HM Treasury and FCA Proposals to Reform Regulation of UK AIFMs
On 7 April 2025, HM Treasury (HMT) published a consultation (Consultation) on the reform of the UK regulatory regime for alternative investment funds (AIFs) and their managers, alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs[CM1] ), and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) simultaneously published a call for input (Call for Input) on how to create a more proportionate, streamlined and simplified regime (the Call for Input and the Consultation together, the Proposals). The Proposals follow the UK’s implementation of the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (UK AIFMD) in 2013 and the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) in 2020.
The Proposals aim to simplify the regulations relating to AIFMs and streamline the existing framework with the intention to make the UK more “attractive” for investment and to encourage growth within the UK economy.
The Current AIFM Regime
The current AIFM regime derives principally from the EU Alternative Investment Managers Directive (EU AIFMD). The application of this regime and the accompanying rules depend on whether an AIFM’s assets under management (AUM) exceed certain thresholds.
In the Consultation, HMT explains that these thresholds have not been updated or reviewed since the introduction of the EU AIFMD in 2013. HMT also describes the current regime creating a “cliff edge effect” where sudden market movements or changes in AUM valuations have inadvertently brought smaller AIFMs within the full scope of the AIFM regime, subjecting such firms to sudden and substantial compliance burdens which it believes has the potential to discourage growth.
HMT Consultation
As a result of the “cliff edge effect”, the Consultation proposes to remove the thresholds and allow the FCA to determine proportionate and tailored rules.
Additionally, HMT proposes two “sub-threshold” categories of “small registered AIFM” that are yet to be authorised:
unauthorised property collective investment schemes; and
internally managed investment companies.
In particular, the Consultation discusses the following key items:
relocating definitions of “managing an AIF”, “AIF”, and “Collective Investment Undertaking” to the Regulated Activities Order, with no change to the regulatory scope;
confirming that there are no plans to amend the UK National Private Placement Regime;
potentially removing the FCA notification requirements when certain AIFMs acquire control of unlisted companies;
prudential rules for AIFMs;
at this stage, there are no proposals to change the rules applying to depositaries, but the FCA is calling for further evidence on whether any changes could be warranted;
reviewing the requirement for appointing external valuers; and
regulatory reporting under AIFMD.
Call for Input
Three New AIFM Thresholds
In the Call for Input, the FCA proposes new categorisations for AIFMs relating to their AIFs’ aggregate net asset value (NAV) (rather than the AUM) of their funds. This metric should be friendlier for managers on the basis that the NAV takes also into consideration the firm’s liabilities and is closer to the “actual value” of the firm, instead of purely considering the value of all assets of the firm.
The Call for Input proposes three divisions and the ability to opt-up to a higher category:
1. Small firms (NAV of £100m or less)
This category of firms would be subject to essential requirements to ensure consumer protection and will “reflect a minimum standard appropriate to a firm entrusted with managing a fund.”
2. Mid-sized firms (NAV more than £100m but less than £5bn)
This category of firms would have a comprehensive regulatory regime that is consistent with the rules that apply to the largest firms, but with fewer procedural requirements. This should, it is hoped, result in the regime for mid-sized firms being more flexible and less onerous than for the largest firms.
3. The largest firms (NAV of £5bn or more)
This category of firms would be subject to rules that are similar to the current full scope UK AIFM regime but tailoring the rules to specific types of activities and strategies. The FCA also intends to simplify AIFMs’ disclosure and reporting requirements.
Other Key Points
Additionally, the Call for Input also considers the following points:
new rule structure for UK AIFMs managing unauthorised AIFs; and
tailoring the rules to UK AIFMs based on the activities they undertake – for example, differentiating between venture capital firms, private equity firms, hedge funds and investment trusts – and their category.
What This Could Mean for UK Asset Management
Driving economic growth is a fundamental point of the current Labour government’s agenda and can be seen through the Proposals. This is also one of, if not the, first time that the UK government and HMT have taken advantage of and embraced Brexit to deviate from the retained EU regulations in an effort to strengthen London as a finance hub.
While the rules relating to Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (i.e., EU and UK mutual funds, known as UCITS) are unaffected by the Proposals, the Proposals suggest a significant rethink of the UK asset management framework. The Proposals could reduce the regulatory burden on many UK AIFMs, which should be a great benefit to the UK asset management industry post-Brexit. The Proposals therefore focus on emerging and smaller AIFMs in a bid to provide an environment where such firms can continue to grow, without restrictive administrative and regulatory burden.
We expect that this regulatory shift will be welcomed by the market as it has been a complaint for a long time that the current UK AIFMD regime has had too broad of an approach to apply to differing business models.
The Call for Input and the Consultation close on 9 June 2025. The FCA intends to consult on detailed rules in the first half of 2026, subject to feedback and to decisions by HMT on the future regime, while HMT intends to publish a draft statutory instrument for feedback, depending on the outcome of the Consultation.
The Call for Input and the Consultation are available here and here, respectively.
Leander Rodricks, trainee in the Financial Markets and Funds practice, contributed to this advisory.
Mergers and Acquisitions in Australia in 2025
A Recap: Expectations for 2025 Versus Reality to Date
2025 began with optimism that mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity would continue to increase this year. In Australia and globally, 2024 saw the value of M&A activity increase on the prior year, with many surveys recording cautious optimism for increased deal flow in the year ahead across sectors and regions.
The key drivers of the expected upturn in M&A were the following:
Record levels of dry powder in private capital and private equity (PE) hands.
An expectation of further interest rate reductions.
The benefits of reduced regulation—cutting red tape was a mainstay of the policy promises of many of the political parties elected in 2024’s election cycles around the globe.
Greater political certainty following the unusually high number of elections globally in 2024.
Hot sectors, including technology, especially digital transformation, and artificial intelligence starting to deliver (or not) on its transformative promise, energy transition and financial services.
However, Q1 did not deliver on these early promises in the manner expected. In the United States, the expectations of greater certainty that dealmakers looked forward to because of single-party control of the White House and both houses of Congress was tempered by a lack of clarity on implementation.
Whilst directionally it remained clear through Q1 that significantly higher tariffs will be imposed by the United States on imports from many countries in addition to China, the extent remained unpredictable and the real motivations for introducing them uncertain. Similarly, whilst the new administration’s efforts to remove red tape were eagerly anticipated by many, the pace and extent of executive orders has surprised and is leading to widespread challenge, again undermining certainty.
Citing productivity and wage growth concerns, the Reserve Bank of Australia indicated at the end of March that further target rate cuts were unlikely in the near term.
Then the US “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced on 2 April, and the hopes of a more stable economic and political environment for M&A in 2025 were confounded. The sharp declines in global market indices immediately following their announcement is testament to the significant underestimation of the scope and size of the tariffs initially announced. Pauses on implementation, retaliatory and further tariffs, as well as bi-lateral tariff reduction negotiations, are set to continue to bring surprises for some time. Market sentiment will continue to decline as recessionary fears abound.
Meanwhile, Australia is gearing up for its own federal elections in May 2025, and economists currently predict that interest rate cuts of around one percentage point (in aggregate) are likely over the next 12 months, with the first cut predicted in May.
So, what for M&A in the balance of 2025?
Predictions
Trade Instability
In terms of the political forces shaping Australian M&A, Australia’s federal elections have already been trumped by US tariff announcements.1 We are at the start of the biggest reworking of international trade relations in over a century. With only 5% of our goods exports going to the United States, and (so far) the lowest levels of reciprocal US tariffs applied to Australia, the direct impacts to Australia’s economy are likely to be far outweighed by the indirect effects of the tariffs applied to China and other trading partners. Capital flows, including direct investment, must shift in anticipation of and in response to these changes, but forecasting the impacts on different sectors and businesses (and their effect on valuations) will remain complex for some time, weighing heavily on M&A activity until winners and losers start to emerge.
