Health Care Providers Should Seriously Consider Claims Under Two Antitrust Class Actions
Now is the time for health care providers to consider participating in the recent Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) antitrust class action settlement and the newly filed antitrust cases alleging widespread price fixing for out-of-network claims by MultiPlan and health insurers.
Health care provider antitrust litigation challenging health insurer anticompetitive conduct is on a recent hot streak, with health care providers securing billions of dollars in a class action settlement with BCBS health plans for alleged anticompetitive price-fixing in the prices they pay health care providers. Additionally, last year, health care providers filed antitrust suits seeking damages from MultiPlan and health insurers due to MultiPlan’s alleged price-fixing of out-of-network medical claims.
These two cases deserve providers’ attention right now before important deadlines pass.
First, a nationwide settlement was preliminarily approved in the class action of providers alleging that BCBS health plans around the country conspired to fix payment rates to providers. The details of the settlement are available at www.bcbsprovidersettlement.com.
Key deadlines in the BCBS settlement are coming up soon:
March 4, 2025: Opt Out/Objection Deadline
July 29, 2025: Provider Claims Submission Deadline
July 29, 2025: Final Approval Hearing
As a result, it is critical that health care providers — both facilities and physicians — promptly consider:
Whether they have claims at issue subject to the settlement.
Whether they want to participate in the settlement or opt out.
If they choose to participate, what information and data they need to obtain and should submit that could increase their settlement payment.
Analyze the scope of the class action settlement releases and how those provisions may impact future legal claims against the settling BCBS health plans.
Meanwhile, another potentially massive antitrust class action is gearing up right now in In re Multiplan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, Civ No. 1:24-CV-06795 (N.D. Ill.), where the American Medical Association and dozens of health care facilities and providers allege that nearly all of the largest US health insurers engaged in price-fixing for the payment of out-of-network claims by using a single vendor, MultiPlan, to share pricing information and set common, low prices. These cases are still quite early in the litigation process. But health care providers with out-of-network claims affected by the alleged price-fixing could recover a significant monetary award or settlement if the litigation proceeds and is successful.
If you have significant commercial health plan out-of-network claims exposure, now is the time to evaluate participating in the MultiPlan litigation in Illinois federal court.
NNCO Releases NNI Supplement to President Biden’s 2025 Budget
On December 19, 2024, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) released The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the President’s 2025 Budget, which also serves as the annual report for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). According to the report, President Biden’s fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget requests over $2.2 billion for NNI, with cumulative funding totaling over $45 billion since the inception of NNI in 2001 when Congress approved increased funding for nanotechnology in FY 2021 appropriations. The funding includes over $900 million in annual investments by the National Institutes of Health alone (along with other important contributions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and basic research agencies, e.g., the U.S. National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy), as nanotechnology-enabled diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for a wide variety of human health threats successfully compete for funding. The report includes examples of how NNI participating agencies are harnessing nanotechnology research and development and education programs to reduce barriers and inequities, from workforce development to economic progress in historically underserved communities. The report states that NNI participating agencies support applied research, experimental development, pre-commercialization, and standards-related efforts that build economic competitiveness, facilitating the adoption of a wide range of nanotechnologies, and helping create good-paying jobs across the country, including in both traditional and emerging industries. The report notes that the coordination provided through NNI has facilitated the proactive responsible development of new technologies, thereby streamlining their adoption.
Key Employment Law Issues Employers Need to Watch in 2025
As the United States enters a new administration, changes in workplace regulations and enforcement priorities are on the horizon.
For employers, this means staying prepared for potential shifts in federal policies, heightened oversight, and new legislative initiatives. Whether you’re navigating changes in wage laws, addressing pay transparency, or adapting to evolving labor relations, staying ahead is essential.
Partnering with a human resources attorney or a labor and employment law firm is more critical than ever to successfully manage these challenges. Below, we outline the key employment law issues employers should prioritize in 2025.
Overtime Pay
With the change in administration, workplace policies are expected to shift to reflect new leadership priorities. In November 2024, we reported on a federal judge in Texas striking down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) rule that significantly raised the minimum salary thresholds for executive, administrative, and professional employees.
