely result in corresponding limitations on the scope of measures that could be required either to “minimize” the impact of incidental take in Section 7 consultations or to “minimize and mitigate” the impact of take authorized by a Section 10 incidental take permit. Third, in the absence of a regulatory definition or any further guidance, some uncertainty regarding the scope and interpretation of “take” would remain, which could result in increased litigation challenging certain applications of the statutory definition. Finally, as has become the norm with respect to ESA regulations, subsequent administrations could reinstate the regulatory definition of “harm” or develop a new definition or interpretation of that term perpetuating regulatory instability.

WE CAN SPAM BUT YOU CAN’T SPEAK: CTIA Claims Wireless Carriers Should Be Able to Text Consumers Without Consent–While it Tries to Censor Everyone Else

Its funny.
If you study history deeply enough, you’ll learn that morality is almost completely relative.
Anything you can think of (no matter how vile by today’s standards) has been permitted/encouraged/justified by some people somewhere at some time throughout history it seems except for one thing– hypocrisy.
Holding yourself to the same standards you would apply to others is the only actual “golden rule” it would seem. And it looks like CTIA just broke it.
So the Wireless Association–which calls itself CTIA for some reason– publishes a set of “guidelines” for communications to cell phones that it claims nobody is actually required to follow yet every carrier and aggregator requires people to follow.
But in true “do as I say not as I do” fashion CTIA is claiming that its own members– the wireless carriers themselves– don’t have to follow any of those rules at all.
Indeed, in a new filing made by CTIA to the FCC as part of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding the CTIA urges the FCC to close a proceeding that would require wireless carriers to have consent to contact consumers.
In the CTIA’s mind requiring wireless carriers to have consent before texting consumers would be “UNNECESSARY, OVERLY COMPLEX, OR EXCEED FCC AUTHORITY.”
Instead, it urges the Commission to “exclud[e] calls and texts from wireless providers to their subscribers” from TCPA coverage. Indeed, applying the TCPA to by wireless carriers “would risk harming consumers” the CTIA claims.
Hmmm……
So, preventing wireless carriers from spamming consumers causes “harm” but blocking urgent, consented, informational messages consumers actually asked for– which the CTIA guidelines and carrier terms of use call for– is totally cool?
Ridiculous.
The wireless carriers are trying to right themselves a blank check to spam people while holding speech by American business hostage to an outright censorship regime.
Just gross folks.
Hopefully the Commission acts promptly to ban carrier call blocking of lawful traffic as R.E.A.C.H. requests and hopefully the FCC also APPLY THE TCPA TO WIRELESS CARRIERS so we can stop a MAJOR source of spam calls and messages.

Weekly Bankruptcy Alert April 21, 2025 (For the Week Ending April 20, 2025)

Covering reported business bankruptcy filings in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in New York and Delaware listing assets of more than $1 million.

Chapter 11

Debtor Name
BusinessType1
BankruptcyCourt
Assets
Liabilities
FilingDate

Francis Trust LLC(New Harbor, ME)
Lessors of Real Estate
Bangor(ME)
$1,000,001to$10 Million
$1,000,001to$10 Million
4/15/25

Creativemass Holdings, Inc.(Melbourne, VIC)
Not Disclosed
Wilmington(DE)
$1,000,001to$10 Million
$1,000,001to$10 Million
4/14/25

Viridos, Inc.(La Jolla, CA)
Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
Wilmington(DE)
$10,000,001to$50 Million
$1,000,000to$10 Million
4/14/25

Controladora Dolphin, S.A. de C.V.(Cancun, Mexico)
Amusement Parks and Arcades
Wilmington(DE)
$100,000,001to$500 Million
$100,000,001to$500 Million
4/16/25

Arch Therapeutics, Inc.(Framingham, MA)
Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories
Worcester(MA)
$1,000,001to$10 Million
$10,000,001to$50 Million
4/18/25

Arch Biosurgery, Inc.(Framingham, MA)
Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories
Worcester(MA)
$100,001to$500,000
$0to$50,000
4/18/25

Molecular Templates, Inc.(Foxboro, MA)
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Wilmington(DE)
$1,000,001to$10 Million
$10,000,001to$50 Million
4/20/25

Molecular Templates Opco, Inc.(Foxboro, MA)
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Wilmington(DE)
$1,000,001to$10 Million
$10,000,001to$50 Million
4/20/25

Chapter 7

Debtor Name
BusinessType1
BankruptcyCourt
Assets
Liabilities
FilingDate

HS Exteriors LLC(Sutton, NH)
Not Disclosed
Concord(NH)
$0to$50,000
$50,001to$100,000
4/14/25

1Business Type information is taken from Bankruptcy Court filings, which may include incorrect categorization by the debtor or others.