Foreign Investment
With a weak dollar and a stable political and regulatory environment, Australia will continue to be an attractive destination for inbound investment, not least in the energy transition, technology and resources sectors. Rising defence expenditure around the globe, and AUKUS, remain tailwinds for Australian defence sector investment. We expect further increases in Japanese inbound investment driven by their own domestic pressures. However, a report prepared by KPMG and the University of Sydney2 pours cold water on a further strengthening of interest from Chinese investors, despite the 43% year-on-year increase in 2024, citing Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) restrictions on critical minerals and, more generally, a move toward greater investment in Southeast Asia and Belt and Road Initiative countries.
FIRB
Last year, FIRB made welcome headway in shortening its response times for straightforward decisions. The recent updates to FIRB’s tax guidance and the new submissions portal are likely to require front-loading of the provision of tax information by applicants, which should further support a shortening of average approval times. These changes are welcome, as is the introduction of a refund/credit scheme for filing fees in an unsuccessful competitive bid. Whilst these changes will not affect the volume of M&A, they may well facilitate an increase in the speed of execution of auction processes.
Regulatory Changes
Whilst we do not expect the outcome of federal elections to be a key driver of M&A activity in 2025 overall, the slowing of FIRB approvals during caretaker mode and the potential backlog post-election will lead some inbound deal timetables to lengthen in the short term, especially if there is a change in government. In Q2, we expect Australia’s move to a mandatory and suspensory merger clearance regime will have the opposite effect. Even as full details of the new merger regime continue to be revealed, we expect some activity will be brought forward to avoid falling under the new regime at the start of 2026.
Larger Deals
Although surveys report an increase in total transaction value in 2024, they also show there were fewer transactions overall. After the rush of transaction activity in 2021 and 2022, and the proximity to the end of post-pandemic stimulus, it is perhaps too easy to characterise the current environment as one of caution. However, market perception is still that deals are taking longer to execute, with early engagement turning frequently into protracted courtship and translating into longer and more thorough due diligence processes. This favours a concentration on deals with larger cheque sizes, a trend mirrored in Australian venture capital (VC) investing in 2024 and which we see set to continue in 2025.
PE
Globally, PE deal volumes surged in 2024, with Mergermarket reporting PE acquisitions and exits exceeding US$25.3 billion and US$18.9 billion, respectively. There remains an avalanche of committed capital to deploy and a maturity wall of capital tied up in older funds to return. It is these fundamentals that are expected to drive sponsor deal activity, in spite of the ongoing global sell-off in equities. PitchBook’s Q1 results for Oceania PE bear this out. Corporates looking to refocus away from noncore operations or requiring cashflow will continue to find healthy competition for carve outs among PE buyers, and an increase on the relatively low value of PE take-privates in Australia in 2024 is predicted. Family-owned companies with succession issues are also expected to provide opportunities for PE buyers. Nevertheless, we expect more secondary transactions, including continuation funds, will be required to grease the cogs in these circumstances.
VC Exits
The rising prevalence of partial exits via secondary sales is shown neatly in the State of Australian Startup Funding 2024 report.3 Whilst those surveyed still rate a trade sale as their most likely exit, secondaries were next and IPOs were considered the least likely. The report notes 59% of surveyed Series B or later founders said they had sold shares to secondary buyers, and 23% of investors said they sold secondaries in 2024. Following the success of secondaries like that of Canva and Employment Hero, secondaries will continue to provide much-needed liquidity to founders and fund investors alike. There is also a recognition of the value of such transactions in advance of an IPO, because they bring in new investors who may be expected to stay invested longer post-float. With valuations settling following their retreat from pandemic highs, PE acquisitions of Australian venture-backed companies rose in 2024 especially from overseas buyers. With the launch of more local growth funds targeting these assets, we expect that trend to increase.
Footnotes
1. President Trump Announces “Reciprocal” Tariffs Beginning 5 April 2025 | HUB | K&L Gates2. Chinese investment in Australia shifts from acquisitions to greenfield – KPMG Australia3. State of Australian Startup Funding 2024 | Insights
Case Alert: Repetitious Claims in Adjudication
Executive Summary
The South Australian Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) in Goyder Wind Farm 1 Pty Ltd v GE Renewable Energy Australia Pty Ltd & Ors has delivered a landmark judgment.
The decision provides much needed clarity as to when, and in what circumstances, a contractor may (and may not) repeat claims made under the statutory security of payment (SoP) regime.
While this is a decision of the Court of Appeal and its direct impact will be limited to projects in South Australia (SA), the decision is likely to be applicable under the equivalent SoP regimes which exist in all other Australian states and territories (except the Northern Territory). The other interstate SoP regimes are drafted in similar, and often exactly the same, terms, albeit the various regimes also differ in other respects.
The Court of Appeal considered the following issues:
Whether the principle of Anshun estoppel, whether described in that way or in terms of an abuse of process, applies to subsequent payment claims and adjudication applications under the SoP regime; and
If so, whether that principle, howsoever described, applied to prevent the contractor from making and prosecuting the second payment claim for delay costs in respect of extension of time claims made by the Contractor.
The Court of Appeal held:
There is no scope under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) (SoP Act) for the common law doctrine of issue estoppel or, consequently, the extended doctrine of Anshun estoppel to operate against a payment claim or an application for an adjudication determination under that Act. This is a finding of some significance, given there was some uncertainty about this issue following earlier authorities.
There, however, remains scope for the operation of a doctrine of preclusion under the SA SoP Act, in regard to conduct which may be characterised as an abuse of the processes of that Act. This is again a significant finding and provides useful clarification as to the limits which may be placed on the alleged repetition of claims.
In this case, it was not an abuse of the processes of the SA SoP Act for the Contractor to have included different categories of delay costs in subsequent payment claims. That is, there was no repetition of claims as a matter of fact, despite that the claims arose out of the same delay events. This is also despite the earlier articulation of the delay costs claim in a Notice of Arbitration.
Background
The case relates to a significant wind farm project in country SA. The joint venture Contractor claimed it was entitled to various extensions of time and delay costs attributable to Principal caused access delays. These access delays were alleged to have been caused by delays in obtaining environmental approvals.
The Contractor issued two separate payment claims (in February 2024 and April 2024) in respect of different reference dates. It subsequently made two separate applications for adjudication of those payment claims, both of which resulted in adjudication determinations. The Principal sought to quash the second adjudication determination by way of judicial review, on the basis that the second adjudication application was a reagitation of the first. Both the primary judge and the Court of Appeal found that there was no overlap between the first and second payment claims.
The judge at first instance dismissed the Principal’s application for judicial review. Whilst the judge accepted that the two claims arose from a common cause of delay, it did not follow that delay costs arising from the same delay constituted a singular claim for delay. The Principal appealed the judge’s decision.
Court’s Findings and Commentaries
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal, having regard to the provisions of s32 of the SoP Act, did not consider the common law concept of issue estoppel to be applicable. It then followed that an extended doctrine of Anshun estoppel was similarly inapplicable. The Court of Appeal held that this was not to say that there is no scope for the operation of a doctrine of preclusion under the SoP Act; however, this would likely be made pursuant to an application for an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal went on to consider whether the Contractor’s submission of two payment claims for delay costs amounted to an abuse of process, however, it could not conceive of a situation where nonoverlapping claims for delay costs amounted to an abuse. That is, there would at least need to be factual repetition of claims for there to be an abuse of process, noting, however, that repetition alone may not be sufficient.
Takeaways
For the construction industry, the key takeaways are:
The SoP Acts themselves set certain limits on the making of claims. In particular, under s13(5), only one payment claim may be made in respect of each reference date. Under s22(4), an adjudicator must value work the same as has been previously determined, unless the value has changed. These provisions provide for some amount of “finality” in the adjudication process. The SoP Act, however, concerns progress payments and expressly does not finally determine the parties’ rights and obligations in respect of payment. The SoP Acts are therefore relevantly different to other sorts of proceedings, in which the doctrines of issue and Anshun estoppel apply. The Court of Appeal rejected the imposition of additional limitations on the making of nonoverlapping claims on the basis of these broader legal doctrines.