The rule proposed two increases: the first, effective July 1, 2024, raised the threshold from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). The second increase, scheduled for January 1, 2025, would have raised the threshold to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually).
The court’s ruling vacated the entire rule, including the July 1 increase.
While the 2024 rule is unlikely to be revived, the Trump Administration could support a moderate increase above the current $684 weekly threshold.
This potential shift in overtime pay regulations is just one example of how workplace policies may evolve under the new administration. Another key area to watch is the classification of independent contractors, which has long been a focus of labor and employment law.
Independent Contractors
The 2021 Rule, issued under President Trump’s first term, simplified worker classification by emphasizing two primary factors: the degree of control over work and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. If these core factors didn’t provide a clear classification, additional considerations—such as the skill required, the permanence of the relationship, and whether the work was integral to the employer’s production—were applied. This pro-employer framework allowed businesses greater flexibility in classifying workers as independent contractors.
We previously detailed the 2024 rule, which reinstates the long-established economic reality test used by the DOL and courts. This test evaluates six factors:
The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on managerial skill
Investments made by both the worker and the employer
The permanence of the work relationship
The nature and degree of control exercised
The extent to which the work is integral to the employer’s business
The worker’s skill and initiative
This shift reflects a return to a more traditional, worker-focused standard. Employers should monitor developments as policy priorities evolve under the new administration.
Non-Competes Ban
Another significant area of concern for employers is the regulation of non-compete agreements, which could see substantial changes under the new administration.
In October, we wrote on the Federal Trade Commission’s appeal of a Texas District Court ruling that blocked its proposed nationwide ban on non-compete agreements. If implemented, the rule would:
Prohibit employers from creating or enforcing non-competes with all workers, including employees, independent contractors, volunteers, and others providing services.
Invalidate most existing non-competes, except for those involving senior executives.
Require employers to notify current and former workers (excluding senior executives) that their non-competes are no longer enforceable.
Now, with the rule likely stalled, appeals are being reviewed by the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. In the meantime, employers should ensure their restrictive covenants align with evolving state laws in all jurisdictions where they operate.
Union Restrictions, Maybe?
While non-compete agreements remain in legal limbo, another area likely to face scrutiny under the new administration is union-related activities, as shifts in leadership at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could significantly impact labor relations and worker protections.
President-elect Trump has a history of opposing unions, with his previous appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) favoring employers. He has also publicly criticized the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). While the next General Counsel of the NLRB has not been named, recent decisions, including the February 2024 Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Morales case that we covered, could face reconsideration.
In that case, the NLRB ruled Home Depot violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by “constructively” terminating Antonio Morales. Morales refused to remove the initials “BLM” from his company-issued apron, which he used to express support for the Black Lives Matter movement.
The Board found that his actions qualified as protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA due to the context of his statement.
The Home Depot decision serves as a reminder to private employers about the limits of lawful workplace policies. Employers cannot prohibit employees from making public statements about workplace conditions, even through written expressions on company-provided apparel. This case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing dress codes and related personnel policies to ensure compliance with the NLRA.
As union-related policies face potential changes, another area likely to experience shifts under the new administration is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, particularly in light of recent court rulings and evolving federal priorities.
More Rollback of DEI Initiatives
Last year, several major U.S. companies scaled back or eliminated their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based considerations in college admissions are unconstitutional. Under President Trump, we could see the revival of a previous executive order that restricted federal contractors from implementing certain DEI initiatives. Additionally, the administration may roll back other executive orders designed to advance equal employment opportunities.
However, DEI initiatives, if implemented properly, still are important and should be considered a valuable tool to foster an inclusive workplace environment.
Staying Ahead of Employment Law Changes
As workplace regulations continue to evolve under the new administration, employers must remain proactive to ensure compliance and mitigate risks. Regularly reviewing and updating policies—such as wage and hour classifications, non-compete agreements, DEI initiatives, and workplace conduct guidelines—is essential to staying aligned with federal and state laws.