Bigelow Jury Verdict Could Increase Challenges To “Made In USA” Labels

The jury in the Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. litigation has returned its verdict, awarding consumers $2.3 million – short of the $3.26 million that plaintiffs’ counsel had requested. The Banks litigation challenged Bigelow’s “Manufactured in the USA 100%” claim used on some of its tea packaging. Plaintiffs argued that the claim was false because the company imported its tea; however, the company’s position in the litigation was that the claim referred to the US-based facilities where the teas were blended and packaged. Notably, due to an earlier-issued summary judgment order from the judge (finding that the challenged claim was literally false), the only questions before the jury were the amount of damages and whether there was intentional conduct by the company supporting an award of punitive damages. While the jury awarded compensatory damages, it did not find that there was proof sufficient to support a punitive damages award by clear and convincing evidence.
Manufacturers and retailers who wish to affix qualified or unqualified “Made in USA” statements on any products advertised or sold in the United States must comply with the FTC’s Labeling Rule at 16 C.F.R. 323 or Made in USA Policy Statement, respectively, on using these claims. To use an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the product’s significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, containing no or negligible foreign content, and the final assembly should occur in the USA. Even if a product is not “all or virtually all” made in the USA per FTC guidance, advertisers may still be able to make qualified U.S. origin claims. Examples of qualified U.S. origin claims include, “Made in USA from imported parts,” or “60% U.S. content.” A retailer may make any qualified claim about U.S. content that is truthful and substantiated. These qualifications or disclosures should be sufficiently clear and conspicuous to consumers viewing the U.S. origin claim.
The FTC’s U.S. origin regulations are applicable not only to express U.S. origin claims, but also to implied U.S. origin claims. An implied U.S. origin claim may be inferred from the product’s packaging as a whole, including the use of specific phrases, images, and the broader context of the transaction. While references to the USA or American imagery alone might not constitute a U.S. origin claim, these images in combination with explicit language or other elements on the label could run afoul of FTC guidance and may require qualification.
The plaintiffs’ bar has pursued Made in the USA (and other national origin) labeling challenges either by sending demand letters or by filing lawsuits with some consistency over the past 5 years, with a peak 14 pieces of litigation filed in 2021. Due to the outcome in the Banks trial, there is some concern that the bar will refocus its attention on companies that are using “Made In USA” statements or references in their marketing. Companies using such labeling statements should confirm that their labels meet the FTC’s guidance.

California’s Workplace Violence Law, Part I: Lessons Learned One Year Into SB 553 [Podcast]

In part one of our three-part series on California’s new workplace violence prevention law, Robert Rodriguez (shareholder, Sacramento) and Karen Tynan (shareholder, Sacramento) discuss the lessons employers have learned about workplace violence inspections during the law’s first year of implementation. Karen and Robert, who are co-chairs of the firm’s Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group, explore how the enforcement of the new law, which took effect on July 1, 2024, is being managed and offer insights into Cal/OSHA’s approach to these inspections. The discussion highlights practical tips for employers, the importance of customized training, and the role of the Bureau of Investigation in incidents of workplace violence.

Whither Discretionary Denials? Read the Tea Leaves, or Follow the Bread Crumbs?(Part I)