A contractor may therefore claim nonoverlapping components of a delay costs claim in separate payment claims (so long as the making of such claims is otherwise within the other limitations set by the SoP Act, such as the requirement for claims to be within the six-month period mandated by s13(4)(b)).
Commission Proposes to Provide Flexibility for Manufacturers in Meeting 2025 CO2 Emission Targets for Cars and Vans
As anticipated in the Industrial Action Plan for the European Automotive Sector, the European Commission has proposed a targeted amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 on CO₂ emission performance standards for new vehicles through the submission, on the 1st of April 2025, of a Proposed Regulation “to introduce additional flexibility in the calculation of manufacturers’ compliance with CO₂ emission performance standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for the calendar years 2025 to 2027.”
Regulation (EU) 2019/631 was recently amended by Regulation (EU) 2023/851, which established new specific CO₂ emissions targets for new passenger cars (category M1) and new light commercial vehicles (category N1) starting in 2025, modifying Point 6.3 of Parts A and B of Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2019/631. Under the current regulatory framework, specific emissions targets, as outlined in Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2019/631, are set annually.
With this new proposal, compliance with these specific emissions targets would instead be measured using an average value over the three-year period (2025, 2026, and 2027), rather than requiring manufacturers to meet distinct annual targets. This aggregated compliance approach would allow manufacturers to offset excessive emissions in one year by outperforming the target in another, providing greater flexibility while still maintaining the 2025 target and keeping the industry on track for future reductions. The automotive manufacturing sector has been a strong advocate for this amendment, citing its importance in ensuring continued investment in the clean transition while managing operational and technological constraints.
Following the proposal by the EU Commission, the file was sent to the EU co-legislators, i.e., the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, both of which will now proceed to develop their negotiating mandates prior to initiating the interinstitutional negotiations (commonly referred to as the “trilogue”). This process ultimately leads to the adoption of the final legislative text, as agreed upon by both the Council and the Parliament. Upon introducing the proposal, the Commission urged the co-legislators to provide regulatory certainty for the automotive industry and investors.
May 2025 Visa Bulletin – No Change from April, Except EB-3 India
The State Department has published the May Visa Bulletin. Except for modest progress in two India categories, EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers, priority dates do not advance from April.
Below is a summary that includes Final Action Dates and changes from the previous month, but first – some background if you are new to these blog posts. If you are an old hand at the Visa Bulletin, feel free to skip the next paragraph.
The Visa Bulletin is released monthly by the US Department of State (in collaboration with US Citizenship and Immigration Services). If your priority date (that is, the date you got a place on the waiting list) is earlier than the cutoff date listed in the Bulletin for your nationality and category, that means a visa number is available for you that month. That, in turn, means you can submit your DS-260 immigrant visa application (if you’re applying at a US embassy abroad) or your I-485 adjustment of status application (if you are applying with USCIS). If you already submitted that final step and your category then retrogressed, it means the embassy or USCIS can now approve your application because a visa number is again available.
Now for the May VB – Very little progress, but at least no retrogression (or even predictions of retrogression):
As noted above, only India makes gains in May, and only in two categories:
EB-1 halts at February 15, 2022, and EB-2 at January 1, 2013
EB-3 Professionals and EB-3 Other Workers advance 2 weeks to April 15, 2013
No changes for China:
EB-1 remains stuck at November 8, 2022
EB-2 sticks at October 1, 2020
EB-3 Professionals remains at November 1, 2020
EB-3 Other Workers stalls at April 1, 2017
Likewise, no changes in All Other Countries:
EB-1 remains current
EB-2 stalls at June 22, 2023
EB-3 Professionals stays at January 1, 2023
EB-3 Other Workers remains at May 22, 2021
NOTE 1: USCIS will accept I-485 applications in May based on Final Action Dates, not the more favorable Dates for Filing chart.
Recent Federal Developments for April 15, 2025
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI
EPA Releases New TSCA And FIFRA Enforcement Policies: On January 17, 2025, days before the end of President Biden’s term, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released two new enforcement documents: (1) Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot Program Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (FIFRA Settlement Pilot Program or Pilot Program); and (2) Interim Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy (CERPP) for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New and Existing Chemicals Program. In that both of these enforcement documents were prepared by the prior Administration, their enduring relevance, like so many other issues at EPA, is unclear. As new leadership populates the ranks at EPA program offices, including the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, we may learn more. For more information on these enforcement documents, please read our March 21, 2025, memorandum.
EPA Argues For Remand Of Final Rule Amending Risk Evaluation Framework: On March 21, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in a case challenging EPA’s May 3, 2024, final rule amending the procedural framework rule for conducting risk evaluations under TSCA. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) v. EPA, Consolidated Case No. 24-1151. If you have a couple of hours to spare, listening to the argument is well worth the time. The court was uniquely curious about the litigants’ request for a remand and probed deeply into the difference between a remand and a vacatur. Judge Rao bluntly questioned on what authority the court could rely to remand the case. An answer was not forthcoming, fueling speculation the court will rule on the merits. According to EPA, the court should not rule on the case when the Agency plans to revise and issue a new final rule by April 2026. The court expressed skepticism that EPA can complete a rulemaking so quickly. The court also questioned when TSCA requires that conditions of use (COU) be identified, whether making a single risk determination for a chemical is consistent with TSCA, and whether USW has standing to challenge the May 2024 rule’s provisions regarding personal protective equipment (PPE). More information is available in our March 31, 2025, blog item.
EPA Postpones Effective Date Of Certain Provisions Of TCE Risk Management Rule To June 20, 2025: On April 2, 2025, EPA announced that it is postponing the effectiveness of certain provisions of its December 17, 2024, final risk management rule for trichloroethylene (TCE) until June 20, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 14415. EPA states in the April 2, 2025, notice that, in light of pending litigation, it has reconsidered its position from its earlier denial of an administrative stay pending judicial review and determined that justice requires a 90-day postponement of the effective date of the conditions for each of the TSCA Section 6(g) exemptions. According to EPA, petitioners allege that because the interim workplace conditions would require petitioners to reduce TCE exposure levels to the interim existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL) of 0.2 parts per million (ppm), the final rule effectively requires the use of PPE “that cannot feasibly be worn all day, and therefore could cause petitioners to cease operations.” EPA notes that although it does not concede these allegations, “petitioners have raised significant legal challenges and allege significant harms as a result of the workplace conditions required by the final rule’s TSCA section 6(g) exemptions.” EPA states that “[m]oreover, a limited postponement that maintains the status quo for these uses appropriately balances the alleged harm to petitioners and other entities with critical uses against the public interest in the health protections that will be afforded by the broader TCE prohibitions and workplace protections going into effect.”
EPA Announces Changes To Pesticide Data Submission Process For Data Matrix Form: On April 3, 2025, EPA announced changes on how the data matrix form (EPA Form 8570-35) is submitted to EPA, stating this change is an improvement to simplify the process for how companies submit data to EPA as part of a pesticide registration package. EPA states these improvements also will make EPA’s processing of this information more efficient. Companies are required to submit a data matrix form when their pesticide registration packages contain submitted data or cited data from outside sources. Previously, companies submitted two versions of the data matrix form (in either paper or electronic format): one for internal EPA use and one with reference data redacted for public use. EPA states in the interest of reducing burden and, according to EPA, because no information on the data matrix form is confidential business information (CBI), it determined that there is no need for a redacted version and is now only requiring one unredacted version of the form to be submitted for both internal and public use. Additionally, EPA will no longer accept paper submissions of this form and will only accept this information via a web-based portal.
Additional information on the new update is available in EPA’s recently issued Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2025-1. Instructions on how to complete and submit the revised forms will be available in the updated Pesticide Registration Manual.