Employers should also monitor legal developments, especially in areas like worker classification, union-related activities, and restrictive covenants, and adapt accordingly. Implementing robust training programs for managers and human resources personnel can further help maintain compliance and address emerging legal requirements.
Do Tenants Have a Right to Ring Cameras? Courts Are Weighing In
Certain amenities in a dwelling have evolved from being considered luxuries to becoming essential, exemplified by the increased reliance on technology in the home. One particular technology that has grown in popularity is the doorbell camera, which has raised questions of how much a homeowners’ association (HOA) may regulate their implementation and use. While related legal actions have been few in number, it may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
There are a number of video doorbell camera companies on the market, but Ring, which is owned by Amazon, is probably the best-known. These doorbell cameras record audio and video after the motion sensor is triggered, and the owner can then hear and watch the events at their front door on their smart phone. There are various reasons that these doorbell cameras have become popular, from the convenience of knowing what is going on outside one’s home to believing that having a Ring camera will make them feel safer. However, in connection with these doorbell recordings, concerns are being raised about privacy as well, including the ability to post clips of their footage to show others in the community. See Samantha Shamhart, “The Mosaic Theory: How the Interest of Mass Surveillance and Facial Recognition Is Provoking an Orwellian Future,” Capital University Law Review, 51 Cap U.L. Rev 504 (2023).
The issue of maintaining community harmony is one of the issues that HOAs try to regulate through their own bylaws and rules. As articulated in the Third Restatement of Property, a homeowners’ association has the “implied power to adopt reasonable rules to (a) govern the use of the common property and (b) govern the use of individually owned property to protect the common property.” Section 6.7. When evaluating such rules under the Fair Housing Act, courts have focused on whether these HOA rules and regulations are facially neutral and whether they have an adverse or disproportionate impact on one group of residents. See, e.g., Morris v. W. Hayden Est. First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, 104 F. 4th 1128 (9th Cir. June 17, 2024). In addition, in “reviewing the reasonableness of [an HOA’s] exercise of its rule-making authority, absent claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability or other misconduct, the court should apply the business judgment rule and should limit its inquiry to whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the [HOA].” Fields Enters. Inc. v. Bristol Harbour Vil. Assn, Inc., 217 A.D. 3d 1433 (NY App 4th Dep’t June 9 2023).
Action in the CourtsWhile there have been a couple of recent challenges on discrimination grounds to HOA rules about doorbell cameras, it seems that courts are allowing such rules to be enforced. In the case of Byrd v. Fat City Condo Owners Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo association was racially discriminating against her by fining her for installing a Ring camera on her condominium door based on the condo association rules regarding exterior door modifications. 2023 US Dist Lexis 208792 (WD NC Nov 21 2023). While the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court did find that there were questions of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s section 1981 claim. The court in Byrd noted that the plaintiff raised instances of some of the condo board knowing about modifications to the doors of other units, but did not “fine white residents for these violations.” The Byrd case went to trial, and on June 20, 2024, the jury found in favor of the defendants, noting that there was no discrimination, that the plaintiff had breached the contract, and that the defendant had complied with the North Carolina Condominium Act in levying fines that totaled $73,000.
In Ricks v. DMA Companies, the claim of disability discrimination focused on the alleged declination by the property management company of the plaintiff’s request, among other things, for a specific model of Ring camera. 2024 U.S. Dist Lexis 170140 (WD TX Sept. 19 2024). In the court’s September 2024 decision, which addressed issues of discovery and claims against certain defendants under the ADA, the court found that the plaintiff’s “newly discovered evidence does not demonstrate that [real estate agent defendant] owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; that it took an adverse action against Ricks based on his disability; or that it failed to make reasonable modifications that would accommodate Ricks’s disability without fundamentally altering the nature of the public accommodation.” The court in Ricks has not yet ruled as to whether the denial of the request for a specific type of Ring camera was discriminatory in nature. This case is set for trial in June 2025.