Recent actions from the USPTO have engendered a great deal of discussion among the bar practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 28, 2025, acting Director Stewart rescinded former Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Board. On March 24, 2025, Chief Judge Boalick issued a Guidance Memorandum on the rescission. On March 26, 2025, Director Stewart issued a memorandum on an interim procedure in which institution decisions are bifurcated between discretionary considerations and merits and other non-discretionary statutory considerations. Here, we examine the potential effects of Director Stewart’s rescission and the subsequent Boalick Guidance on post-grant proceedings. We will examine Director Stewart’s Guidance in a subsequent post.
Rescission of the Vidal Memo
In rescinding the Vidal Guidance, the USPTO restored the precedence of Fintiv and Sotera without modification, specifically identifying those two Board decisions in its rescission announcement. The USPTO did not provide any comment.
The Boalick Guidance
The Boalick Guidance clarifies how the Board will approach petitions for post-grant reviews going forward, including but not limited to those filed after the acting Director rescinded the Vidal Guidance.
Rescission of the Vidal Guidance does not apply to instituted cases that are outside the timescope for rehearing or Director Review of an Initial Determination (ID) on institution. Rescission does apply to any case where institution has not been determined, or any case where a request for rehearing or Director Review of the ID was timely filed and pending. “Absent extraordinary circumstances,” the Board will not revisit IDs otherwise.
However, it is unclear what would constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” For example, would reviews instituted based solely on the submission of a Sotera stipulation and with no evaluation of the Fintiv factors constitute an “extraordinary circumstance?” We revisit this question below in our discussion of Samsung v. Maxell.
In addition, and contrary to the Vidal Guidance, the Boalick Guidance instructs application of the Fintiv factors to proceedings before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Also contrary to the Vidal Guidance, the Boalick Guidance states that a Sotera stipulation is highly relevant and should be considered in balancing the Fintiv factors, but will not be dispositive. Finally, and contrary to the Vidal Guidance, compelling merits of a given IPR petition will not be dispositive in the Board’s Fintiv analysis.
Consistent with the Vidal Guidance, the Boalick Guidance allows the Board to consider median time-to-trial and judge case load, without regard for whether such evidence is presented by the parties. The Board’s Fintiv analysis may include “any evidence…that bears on the proximity of the district court’s trial date or the ITC’s final determination target date, including median time-to-trial.”
The Potential Effects of Rescinding the Vidal Guidance
One of the most discussed aspects of the Vidal Guidance was its instruction to consider whether a petition’s merit is compelling when Fintiv Factors 1 through 5 indicate that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny the petition. Compelling merits could override the remaining Fintiv factors. The rescission appeared to negate that instruction. For example, under the Boalick Guidance, it is clear that the Board may deny institution even in the face of a petition with compelling merits. Such denial would leave the determination of validity solely in the hands of a district court or jury, and would prevent administrative patent judges (APJs) who are familiar with patent law and technology, from adjudicating validity.
Additionally, the rescission allows the Board to deny institution even when the petitioner files a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to present in district court litigation any invalidity challenges that are or could have been presented to the Board. Such a denial may be a missed opportunity to reduce litigation costs, as review by the Board could, for example, simplify invalidity contentions and expert opinions, reduce the number of dispositive motions, and reduce trial time.
A third effect of recission is consideration of time to trial. Fintiv Factor 2 specifically identifies “the court’s trial date” as the date to be considered against the Board’s projected statutory deadline. The Vidal Guidance required the Board to consider median time-to-trial for the relevant district, as well as “number of cases before the judge in the parallel litigation and the speed and availability of other case dispositions.” Vidal Guidance at 9. This approach took into account the realities of litigation by recognizing that trial dates slip routinely. If Fintiv Factor 2 is strictly interpreted, the rescission could remove median time-to-trial and the district court judge’s case load from consideration, forcing the Board instead to consider an artificially early trial date and prompting discretionary denial. This again misses an opportunity to reduce litigation costs, and fails to leverage the legal and technical expertise of APJs.
Recent Examples Regarding the Current Analysis
Petitioners and Patent Owners are already starting to see the effects of the rescission, and the Boalick Guidance. Here are some examples.

Daiichi Sankyo v. Seagen (PGR2021-00030)

Here, we have a PGR proceeding that was instituted over two years after its petition was filed. It is entirely possible that this PGR finally was instituted because of the Vidal Guidance. After initially denying institution in June 2021, the Board instituted PGR on April 7, 2022, followed one day later by the jury verdict that the challenged claims were valid on the same grounds presented in the petition. Because of the jury verdict, in July 2022 the Board denied institution. However, the Precedential Opinion Panel then required the Board to review the merits without considering the jury verdict. The Board then found compelling merits. Pursuant to the Vidal Guidance, the Board re-instituted review in February 2023.
This resulted in a final written decision that invalidated all challenged claims, contrary to what a jury found in the parallel district court proceeding on identical grounds as those in the petition—written description, enablement, and anticipation by the same prior art. The patent owner appealed to the Federal Circuit. Less than one year later, the Vidal Guidance was rescinded.

Samsung v. Maxell (IPR2024-00867)

The Board instituted review based solely on the petitioner’s submission of a Sotera stipulation, without applying any of the other Fintiv factors. In early January 2025, the patent owner requested Director Review of institution, but the Director denied the request. After rescission of the Vidal Guidance, the patent owner requested Director Review a second time. The timing of the request was outside of the filing allowances established by the Boalick Guidance but was submitted before the Boalick Guidance. The Director Review request is pending. There are other, similar cases, including Apple v. Masimo (IPR2024-00244), Motorola v. STA Group (IPR2023-01295), and Provisur v. Weber (IPR2024-00235).