EPA Proposes SNURs For Certain Chemical Substances: EPA proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) on April 4, 2025, for certain chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN) and are also subject to an Order issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. 90 Fed. Reg. 14743. The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is proposed as a significant new use by this rulemaking to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the conditions of that use for that chemical substance. In addition, the manufacture or processing for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the required notification, made an appropriate determination regarding that notification, and taken such actions as required by that determination. Comments are due May 5, 2025.
RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA
States Take Action To Regulate And Limit PFAS In Industrial Effluent Despite Federal Inaction: On January 21, 2025, EPA’s proposed rule seeking to set effluent limitation guidelines for certain PFAS under the Clean Water Act (CWA) was withdrawn from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review following President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) implementing a regulatory freeze. Federal action may be halted, but states are beginning to enact legislation that seeks to address PFAS contained in industrial effluent. These laws are currently sparse, with Maryland being the most recent state to establish a robust framework that requires industrial sources to limit PFAS in effluent. A handful of other states have laws establishing monitoring and reporting protocols for PFAS in industrial effluent, and other states have similar frameworks planned for future implementation. While these efforts are not yet widespread, heightened scrutiny of PFAS use suggests that more and more states will seek to monitor and limit PFAS in industrial effluent. For more information, please read our March 28, 2025, memorandum.
EPA Accepts Requests For Presidential Exemption Under CAA Section 112: On March 12, 2025, EPA set up an electronic mailbox to allow the regulated community to request a Presidential Exemption under Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA states that the CAA allows the President to exempt stationary sources of air pollution from compliance with any standard or limitation under Section 112 for up to two years if the technology to implement the standard is not available and it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so. EPA notes that submitting a request does not entitle the submitter to an exemption and that the President will make a decision on the merits. An exemption may be extended for up to two additional years and can be renewed, if appropriate. Requests were due March 31, 2025.
EPA Extends Reporting Deadline Under GHG Reporting Rule For 2024 Data: On March 20, 2025, EPA extended the reporting deadline under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule for reporting year 2024 data from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 13085. The rule changes only the reporting deadline for annual GHG reports for reporting year 2024. It does not change the reporting deadline for future years, and it does not change the requirements for what regulated entities must report. The rule was effective March 20, 2025.
EPA And Army Corps Of Engineers Announce WOTUS Listening Sessions And Solicit Stakeholder Feedback: On March 24, 2025, EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that they will hold listening sessions on specific key topic areas to hear interested stakeholders’ perspectives on defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the scope of CWA jurisdiction and how to implement that interpretation as the agencies consider next steps. 90 Fed. Reg. 13428. The listening sessions will be held in-person with a virtual option for states, Tribes, industry and agricultural stakeholders, environmental and conservation stakeholders, and the general public. The agencies seek input from a full spectrum of co-regulators and stakeholders on key topic areas related to the definition of WOTUS in light of Sackett v. EPA regarding “continuous surface connection,” “relatively permanent,” and jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional ditches. The agencies also seek input on implementation challenges related to those key topic areas. Information on the listening sessions is available on EPA’s website. The agencies are also accepting written recommendations from members of the public via a recommendations docket. Written recommendations are due April 23, 2025.
EPA Issues Partial Stay Of Integrated Iron And Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review: By a letter dated August 14, 2024, and supplemented by a letter dated March 5, 2025, the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of certain requirements in the final rule “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review,” published on April 3, 2024. On March 31, 2025, EPA issued a final rule that stayed provisions establishing compliance deadlines in 2025 for requirements that were added or revised by the April 3, 2024, final rule for 90 days pending reconsideration. 90 Fed. Reg. 14207. EPA states that it will reconsider the following topics from two petitions pursuant to CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B): work practice standards for unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate from unplanned bleeder valve openings; the opacity limit for planned bleeder valve openings; work practice standards for bell leaks; and the opacity limit for slag processing and handling. The final rule was effective March 31, 2025.
EPA Will Review NESHAP For Brick And Structural Clay Products Manufacturing And Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: On March 31, 2025, EPA requested comments for a review pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (Brick and Clay 610 Review). 90 Fed. Reg. 14227. EPA states that as part of this review, it will consider comments on the following factors: the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; the complexity of the rule; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules; and the degree to which the technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in areas affected by the rule. Comments are due May 30, 2025.
EPA Will Review New Science On Fluoride In Drinking Water: EPA announced on April 7, 2025, that it will “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.” According to EPA, the evaluation will inform its decisions on the standard for fluoride under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA notes that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a report in August 2024 concluding with “moderate confidence” that fluoride exposure above 1.5 milligrams per liter is associated with lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children and that more research is needed to understand better if there are health risks associated with exposure to lower fluoride concentrations. EPA states that it “is committing to conduct a thorough review of these findings and additional peer reviewed studies to prepare an updated health effects assessment for fluoride that will inform any potential revisions to EPA’s fluoride drinking water standard.”
FDA
FDA Provides Summary Data On Cosmetic Product Facility And Product Registration Listing: On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated constituents by providing a tabulated summary of the data collected from its mandatory registration of cosmetic product facilities and listings of cosmetic products under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). MoCRA requires manufacturers and processors to register their facilities and renew registrations every two years. This requirement includes providing details on the type of cosmetic products manufactured or processed, and a list of ingredients used in those products at each facility. The tabulated list includes the number of domestic and foreign registered facilities as of January 1, 2025. There are 1,800 domestic facilities registered and 7,732 foreign facility registrations, with the highest number of facility registrations being noted in China with 4,260.
FDA Announces Chemical Contaminants Tool: On March 20, 2025, FDA announced the Chemical Contaminants Transparency Tool for foods, which is an online database providing a list of contaminant levels used by FDA to evaluate potential health risks of contaminants in human foods. The tool lists thresholds (e.g., action levels, recommended maximum levels) for contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides, in foods. The FDA Acting Commissioner stated that “Ideally there would be no contaminants in our food supply, but chemical contaminants may occur in food when they are present in the growing, storage or processing environments.”
FDA Intends To Extend Compliance Date For FSMA Program: On March 20, 2025, FDA announced an intention to extend the compliance date for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Food Traceability Rule by 30 months. An excerpt from the announcement states that “FDA intends to use the extended time period to continue the agency’s work with stakeholders, including by participating in cross-sector dialogue to identify solutions to implementation challenges and by continuing to provide technical assistance, tools, and other resources to assist industry with implementation.” Additional details for the Food Traceability Rule are available at the link here.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
EC Scientific Committee Begins Public Consultation On Preliminary Opinion On Hydroxyapatite (Nano): On April 3, 2024, the European Commission’s (EC) Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) began a public consultation on its preliminary opinion on the safety of hydroxyapatite (nano) in oral products. The EC asked SCCS if it considers hydroxyapatite (nano) safe when used in toothpaste up to a maximum concentration of 29.5 percent and in mouthwash up to a maximum concentration of ten percent according to the specifications as reported in the submission, taking into account reasonably foreseeable exposure conditions. According to the preliminary opinion, based on the data provided, SCCS considers hydroxyapatite (nano) safe when used at concentrations up to 29.5 percent in toothpaste, and up to ten percent in mouthwash. Comments on the preliminary opinion are due May 30, 2025. More information is available in our April 9, 2025, blog item.
EUON Publishes Nanopinion On Enhancing The Regulatory Application Of NAMs To Assess Nanomaterial Risks In The Food And Feed Sector: On April 8, 2025, the EU Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) published a Nanopinion entitled “A Qualification System to Accelerate Development and Regulatory Implementation of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs).” The authors explain how the NAMs4NANO project, funded by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), enhances the regulatory application of NAMs for assessing nanomaterial risks in the food and feed sector. The authors propose to establish three qualification programs, covering NAMs for nanomaterial physicochemical characterization, characterization of nanomaterials in relevant biological fluid and toxicity screening. More information is available in our April 15, 2025, blog item.
PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATION
What It Means To Be “Essential” In The Federal Workforce: Current news on the government efficiency and reform front concerns the near-miss of a government shutdown (the budget would have lapsed at midnight on March 14, 2025). One reason some cited against allowing a shutdown to occur is how it might encourage or otherwise aid in attempts to eliminate positions if they were deemed “essential” or not. The recent potential shutdown was averted, but the essential/non-essential distinction will have little meaningful impact on workforce planning. Federal agencies have long had plans for a possible shutdown, especially in recent years, distinguishing who or what positions were needed if the budget was not authorized in time. These designations are already made, so if the categorization was useful as some kind of autonomous decision mechanism to make personnel decisions, shutdown or no shutdown would not make a difference. For more thoughts on this issue, please read our March 19, 2025, blog item.
Reorganize EPA? A Very Old Idea: Recent press reports tell of rumors of impactful (some fear catastrophic) budget cuts to EPA. The organization of EPA, and how that organization impacts its effectiveness, has been an issue since its founding. From its earliest days, there have been proposals for making EPA a cabinet-level Department. During the George H.W. Bush Administration, to knit together the programs and statutes more coherently, the EPA policy office developed a comprehensive draft of possible ways to reorganize the underlying environmental legislation and a parallel EPA structure. Most recently, and perhaps most important given the current Administration’s efforts at government reform, the subject of “reorganizing” EPA is included as a chapter in the Project 2025 report. That chapter has led to fears from many that budget and personnel cuts are part of a larger plan to upend the Agency. Recent press reports (like The Washington Post’s March 27, 2025, article, “Internal White House document details layoff plans across U.S. agencies”) indicate that the “plan” for EPA is to cut 10 percent of its workforce — which would seem less than some aggregated possibilities discussed in the Project 2025 chapter but could still include “firing up to 1,115 people” from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) alone. Project 2025 suggests large cuts to regional offices, the elimination of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, a “reorganization” of the enforcement office and environmental justice programs, and other changes which would seem to add up to less than a 10 percent cut to the workforce. Attrition rates alone are estimated to be an average of 6 percent, and early retirements accelerated by, among other things, the fear of possible cuts, would likely add up to 10 percent or more.
But the goal of reforming, reorganizing, or reducing the workforce is neither a new idea nor one lacking merit. EPA’s organizational structure has been under review since its inception. In the present moment, however, the lack of a cohesive or consistent approach leaves significant questions not only about the underlying motivation but also about the final impact of the effort. “Less bureaucracy” does not necessarily equate to reduced numbers of staff. And as some government functions will now contend with seemingly disorganized staff reductions, public resentment about “the bureaucracy” may only increase. Something to think about as we wait (and hope) to get our social security check or passport — or pesticide registration — on time. More information is available in our April 2, 2025, blog.
The Clock Is Ticking For Republicans To Use The Congressional Review Act: Congress has approximately one month to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to undo qualifying Biden Administration-issued regulations. According to an updated analysis by Bloomberg Government, the estimated period to expedite repeal of Biden Administration rules ends May 8, 2025. This gives Congress approximately four weeks to act on the dozens of pending CRA bills. More information is available in our April 10, 2025, blog item.
LEGISLATIVE
House Bill Would Codify EPA’s Office Of Children’s Health Protection: On March 25, 2025, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Garamendi (D-CA), and Kathy Castor (D-FL) reintroduced the Children’s Health Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 2339) that would codify into law the only office within EPA dedicated to children’s health, the Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP). According to Nadler’s March 25, 2025, press release, this office would be responsible for rulemaking, policy, enforcement actions, research, and applications of science that focus on prenatal and childhood vulnerabilities, safe chemicals management, and coordination of community-based programs. The bill would make the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee a permanent advisory committee. This advisory committee will advise the EPA Administrator in regard to the activities of the Office of Children’s Health Protection, all relevant information regarding regulations, research, and communications related to children’s health, and continue to serve the EPA in protecting children from environmental harm.
Nitrate And Arsenic In Drinking Water Act Reintroduced In The House: On Aril 3, 2025, Representatives David Valadao (R-CA) and Norma Torres (D-CA) reintroduced the Nitrate and Arsenic in Drinking Water Act (H.R. 2656). According to Valadao’s April 3, 2025, press release, the bipartisan bill would:
Amend the SDWA to provide grants for nitrate and arsenic reduction;
Authorize $15 million for fiscal year 2026 and every fiscal year after; and
Direct the EPA Administrator to conduct a review on programs under the SDWA, taking into consideration the diverse needs of underserved populations.
Bipartisan Bill Would Clean Up Marine Debris: On April 3, 2025, Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa-At Large), and James Moylan (R-Guam-At Large) introduced the Save Our Seas (S.O.S.) 2.0 Amendments Act of 2025 (H.R. 2620) to strengthen efforts to combat marine debris and protect the ocean. According to Bonamici’s April 3, 2025, press release, the bipartisan bill builds upon the success of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and provides greater flexibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to work with other stakeholders in marine debris prevention and removal efforts.
MISCELLANEOUS
Canada Releases Final State Of PFAS Report And Proposed Risk Management Approach: On March 5, 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced the availability of its final State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (State of PFAS Report) and proposed risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers. The State of PFAS Report concludes that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment. To address these risks, Canada proposed on March 8, 2025, to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). ECCC states that it will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to protect better firefighters and the environment. Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. ECCC notes that this will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles. ECCC states that it will publish a final decision on the proposed addition of 131 individual PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with reporting to take place by June 2026 for PFAS releases that occurred during the 2025 calendar year. ECCC states that these data will improve its understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help it evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances. Comments on the proposed risk management approach and the proposed order to add the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, to CEPA Schedule 1 Part 2 are due May 7, 2025. More information is available in our March 24, 2025, memorandum.
Amazon Files Suit Against CPSC, Challenging CPSC’s Determination That Amazon Is A Distributor: On March 14, 2025, Amazon filed suit against the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenging CPSC’s July 29, 2024, and January 16, 2025, orders determining that Amazon is “a ‘distributor’ of certain products that are defective or fail to meet federal consumer product safety standards, and therefore bears legal responsibility for their recall.” According to CPSC’s January 17, 2025, announcement, “[m]ore than 400,000 products are subject to this Order: specifically, faulty carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, hairdryers without electrocution protection, and children’s sleepwear that violated federal flammability standards.” CPSC determined that the products, listed on Amazon.com and sold by third-party sellers using the Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program, pose a “substantial product hazard” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). In its complaint, Amazon argues that CPSC “overstepped” the statutory limits of the CPSA by ordering “a wide-ranging recall of products that were manufactured, owned, and sold by third parties,” not Amazon itself. Amazon states that CPSC’s recall order “relies on an unprecedented legal theory that stretches the [CPSA] beyond the breaking point and fails to discharge” CPSC’s obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). More information is available in our March 20, 2025, blog item.
NSF Announces PFAS-Free Certification For Nonfood Compounds And Food Equipment Materials: On March 24, 2025, NSF announced the release of NSF Certification Guideline 537: PFAS-Free Products for Nonfood Compounds and Food Equipment Materials (NSF 537). The press release states that to be certified, nonfood compound products “must first be registered under NSF’s Nonfood Compounds Guidelines or certified by NSF to ISO 21469, Safety of Machinery, Lubricants with Incidental Product Contact-Hygiene Requirements.” According to the press release, food equipment materials “must be certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 51: Food Equipment Materials to ensure that products meet minimum public health and sanitation requirements.” The press release notes that “PFAS-Free means that the product contains no intentionally added PFAS, no post-consumer recycled material, no intentionally used PFAS additives (PPA, etc.) and the Total Organic Fluorine [(TOF)] is less than 50 ppm.” Certification will require that TOF levels be retested annually. NSF will add certified nonfood compounds to the NSF White Book™ and add certified food equipment materials to the NSF Certified Food Equipment listing.