Another such action is Deborah Reiner v. Dickens House II Homeowners Ass’n, et al., which was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (23-cv-10050). In the Reiner case, which seeks injunctive relief under the federal and California Fair Housing Act, one item that the plaintiff is challenging is the denial by the board of the homeowners association of her request to install a Ring camera, where the board denied the request based on “potential invasion of privacy.” The board had implemented a rule that reads: “Residents are not permitted to install or place any audio or video recording devices on the exterior of a unit, including but not limited to front and back doors and anywhere in the common areas. This includes but is not limited to video doorbells.” The plaintiff is alleging that her request for permission to have security cameras on her door constitutes a request for a reasonable accommodation based on her alleged disability. The Reiner case, which was filed in November 2023, recently settled and was dismissed by the court on November 15, 2024.
Another case involving a doorbell camera is Angelina Navarro, et al. v. Palmer Ontario Properties, LP, et al., which is pending in California State Court, San Bernardino County (CIV-SB-2400185). The Navarro case is pled as a mass action by a number of residents of the property who are alleging that the defendants “participated in a common scheme by failing to provide habitable living conditions,” including that the building “has been unsafe.” The claims against the defendants include contractual tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability and tortious breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. While most of the allegations focus on complaints about the physical building, two residents have made claims about the security on the property being unsafe. It is alleged that in connection with the building not providing adequate security, two of the residents purchased Ring cameras, but in response were served with notices to remove them. The Navarro action, which was filed in January 2024, is still pending.
ConclusionThese recently filed cases involving doorbell cameras reflect on the ongoing societal debate over privacy versus security, leading to challenges to housing providers’ right to regulate certain aspects of the residence. The residents are requesting that Ring systems be installed for their own security on the property in keeping with a growing use of such surveillance technology overall in society as it has become more widely accepted. However, some of the opposition has explicitly involved concerns about the privacy of other residents, particularly those who reside in units across the hall from residents with such cameras. This is reflected in the passage of more privacy laws, in particular with regard to the collection of biometric and electronic data. It does not appear likely that the growing use of doorbell cameras will be curbed, but how they are regulated by housing providers remains to be determined.
At the very least, housing providers that prohibit the use of doorbell cameras on their properties should ensure that the rule is applied to all residents consistently to avoid allegations of differential treatment based on residents’ membership in various protected classes.
Rethinking Alcohol Labels: The Surgeon General Calls for Change
In a recent advisory, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy underscored the connection between alcohol consumption and increased cancer risk. Citing alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the U.S., the advisory links it to at least seven types of cancer, including breast and colorectal cancers. Despite this, according to Dr. Murthy, less than half of Americans recognize alcohol as a cancer risk factor. Dr. Murthy notes that alcohol is implicated in around 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 cancer deaths annually, exceeding alcohol-related traffic fatalities. The advisory recommends updating the health warning label on alcohol beverages, reassessing recommended limits for alcohol consumption, strengthening public educational awareness, and promoting alcohol screenings in the clinical setting.
The health warning label on alcohol products, mandated pursuant to 27 U.S.C. 215, has remained unchanged since 1988. Although Dr. Murthy provides his recommendation to update the warning, his advisory admits that the “power to change the label statement lies with Congress.” Notably, Dr. Murthy’s advisory does not provide a sample of the language he would recommend to add to the existing health warning label on alcoholic beverages. However, his advisory points out that Ireland has a new health label going into effect in 2026 that will state that “there is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers”. Given the existing research showing some benefit from limited consumption of some alcohol, we expect that if Congress adopted such language, it would be challenged in the courts.
While the advisory calls for a reassessment of alcohol consumption guidelines and increased public health education, critics might question whether the recommendations adequately consider the complexity of cancer risk factors. The advisory also suggests a significant role for health care providers in informing patients about the risks, which may be challenging given the nuanced nature of individual risk factors. Dr. Murthy explains the cancer risk is also heavily determined by complex factors– biological, environmental, social, and economic factors. For example, as explained in the advisory, individuals of East Asian descent have a genetic variant that results in flushing, producing a higher biological risk for certain alcohol-related cancers. Social factors includes social norms, such as cultural norms. Asking individuals to commit to long-term quitting could be difficult due to the role alcohol plays in different social backgrounds and cultures. Additionally, the practicality of implementing widespread label changes and public awareness campaigns could face logistical and economic hurdles, potentially limiting the advisory’s effectiveness. The effectiveness could also be limited by incomplete or conflicting scientific findings, as noted above.