Motorola v. Stellar (IPR2024-01205)

Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation and, as a result, the Board granted the petition in February 2025 after weighing the other Fintiv factors. In early March 2025, immediately after the rescission of the Vidal Guidance, patent owner requested Director Review of the institution decision. On March 28, Director Stewart vacated the institution decision and denied the petition. The Director noted the district court’s and the parties’ substantial investment in the litigation (Fintiv factor 3) (the parties having already served extensive contentions and opening and rebuttal expert reports, conducted depositions, and the Court having held a claim construction hearing and construed disputed claim terms). The Director also noted that the scheduled trial date was eleven months before the statutory deadline for the final written decision (Fintiv factor 2). Additionally, the Director identified significant overlap between invalidity issues at the Board and in district court (Fintiv factor 4), despite the Sotera stipulation—the defendant (being one and the same as the petitioner) was putting forth invalidity arguments in the district court that combined prior art asserted in the petition with system prior art (which is not available in IPR proceedings). As such, the IPR no longer could function as a “true alternative” to the district court proceeding.

The Employment Strategists: Beyond the Menu, Serving Employment Strategies for the Restaurant Industry [Podcast]

Join your hosts, attorneys David Harmon and Mariya Gonor, as they address challenges faced by both employers and employees. From hiring to termination, this podcast offers insights into the evolving employment relationship. Tune in for engaging and entertaining discussions to help navigate these complex employment-related issues.

FHFA Has Fraud on Its Mind

In recent days, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte has made it clear that he believes fraud is a rampant problem at FHFA. In a stream of related activities, Pulte has called on the public to report fraud via email and a new Hotline, terminated over 100 FHFA employees for alleged fraud, and taken aim at a political rival for alleged mortgage fraud.
Fraud Hotline Encourages Reporting of Fraud Concerns
On April 15, 2025, Pulte posted an invitation on X for any person to “Please submit any alleged criminal mortgage tips or mortgage fraud tips to [email protected].” This message coincides with FHFA’s new Hotline for Reporting Alleged Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Mismanagement at Hotline | FHFA-OIG. The hotline website encourages federal employees and the public to “report information about those, whether inside or outside of the federal government, who waste, steal, or abuse government funds in connection with the Agency, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), any of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), or the FHLBanks’ Office of Finance, or about mismanagement within FHFA.” The Hotline website is now seeking information on any of the following:

Possible waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or other misconduct involving FHFA employees, programs, operations, contracts or subcontracts;
Possible violations of Federal laws, regulations, rules, or policies pertaining to FHFA or to any of the regulated entities; or
Possible unethical activities involving employees of FHFA or of the regulated entities.