Petitions Filed To Add Chemicals To List Of Chemical Substances Subject To Superfund Excise Tax: On April 2 and April 3, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that petitions have been filed to add the following chemicals to the list of taxable substances:
Polyisobutylene (90 Fed. Reg. 14521): Petition filed by TPC Group, Inc., an exporter of polyisobutylene;
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (90 Fed. Reg. 14687): Petition filed by Trinseo LLC, an importer and exporter of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene;
Acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14684): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber;
Chloroprene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14691): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of chloroprene rubber;
Emulsion styrene butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14692): Petition filed by Michelin North America, Inc., an importer of emulsion styrene butadiene rubber;
Emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14686): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber;
Ethylene vinyl acetate (VA < 50 percent) (90 Fed. Reg. 14688): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of ethylene vinyl acetate (VA < 50 percent);
Ethylene vinyl acetate (VA ≥ 50%) (90 Fed. Reg. 14683): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of ethylene vinyl acetate (VA ≥ 50 percent);
Ethylene-propylene-ethylidene norbornene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14695): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of ethylene-propylene-ethylidene norbornene rubber;
Hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14686): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber;
Hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14685): Petition filed by Zeon Chemicals L.P., an importer and exporter of hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber;
Isobutene-isoprene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14689): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of isobutene-isoprene rubber;
Solution styrene-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14690): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of solution styrene-butadiene rubber;
Bromo-isobutene-isoprene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14694): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of bromo-isobutene-isoprene rubber;
Poly(ethylene-propylene) rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14690): Petition filed by Arlanxeo USA LLC and Arlanxeo Canada Inc., importers and exporters of poly(ethylene-propylene) rubber;
Solution styrene-butadiene rubber (90 Fed. Reg. 14693): Petition filed by Michelin North America, Inc., an importer of solution styrene-butadiene rubber; and
Styrene-acrylonitrile (90 Fed. Reg. 14693): Petition filed by Trinseo LLC, an importer and exporter of styrene-acrylonitrile.
Comments on the petitions are due June 2, 2025.
Maine Board Approves Motion To Adopt Rule On PFAS In Products; CUU Proposals For Products Prohibited As Of January 1, 2026, Are Due June 1, 2025: As reported in our April 1, 2025, blog item, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MBEP) was scheduled to consider the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s (MDEP) December 2024 proposed rule regarding products containing PFAS during its April 7, 2025, meeting. As reported in our December 31, 2024, memorandum, on December 20, 2024, MDEP published a proposed rule that would establish criteria for currently unavoidable uses (CUU) of intentionally added PFAS in products and implement sales prohibitions and notification requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS but determined to be a CUU. During the April 7, 2025, meeting, MBEP unanimously approved a motion to adopt the Chapter 90 rule, the Chapter 90 basis statement, and MDEP’s response to comments “as presented and with correction of minor typographical errors, and the addition of ‘Maine Department of Transportation’ at section 4(A)(8),” according to MBEP’s draft meeting minutes. Under the approved rule, CUU requests for products scheduled to be prohibited January 1, 2026, are due June 1, 2025. The products containing intentionally added PFAS that are scheduled to be prohibited include:
Cleaning products;
Cookware;
Cosmetics;
Dental floss;
Juvenile products;
Menstruation products;
Textile articles. The prohibition does not include:
Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions; or
A textile article that is included in or a component part of a watercraft, aircraft or motor vehicle, including an off-highway vehicle;
Ski wax; or
Upholstered furniture.
The January 1, 2026, prohibition applies to any of the products listed that do not contain intentionally added PFAS but that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed for sale in a fluorinated container or container that otherwise contains intentionally added PFAS. More information is available in our April 11, 2025, blog item.
OMB RFI Seeks Proposals To Rescind Or Replace Regulations: On April 11, 2025, OMB published a request for information (RFI) to solicit ideas for deregulation. 90 Fed. Reg. 15481. OMB seeks proposals to rescind or replace regulations “that stifle American businesses and American ingenuity,” including regulations “that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.” According to the notice, “comments should address the background of the rule and the reasons for the proposed rescission, with particular attention to regulations that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution, where costs exceed benefits, where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary, or where regulation is burdening American businesses in unforeseen ways.” Comments are due May 12, 2025. Earlier in the week, on April 9, 2025, President Trump issued the following memorandum and EOs regarding federal regulations:
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations;
EO on Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers; and
EO on Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy.
More information is available in our April 14, 2025, blog item.
Termination of Humanitarian Parole for Citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela Blocked by Federal Court
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued an order on April 14, 2025, blocking DHS’s March 25, 2025, decision to terminate Humanitarian Parole for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela paroled into the United States under the CHNV program. The judge also certified the case as a class action.
The CHNV program allows approximately 450,000 people to live and work legally in the United States. On March 25, 2025, DHS announced that it was terminating, as of April 24, 2025, the CHNV program and revoking work authorization issued under the program.
Pursuant to Judge Talwani’s order, DHS has been enjoined from terminating CHNV parole for all beneficiaries by Federal Register notice. While the order is in effect, CHNV beneficiaries’ humanitarian parole and related work authorization document will expire on the date listed on the humanitarian parole approval notice/I-94 and related work authorization document. Judge Talwani’s ruling specifies that DHS cannot revoke a CHNV beneficiary’s humanitarian parole and related work authorization prior to the stated expiration date without a review of the beneficiary’s individual case.
Finally, the ruling states that all CHNV revocation notices sent to CHNV beneficiaries are stayed pending further court order.
Judge Talwani stated that DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program will force CHNV beneficiaries to “choose between two injurious options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings.… The first option will expose Plaintiffs to dangers in their native countries.… The second option will put Plaintiffs at risk of arrest and detention and, because Plaintiffs will be in the United States without legal status, undermine Plaintiff’s chances of receiving other forms of immigration relief in the future – potentially permanently.”
Australia and New Zealand Approve First Cell-Cultured Food Product
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) have approved a cell-cultured quail product produced by Vow, an Australian company. Under the approval, either the term “cell-cultured” or “cell-cultivated” must be displayed on the labeling.
The approval follows two rounds of public consultations on Vow’s novel food application, originally submitted in January 2023.
The approval will now be sent to the Food Ministers (of the Commonwealth, States and Territories, and New Zealand) who have 60 days to accept, amend, or seek a review of the proposed change to the Food Standards Code. If accepted, the product can then be commercialized.
Chinese Invention Patent Grants Down Almost 21% in First Quarter of 2025; Trademark Registrations Down Almost 15%
Per statistics released by China’s Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on April 15, 2025, Chinese invention patent grants are down 20.99% in the first quarter of 2025 versus the first quarter of 2024. Specifically, the number of invention patents granted decreased by 52,870 to 199,012 grants. Utility model grants also dropped slightly by 2.33% year-on-year to 408,419 grants (down by 11,032 grants). However, design patent grants increased by 10.11% year-on-year to 161,058 grants (up by 14,788 grants). The number of trademark registrations from January to March 2025 decreased by 193,996 compared with that in 2024 (a year-on-year decrease of 14.97%).
CNIPA did not provide any reasons for the drop in invention patent grants but may be related to China’s push for quality over quantity including:
the end of subsidies for patent grants in 2025;
the continuing crackdown on “abnormal” patent applications; and
setting a goal for high-value patents per 10,000 people (instead of only patents per 10,000 people).
In addition, the decrease in trademark and patent grants may be related to a slowdown in China’s economy although grants would be a lagging indicator.
Note though per CNIPA’s 2025 budget, CNIPA is expect over 5 million patent application filings this year and to examine over 2 million invention patent applications.
The full data set is available here: 2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版) (Chinese only).
Brussels Regulatory Brief: March 2025
Antitrust and Competition
European Commission Launches Evaluation of the Geo-Blocking Regulation
On 11 February 2025, the European Commission launched a call for evidence to seek stakeholders’ views on the Geo-Blocking Regulation (EU) 2018/302 to assess its effectiveness. The Geo-Blocking Regulation prohibits geography-based restrictions that limit online shopping and cross-border sales within the European Union.