Alcohol is not alone in being targeted for health warnings by government actors. For instance, recently the sugar-sweetened beverage segment undertook a multi-year fight against an ordinance passed in San Francisco requiring that outdoor signs advertising sugar-sweetened beverages include a warning label, covering twenty percent of the sign, advising of the negative health impact of consuming such products. Round one of that litigation ultimately went for industry, with the Ninth Circuit ruling that the ordinance likely violated industry’s First Amendment rights. In response, San Francisco passed a new ordinance in 2020 that imposed a similar warning requirement but which reduced the size requirement to ten percent. Litigation again ensued, but this time resulted in San Francisco repealing the ordinance in 2021.
Listen to this post
Missed Opportunity: Outdated Schedule A List Means PERM Processing Delays Continue
The Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Proposed Rule to add new occupations to the Schedule A list is “dead,” at least for now. Stakeholders see this as a disappointment and a missed opportunity.
The failure to move forward with this rule is a significant disappointment for many high-skilled immigrants and the employers who need them, all of whom would have benefited from the streamlined process for obtaining employment-based green cards.
Considering the current processing times for PERM Applications – which have ballooned over the past year and currently sit at around 15 months – expanded access to Schedule A would provide improved certainty regarding job opportunities for employers and foreign-born workers alike.
Schedule A list occupations do not require the employer to conduct a labor market test as part of a green card application process because the government has already determined that there are not enough U.S. workers available for these positions – thus simplifying and speeding up the process. Currently, the Schedule A list only includes physical therapists, professional nurses, and individuals of exceptional ability. The list is clearly outdated because there are many occupations, particularly in STEM fields, experiencing a national labor shortage.
The DOL began its Schedule A initiative with a Request for Information (comments) in December 2023. The goal was to consider how to add more STEM and non-STEM occupations to the list. The comment period was extended, but it seems the rule is not even on the DOL’s list of priorities. Those looking for relief will have to wait and see if the Trump Administration decides to pick up this initiative.
New US Sanctions Target Russia’s Energy Sector
On 10 January 2025, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a package of new sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector. In an effort to curtail Russia’s oil revenue and ability to evade US sanctions, OFAC issued: (1) a Determination authorizing sanctions on parties operating in Russia’s energy sector; (2) a Determination banning US petroleum services to Russia; and (3) blocking sanctions against oil and gas majors, vessels in the so-called “shadow fleet,” certain traders of Russian oil, Russian maritime insurers, and Russian oilfield service providers.
Operating in Russia’s Oil Sector
The new “Energy Sector” Determination broadens OFAC’s authority to block parties that operate in Russia’s “energy sector,” which OFAC will define in forthcoming regulations to broadly cover activities in Russia’s oil, nuclear, electrical, thermal, and renewable sectors.
Ban on US Petroleum Services
The “US Petroleum Services” Determination prohibits most petroleum services (directly or indirectly) to Russia from the US or by US persons, effective 27 February 2025. OFAC plans to define “petroleum services” to include services related to oil exploration, production, refining, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing, among others. OFAC confirmed this Determination does not ban all US services for maritime transportation of Russian oil, provided services comply with applicable price caps and do not involve blocked parties. FAQ 1217.
Blocking Sanctions
OFAC designated hundreds of entities, vessels, and individuals to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). Notably, these blocking sanctions targeted:
Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas (two of Russia’s biggest oil producers and exporters) and numerous subsidiaries.
183 vessels in the “shadow fleet” that aids Russia’s sanctions evasion, including Sovcomflot vessels previously covered by General License 93, which OFAC revoked.
A network of traders of Russian oil that are linked to the Russian government or otherwise have suspicious ownership.
Over 30 Russian oilfield service providers.
Russian maritime insurance providers, Ingosstrakh Insurance and Alfastrakhovanie.