This effort marks a significant step in Pulte’s broader campaign to foster transparency, accountability, and a culture of integrity across the federal housing finance system.
FHFA Cleans House
Following an internal investigation launched under Pulte’s anti-fraud campaign, Fannie Mae recently terminated over 100 employees for unethical behavior, including involvement in fraud. This internal investigation reflects Pulte’s zero-tolerance stance on fraud and commitment to restoring integrity at government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In a release by the Federal Housing Finance Agency on April 8, 2025, Pulte stressed that “there is no room for fraud, mortgage fraud, or any other deceitful act that can jeopardize the safety and soundness of the housing industry.” Further, Fannie Mae CEO Priscilla Almodovar thanked Pulte for “empowering of Fannie Mae to root out unethical conduct,” emphasizing that “we hold our employees to the highest standards, and we will continue to do so.”
Although the agencies have not released further details about the terminations, Pulte reaffirmed his commitment to combating misconduct in a post on his personal X account, stating, “We are turning around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, slowly but surely.”
Referral of New York Attorney General Letitia James for Mortgage Fraud
As a part of Pulte’s crackdown on alleged mortgage fraud, he has referred New York Attorney General Letitia James for federal prosecution for her alleged mortgage fraud. Pulte alleges James “has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government-backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.” Director Pulte alleges that most recently, James committed fraud by claiming a Virginia home would be her primary residence in 2023, while James is the sitting Attorney General of New York. James’s office has maintained that the Virginia residence is the primary residence of her niece, with whom she purchased the property.
Pulte further alleges fraud connected to a home purchase in Brooklyn in 2001, where James used a loan that was only available to purchase four-unit properties to purchase an alleged five-unit property. However, popular real estate sites such as StreetEasy, Trulia, and Redfin have categorized the property as a four-unit building.
Lastly, Pulte has alleged fraud in connection with a 1983 home purchase by James’s father, where the mortgage states James is her father’s wife instead of his daughter. It is unclear whether or not this was a clerical error in drafting the Mortgage or whether it was an intentional act by James and her father. While the criminal referral references the 2001 and 1983 purchases, any alleged fraud in connection with these purchases appears to be well beyond the statute of limitations.
James has initially responded that the allegations are “baseless.” She has said the “allegations are nothing more than a revenge tour” related to his civil fraud case against President Trump, which resulted in a $454 judgment from a New York Court in 2024, which he is currently appealing.
Expect Fraud Related Repurchases
Pulte’s interest in fraud is also likely to trigger new repurchase demands to the industry. One of the critical representations and warranties that lenders make when selling loans to the GSEs is that the loan meets all the requirements of the Lender Contract, including that it has not been obtained via misrepresentation or fraud. “Because the selling warranties are not limited to matters within a seller/servicer’s knowledge… the action or inaction (including misrepresentation or fraud) of the borrower, or a third party, as well as the action or inaction (including misrepresentation or fraud) of the seller/servicer will constitute the seller/servicer’s breach of a selling warranty.” Fannie Mae Guide A1-1-02, Representation and Warranty Requirements (08/16/2017), see also Freddie Mac Guide 1301.8 – Warranties and representations by the Seller (8/2/2023).
The GSEs have always maintained the ability to demand repurchase of any mortgage loans that do not meet the many qualifications of their Seller Guidelines. See Freddie Mac Guide 3602.2 – Repurchases (8/17/2016) and Fannie Mae Guide A1-3-02, Fannie Mae-Initiated Repurchases, Indemnifications, Make Whole Payment Requests and Deferred Payment Obligations (10/11/2023). During the Biden Administration, the industry experienced a sharp uptick in repurchase demands from the GSEs. As a November 2023 white paper from the Urban Institute noted, the “GSEs have become more aggressive, forcing more repurchases earlier in the life of the loan than was the case in earlier vintages. In the first few years of the mortgages’ life, there have been more repurchases for the 2018–22 origination years than there were in the 2005–08 origination years.” GSE Repurchase Activity and its Chilling Effect on the Market. Overall, the GSEs have been proactive about their repurchase rights both in recent years and prior to the Trump Administration.
With that background in mind, Pulte’s April 16, 2025, post on X that “FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac will be evaluating ways to ‘recall loans’ that have been obtained fraudulently” is not groundbreaking news, but it does emphasize the recent focus on fraud. Pulte’s use of “recall” instead of “repurchase” may relate to his homebuilding background, but the intent is the same. Apparently, neither Pulte nor the FHFA have responded to the National Mortgage News’ request for clarification on the post. However, some believe the X post may directly relate to the FHFA referral to the U.S. Attorney General regarding Attorney General James.
This renewed emphasis on enforcing repurchase rights—particularly in cases involving fraud—signals that lenders should prepare for heightened scrutiny and further increase in repurchase demands as the FHFA doubles down on accountability under Pulte’s leadership.
Going Forward
Taken together, these actions paint a clear picture: under Bill Pulte’s leadership, the FHFA is aggressively pivoting toward a hardline stance on fraud, ethics, and accountability. From employee terminations and public tip lines to high-profile referrals and the reinforcement of repurchase remedies, Pulte is sending a strong message that misconduct at any level—whether inside the agency, among its regulated entities, or even among political figures—will be met with swift and serious consequences. As the housing finance system braces for increased oversight, stakeholders should expect this aggressive posture to define the agency’s direction for the foreseeable future.

Study Projects Steep Price Increases if Seed Oils Were to be Banned

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been critical of seed oils, alleging that they are harmful to human health and that consumers have been “unknowingly poisoned.” (See Twitter Post). This view is not shared by most of the scientific community. Indeed, FDA has approved qualified health claims for canola, corn, and soybean oils (all types of seed oils) and reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease. See Qualified Health Claims: Letters of Enforcement Discretion | FDA. However, this has not stopped Sweetgreen from announcing a seed-oil free menu earlier this year.
Although no seed oils bans have been proposed, a recent study conducted by the World Agricultural Economic and Environmental Association found that any such ban would significantly increase consumer vegetable oil prices and would have deleterious effects on the U.S. farm industry (non-seed oils like olive, palm, and peanut oil are largely imported).
Specifically, the study found that per capita spending on vegetable oils and fats would be 42.8% higher per year if overall vegetable oil consumption remained the same (non-seed vegetable oils substituted completely for seed oils). A second scenario assumed that the oils are not fully substitutable, resulting in a 21.1 pound per capita drop in vegetable oil consumption and an 8% greater per capita spending on vegetable oils per year.
The study characterizes the simulated effects as having an unprecedented shock on the oilseed market.