Financial Affairs
Commission Proposes to Amend CSDR and Shorten Settlement Cycle, ESMA Consults on Technical Amendments to Settlement Standards
The Commission is proposing to shorten the settlement cycle under the Central Securities Depository Regulation (CSDR) while the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) is consulting on technical amendments to standards in relation to settlement discipline.
Omnibus Simplification Package: Parliament and Council Start Internal Discussions
Member States and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) started examining the simplification proposal put forward by the European Commission (Commission), outlining next steps and indicative timeline for its adoption.
Other
European Commission Proposes Simplification CBAM Ahead of Full Entry into Force
The European Commission has proposed a series of measures to simplify the implementation of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which is set to take full effect in January 2026.
ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION
European Commission Launches Evaluation of the Geo-Blocking Regulation
On 11 February 2025, the European Commission (Commission) launched a call for evidence on the Geo-Blocking Regulation (EU) 2018/302 (Geo-Blocking Regulation) aimed at evaluating its effectiveness. Geo-blocking refers to the practice used by online sellers to restrict online cross-border sales based on nationality, residence, or place of establishment. This type of conduct can be implemented in different forms, such as blocking access to websites, redirecting users to country-specific sites, or applying different prices and conditions based on the user’s location.
The Geo-Blocking Regulation, which entered into force on 3 December 2018, lays down provisions that aim at preventing these practices. It implements the “shop-like-a-local” principle, under which customers from other Member States should be able to purchase under the same conditions as those applied to domestic customers. Thus, the Geo-Blocking Regulation aims at eliminating unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on nationality, place of residence, or establishment within the European Union (EU).
The call for evidence seeks feedback from stakeholders, including consumers, businesses, and national authorities, to assess whether the Geo-Blocking Regulation has met its objectives and to identify any remaining barriers to cross-border trade or whether further measures are needed to enhance its effectiveness. In particular, the evaluation will cover issues raised by stakeholders, such as territorial supply constraints and cross-border availability of (and access to) copyright-protected content. The call for evidence is based on the review clause set forth in Article 9 of the Geo-Blocking Regulation, which requires the Commission to report on its evaluation to the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and the European Economic and Social Committee. The scope of the evaluation includes the period running from 3 December 2018 to 31 December 2024 and will cover the entire European Economic Area (EEA) which comprises the EU 27 Member States and Liechtenstein, Iceland, and Norway.
The evaluation should help the Commission to determine whether further measures are needed to address perceived barriers and strengthen cross-border trade in the EU. Therefore, based on the feedback received during the call for evidence, the Commission may consider changes to the current Geo-Blocking Regulation to enhance consumer protection, promote cross-border trade, and foster a more integrated and dynamic EU economy. Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback until 11 March 2025. Subsequently, the Commission will launch a public consultation consisting in the form of a questionnaire.
Geo-blocking is also relevant from a competition law enforcement perspective. In 2021, the Commission imposed a fine on Valve and five video game publishers of €7.8 million for bilaterally agreeing to geo-block video games within certain EEA Member States in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission found that the agreement between Valve and each publisher inadmissibly partitioned the EEA market. Likewise, in May 2024, the Commission fined one of the world’s largest producers of chocolate and biscuit products €337.5 million for engaging in anticompetitive agreements or concerted practices aimed at restricting cross-border trade of various chocolate, biscuit, and coffee products.
The continued focus on geo-blocking practices confirms the Commission’s strong stance against any perceived restrictions to the detriment of the EU single market.
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
Commission Proposes to Amend CSDR and Shorten Settlement Cycle, ESMA Consults on Technical Amendments to Settlement Standards
On 12 February, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) to shorten the securities settlement cycle from two business days to one.
This initiative builds on the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) report, which assessed the feasibility, impact, and implementation roadmap for the transition to a shorter settlement cycle. The Commission’s proposal amends Article 5 of the CSDR, mandating that transactions in transferable securities be settled no later than the first business day after trading. Following ESMA’s recommendations, the Commission proposes that the new cycle take effect on 11 October 2027. The proposal is now under review by the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON), with Johan Van Overtveldt (European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), Belgium) serving as leading rapporteur, and by Member States at the Council of the EU. Once both institutions agree on their positions, negotiations will take place with the Commission to finalize the legislative text.
In a related development, on 13 February, ESMA launched a public consultation on amendments to the regulatory technical standards on settlement discipline, addressing key operational challenges in settlement efficiency. The amendments propose stricter requirements for timely trade confirmations, automation through standardized electronic messaging formats, and improved reporting mechanisms for settlement failures. ESMA welcomes feedback and comments on the amendments by 14 April 2025.
Omnibus Simplification Package: Parliament and Council Start Internal Discussions
On 10 and 11 March, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and Member States representatives at the Council of the EU started internal discussions on the proposed Omnibus simplification package, which aims to (i) postpone the entry into force of the requirements under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D)—renamed “Omnibus I,” and (ii) simplify sustainability requirements under CSRD, CS3D, the Taxonomy Regulation and specific provisions of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)—renamed “Omnibus II.”
European Parliament
During a plenary session on 10 March, MEPs held an initial exchange of views on the package highlighting the positioning of each party on the proposal. MEPs from the European People’s Party (EPP) strongly support the package and advocate for a swift adoption of the first part of the proposal postponing the application of CS3D and CSRD. For that, on 3 April, MEPs approved a request for urgent procedure introduced by the EPP.
MEPs from Renew Europe Group (Renew) expressed only limited support for the Omnibus II proposal and, while they recognize the need for simplification to foster economic growth, they emphasized the importance of ensuring that the rules remain effective through negotiations. Representatives from the Socialists & Democrats and the Greens largely opposed the proposal, expressing strong concerns about the potential dilution of previously agreed requirements. Other MEPs from the far-right ECR Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations supported the package but called for further deregulation, while representatives from The Left were entirely opposed to the proposal and rejected the Commission’s approach to simplification in this context.
In a related development, on 19 March, the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee responsible for the Omnibus package, appointed MEP Jörgen Warborn (EPP, Sweden) as lead negotiator for the Omnibus II proposal. Pascal Canfin (France) has been appointed as shadow rapporteur for Renew, while other political groups are expected to shortly communicate shadow rapporteurs involved on the file. Other committees involved (Foreign Affairs; International Trade; ECON; Employment and Social Affairs; and Environment, Climate and Food Safety) are expected to also announce whether they will provide an opinion on the file. The next meeting on this part of the proposal has been set for 23 April 2025.
Council of the EU
On 11 March, Member States in the Economic and Financial Affairs configuration of the Council of the EU also discussed the proposal. All governments showed strong support for the postponement of the rules and welcomed the Commission’s approach in this area. However, not all Member States agreed on the substantial amendments introduced to CSRD and CS3D; France opposes eliminating civil liability rules, while the Czech Republic, Italy, and Hungary push for deeper deregulation to boost competitiveness. Trade and business ministers further examined the package on 12 March during a Competitiveness Council meeting, showing general support for the amendments put forward. While it seems that an agreement will be quickly reached for the Omnibus I, Member States will need to further negotiate on the substantial amendments introduced by the second part of the proposal (so called “Omnibus II”).
Timeline
For both proposals, Member States and MEPs will need to negotiate the final content of the directives through interinstitutional negotiations. The Omnibus I will likely be adopted in the next three to six months, with transposition into national law by end of this year, meaning that the postponement will presumably happen before an additional wave of companies would have been obliged under the directives in their current form. The substantial amendments introduced by Omnibus II will likely involve lengthier negotiations within the Council of the EU and the Parliament.
OTHER
Commission Proposes Simplification of CBAM Ahead of Full Entry Into Force
CBAM, the world’s first carbon border tariff, is set to come into full force in January next year. This means that importers of goods covered by CBAM legislation (iron and steel, cement, fertilizers, aluminum, electricity, and hydrogen) will be required to declare the emissions embedded in their imports and surrender corresponding certificates, and be priced based on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). However, even before CBAM is fully implemented, the Commission has already proposed changes to the legislation in response to economic competitiveness and geopolitical challenges.