US persons are prohibited from all dealings with parties listed on the SDN List and entities owned more than 50% by parties on the SDN List. The property interests of these parties must be blocked/frozen and reported to OFAC if they are within US jurisdiction or US person possession/control.
General Licenses
OFAC issued several General Licenses (GLs) to authorize: petroleum services for certain projects (GL 121), wind down transactions related to energy (GL 8L), certain transactions for nuclear projects (GL 115A), certain transactions involving Russian oil majors (GL 117, 118, and 119), and safety-related transactions for blocked vessels (GL 120).
Conclusion
These new sanctions increase risk and pose considerable challenges for companies with connections to Russia’s energy sector. While US companies are prohibited from providing most petroleum services to Russia, non-US companies face the risk of blocking sanctions if their operations support the broader Russian energy sector. Although OFAC intends to issue regulations and guidance that clarify these measures, businesses must assess risk now, with the assistance of counsel, to identify effected transactions and implement appropriate compliance measures.
What Does the Change in Presidential Administration Mean for Pending Mandamus Actions?
In recent years, many immigration applicants have filed mandamus actions with the federal courts, seeking them to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State (DOS) to adjudicate delayed immigration benefits applications. Invariably, when a mandamus action is brought, the defendants not only include USCIS, its director, the DOS, and its secretary, but also the U.S. attorney with jurisdiction over the application, the Department of Justice, and the attorney general. With a new presidential administration soon taking office, many mandamus plaintiffs are concerned about whether their lawsuits will be dismissed and if they will need to refile suit.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(d) provide that when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity resigns or otherwise ceases to hold office while the application is pending, the federal court action does not cease. In fact, the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party to the mandamus action. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name, but a change in public officer cannot adversely impact the parties’ substantial rights. Thus, those who have relied on the courts to help them get decisions on their pending immigration applications may continue pursuing this course of action. 2024 saw a continued increase in mandamus actions nationwide as USCIS and DOS struggle to meet processing time goals even where statutorily required.
Preparing for New Trump Tariffs: 10 Approaches
Here are 10 ways to avoid, mitigate, or delay the costs of new tariffs that President-elect Trump has promised for countries like China, Canada, and Mexico:
Confirming country of origin: Determine whether tariffs apply by confirming the country of origin of your imported goods. When goods have inputs from multiple countries, you must carefully apply the “substantial transformation” standard utilized by US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to determine country of origin.
Seeking alternative sources: If imported goods originate from a targeted country, determine whether they can be sourced from a non-targeted country at lower cost.
Confirming HTS Codes: Although tariffs were promised on “all” goods from targeted countries, historically, tariffs apply only to goods classified under certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings. Classification is complex and errors are common, so carefully verify the HTS classification of your imports.
Tariff Engineering: If imported goods originate in a targeted country and are classified under a targeted HTS subheading, consider options for modifying the goods to change their origin or HTS classification. For example, further processing in a nontargeted country might “substantially transform” the goods so they originate in a non-targeted country. Also, importing components or subassemblies, rather than finished goods, may allow you to import under HTS subheadings not subject to the tariffs.
Product exclusions: If new tariffs follow the pattern of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, US authorities may implement a “product exclusion” process. Product exclusions, if granted upon application, exempt goods from tariffs. Applications are more likely to be granted when the targeted country is the sole source for the goods or when tariffs would harm national security.
Examining declared value: Tariff duties are a percentage of the value declared to CBP, so ensure you declare the lowest value permitted under CBP regulations. Under the “first sale rule,” you can (subject to conditions) value goods based on the price paid the first time they are sold for U.S. import, as opposed to higher prices subsequently paid to middlemen. Alternatively, if your supplier acts as the importer of record, tariffs could be based on their cost, rather than your higher sale price.
Shifting tariff costs: Contracts with “change of law” provisions may entitle you to renegotiate contracts and shift some or all tariff costs to your counterparties.
Stockpiling goods: Although only a temporary solution, new tariffs can be avoided by stockpiling imported goods prior to the tariffs’ effective date.
Bonded warehousing: Tariff payments can be delayed by storing imported goods in a bonded warehouse. Tariffs are paid when the goods are sold and leave the warehouse, instead of the time of import.
Temporary Imports: If goods will be imported only temporarily because they will be exported or incorporated into other goods for export, consider whether tariffs can be avoided through programs such as: temporary importation under bond (TIB), duty drawback, or use of a free trade zone.
Taking Stock of Trade Issues in 2025
The incoming U.S. Presidential administration is loudly signaling that businesses should expect changes in trade policies in 2025. Although no specific policies have yet been promulgated, the President-Elect has stated in social media outlets that broadly sweeping import tariffs may be imposed on goods from Mexico, Canada and China. Even without policy details, there are key steps many U.S. businesses should consider in advance of any specific changes.
First, any business that exports goods, services or information, should have a complete understanding of the tariff classification of what it exports, the destination of its exports and who or what receives the exports. This information will enable any business to more quickly assess the specific impact on its business that results from any new trade policy that changes requirements for U.S. exports. For example, if the new administration imposes new restrictions on a broader range of technology exports to China, a business will need to assess whether those changes may require it to change customers, or limit export destinations in order to avoid violating license requirements. That assessment will require the business to know the classification and destinations of its exports.
Second, any business should more closely watch the trade policies announced by key destination countries for its exports. For example, a number of Wisconsin manufacturers export goods to Canadian provinces, whether as part of the automotive, agricultural or other lines of businesses. As the Canadian government acts either in reaction to the U.S. policies, or on its own initiative, its actions may directly impact current imports into the U.S. Wisconsin businesses that rely upon Canadian materials or goods may seek to find alternative sources or plan for changes in costs of goods. The interplay between existing requirements of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) and new trade policies may create havoc in the purchase and sale of many goods.
Third, any Wisconsin business that either exports or imports should regularly engage with its trade association advocacy efforts in order to ensure that critical information about the industry is timely and effectively communicated to state and federal agencies and legislators. At the same time, businesses may be able to obtain key updated information from trade association contacts to help negotiate its way through the changing trade environment.
Finally, every business must have a clear understanding of the impact of changed costs for the seller and buyer of goods if new or modified tariffs are imposed. In some industries, costs are readily passed along to the ultimate purchaser, but some purchase agreements may not easily enable transfer of the trade burden. These details will continue to thwart easy negotiation of many transactions, and may compel changes to the supply chain of the business to remain competitive.
2025 Updates to Georgia’s Notary Laws: What You Need to Know
Starting January 1, 2025, Georgia’s notaries public must comply with new provisions enacted by House Bill 1292. The law introduces updates to the obligations of notaries, focusing on journal-keeping, identity verification, and training requirements. Below is an overview of three key updates for notaries in Georgia.
Journal Requirements for Certain Notarial Acts: One of the most impactful changes is the mandatory maintenance of a written or electronic journal for notarial acts performed for “self-filers.”[1] A “self-filer” is defined as an individual submitting real estate-related documents, such as deeds or liens, for recording but who is not affiliated with certain exempted professional groups, like attorneys or title insurance agents.[2]
Confirmation of Identity: To address ambiguities in the prior statutory language, the new law clarifies the acceptable methods for confirming the identity of signers, oath-takers, and affirmants. The previous statutory language allowed identity verification through “personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence,” with only one example of “satisfactory evidence:” a Veterans Health Identification Card issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The amended statute replaces the vague standard with a requirement for verification using government-issued photo identification documents (valid driver’s license; personal identification card issued under Georgia law; or military identification card—still including a Veterans Health Identification Card).[3] Personal knowledge remains a valid method of identity confirmation under the new law.
Mandatory Training for Initial and Renewed Commissions: Georgia notaries public must now complete educational training prior to their initial appointment and within 30 days of each renewal.[4] The Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority is tasked with creating and regulating these programs.[5]
Steps to Determine If the Journal Requirement is Applicable to a Notarial Act
In light of the changes, Georgia’s public notaries may consider the following when performing notarial acts:
1: Identify the Type of Document.[6] Confirm if the document being notarized falls into one of the following categories:
Deeds
Mortgages
Liens as provided by law
Maps or plats related to real estate
State tax executions and renewals
If the document is not one of these types, the new journaling requirement does not apply.
2: Determine if the Requesting Individual is a Self-Filer.[7] Check if the individual requesting the notarial act qualifies as a “self-filer.” A self-filer is any individual who submits one of the above documents for recording and is not part of the following excluded groups:
Title insurance agents or their representatives.
Attorneys licensed in Georgia or their representatives.
Licensed real estate professionals.
Agents of federally insured banks or credit unions.
Agents of licensed or exempt mortgage lenders.
Servicers as defined by federal regulations.
Public officials performing official duties.
Licensed professional land surveyors.
If the requesting individual is part of any excluded group, the journal requirement does not apply.
3: Verify the Individual’s Identity.[8] Ensure the individual’s identity is confirmed through:
A government-issued photo identification (e.g., driver’s license, passport, military ID); or
Personal knowledge of the individual by the notary.
Step 4: Record Required Information in Journal.[9] If the document qualifies and the requesting individual is a self-filer, the notary must record the following in their journal:
Self-filer Information:
Name
Address
Telephone number
Details of the Notarial Act:
Date, time, and location of the notarization.
Type of document notarized.
Identification Information:
Type of government-issued photo identification presented.
Elements of the identification document (e.g., ID number, if applicable).
Note if identity was verified through personal knowledge.
Signature:
Obtain the self-filer’s signature in the journal.
Step 5: Maintain the Journal.[10] Ensure the journal is securely stored, either as a physical written document, or electronically. The duration of the notary’s obligation to maintain this journal is not clarified in the new amendment.
[1] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(g).
[2] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(a).
[3] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(e).
[4] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(h)(1).
[5] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(h)(2).
[6] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(b)(1)(A)-(E).
[7] O.C.G.A. § 44-2-2(a)(1)-(8).
[8] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (e). Note: this step is necessary regardless of whether the journal requirement applies.
[9] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (g)(2).
[10] O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8 (g)(2).
Sleeping Defendant: Plaintiff Secures Win for Class Certification and Damages Discovery
Hey TCPAWorld!
Bringing you a quick (painful and avoidable) ruling out of the Middle District of Florida in Ownby v. United 1st Lending, LLC., 2025 WL 81344 (M.D. Fla, Jan. 13, 2025).
By way of background, Plaintiff filed this action against United 1st Lending back in September 2024, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
And what did United First Lending do in response? Nothing. So, Plaintiff secured a clerk’s default.
While Defendant sleeps, Plaintiff is on the move! And not just any Plaintiff’s counsel, local South Floridian Manny Hiraldo from TCPA’s Power Rankings of the most dangerous Plaintiff’s Firms.
In the underlying ruling, Plaintiff filed a Motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages-related discovery.
Again, what did United First Lending do in response? Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. Unbelievable.
The court, in a brief order, reiterated that district courts have broad discretion when it comes to class certification. According to Federal Rule 23, plaintiffs must meet certain criteria to get the class certified. Rule 23 mandates that a plaintiff demonstrate (1) the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the putative class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the putative class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The 11th Circuit recognizes that sometimes, even when a defendant defaults, plaintiffs might need a bit of discovery to nail down that certification. This case is no different.
Plaintiff anticipates the class could be massive—hundreds, if not thousands, of members—and he needs evidence like call logs to prove it.
The court found these assertions convincing enough to grant the motion, giving Plaintiff another win and granting his Motion for class certification and damages-related discovery. Just painful!
And now, United 1st Lending is about to experience the full brunt of class discovery—a grueling process that delves into records, logs, and everything else. One of my favorite parts of litigation. Somebody wake up United 1st Lending?!
If you’re a defendant, you never want to ignore a complaint. Respond! Do something! But lying down like a sleeping dog is a surefire way to get walked all over.
If you need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to Troutman Amin, LLP – we are awake and ready to help!
Til next time, Countess!!!