As part of the Omnibus simplification package announced on 26 February, the Commission proposed several changes to streamline CBAM implementation.
Firstly, the Commission aims to simplify CBAM requirements for small importers, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals, by introducing a new CBAM de minimis threshold exemption of 50 tons per shipment. This will exempt over 182,000 or 90% of importers from CBAM obligations, while still covering over 99% of emissions in scope.
Secondly, for importers that remain within the scope of CBAM, the proposed changes aim to simplify compliance with its obligations. Specifically, the proposal simplifies the calculation of embedded emissions for certain goods, clarifies the rules for emission verification, and streamlines the process for calculating the financial liability of authorized CBAM declarants.
These changes will now have to be approved by the European Parliament and EU Member States before they come into force.
Additionally, a comprehensive review of CBAM is expected later this year to assess the potential extension of the mechanism to additional ETS sectors (potentially including aviation and maritime shipping), downstream goods, and indirect emissions. As part of this review, the Commission will also explore measures to support exporters of CBAM-covered products facing carbon leakage risks. A legislative proposal is anticipated to follow in early 2026.
Covadonga Corell Perez de Rada, Simas Gerdvila, Antoine de Rohan Chabot, Kathleen Keating, Lena Sandberg, and Sara Rayon Gonzalez contributed to his article.
CFTC Clarifies that FX Window Forwards are Not “Swaps”
On April 9, 2025, the Markets Participants Division and the Division of Market Oversight (collectively, the “Divisions”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) published a Staff Letter (the “Staff Letter”) clarifying the Divisions’ views on the regulatory treatment of certain foreign exchange products. The Divisions clarified that certain foreign exchange window forwards (“Window FX Forwards”) should be considered “foreign exchange forwards” under the CFTC’s regulations and, as a result, exempt from most CFTC regulations relating to swaps. The Divisions also clarified that package foreign exchange spot transactions that settle within T+2 are to be treated as “spot” transactions and outside the scope of most of the CFTC’s swap regulations.
Background
All “swaps” as defined in the Commodities Exchange Act and the CFTC’s regulations are subject to regulation by the CFTC. There are a number of products that either fall outside the scope of, or are otherwise exempted from, the definition of “swap” and therefore exempted from most CFTC regulations as they relate to swaps. These include “spot” transactions and “foreign exchange forwards”, among others. A spot transaction is an agreement to physically exchange currencies within the customary timeline for the relevant spot market (generally T+2). A “foreign exchange forward” is an agreement to exchange currencies at an agreed price on a specific future date.
Window FX Forwards
Window FX Forwards are transactions where the parties enter into an agreement to exchange two currencies at an agreed price on one or more dates during a set period or “window”, sometimes specific identified dates and sometimes any date within the specified window. The Window FX forward will settle on the last day of the window if the electing party does not elect an earlier date for settlement.
Market participants have been uncertain as to the regulatory treatment of Window FX Forwards because the definition of “foreign exchange forward” requires that the transaction be settled on a “specific future date.” Some market participants have been treating Window FX Forwards as “swaps” subject to CFTC regulations and others treating them as exempted “foreign exchange forwards.” The Staff Letter clarified that the Divisions interpret “specific future date” to mean a “clearly identified future date.” Since the exchange under a Window FX Forward will take place on one or more dates clearly identified upon entering into the transaction, they fall within the definition of “foreign exchange forward” and are exempt from the definition of “swap.” As a result, most regulatory requirements applicable to “swaps”, including the exchange of regulatory margin, will not apply to these transactions.
Package FX Spot Transactions
Package foreign exchange spot transactions (“Package FX Spot Transactions”) are two transactions where, in the first transaction, the parties agree to physically exchange two currencies on the next business day after the trade date (T+1) and, in the second transaction, agree to exchange the same two currencies in the opposite direction on the second following business day after the trade date (T+2). There can be variations where the parties exchange currencies on the same day they agree to the trade (T+0) under the first transaction and the next business day (T+1) for the second transaction, or a “roll” where the parties agree to exchanges over a series of consecutive days. While each transaction is documented separately, they are entered into as a “package”, meaning both parties agreeing to the first transaction is contingent on both parties agreeing to the second transaction and both transactions are priced together as a “package.” However, because each transaction is documented separately, they are separate legal obligations and performance under the second transaction is not linked to, or dependent upon, performance under the first transaction. The Staff Letter clarifies that these Package FX Spot Transactions should be treated as individual spot transactions outside the scope of the definition of “swap” and applicable CFTC regulations, provided that they are executed, confirmed and settled as individual transactions within the customary timeline for the relevant spot market (generally T+2).
What does this mean for Window FX Forwards and Package FX Spot Transactions?
As a result of being exempted or excluded from the definition of “swap” Window FX Forwards and Package FX Spot Transactions are not subject to most of the CFTC’s swap regulations. These products are not required to be traded on a registered exchange or cleared through a registered clearinghouse. Swap Dealers are not required to post or collect regulatory margin on these products, making them more affordable to market participants. It is important to note that foreign exchange forwards, and therefore Window FX Forwards, remain subject to certain trade reporting requirements and business conduct standards.
2025 ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting Highlights
The Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association (ABA)’s 73rd Annual Spring Meeting took place from April 2 to April 4, in Washington, D.C. At the conference, over 3,900 registrants from 70 countries, global antitrust enforcers, and practitioners gathered to discuss the latest developments in antitrust. Below are some details and takeaways from the meeting with specific perspectives for the United States, European Union, and Mexico.
Go-To Guide:
United States: Highlighted key antitrust developments, including the implementation of the revised HSR form, retention of the 2023 merger guidelines, increased focus on AI-related enforcement, and a balanced but vigilant approach to merger review.
FGS Global + Capitol Forum: Hosted discussion on “Antitrust under Trump,” highlighting expectations for enforcement.
European Union: Emphasized a shift toward supporting economic growth while maintaining strong enforcement, with continued focus on mergers, cartel enforcement, and oversight of tech markets, including AI and algorithms.
Mexico: Highlighted a focus to strengthen cross-border cooperation and align on sustainable and innovation-driven competition agendas.
United States
From a U.S. perspective, the panelists shared insights and opinions on several key topics, including the revised Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) form, retention of the 2023 merger guidelines, the growing national and international focus on AI, and ongoing developments in antitrust enforcement.
Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Form: Panelists discussed the new HSR form, highlighting that the form would enable agencies to more efficiently identify anticompetitive mergers and quickly approve deals that benefit consumers. While some panelists expressed surprise, others supported its implementation as necessary. However, the consensus was that the form will lead to increased time and costs for filings in light of the significantly expanded information required upfront with all transactions, rather than only for deals under a substantive investigation.
Merger Guideline Retention: The current administration has announced a policy to retain the updated merger guidelines that were released in 2023—favoring continuity and only selective revisions as needed in the future based on how the guidelines are being used in practice. Panelists at the spring meeting were not surprised by the decision as ultimately they are not binding on either the DOJ or FTC. Panelists also highlighted how resource constraints, such as hiring freezes, may impact enforcement priorities, and speculated that DOJ and FTC may focus on sectors like agriculture, labor, and technology.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Panelists noted an increased focus on AI at both the national and international level. Panelists discussed possible enforcement priorities under the current U.S. administration and the legal landscape more broadly. The discussion highlighted the use of AI in advertising, global cooperation, algorithmic pricing, state regulation, increased consumer protection scrutiny, and continuous AI innovation. A common theme throughout the discussions was the challenge of tackling the uncertainties involved in client counseling given the shifting legal environment around issues related to AI.
Antitrust Merger Enforcement: Panelists discussed the potential direction of antitrust enforcement under the current administration, noting that enforcers may adopt a more deal-friendly stance than in the past, while still being inclined to challenge certain mergers. Former officials predicted a greater openness to settlements and efficiency arguments but emphasized that scrutiny would remain strong in sectors such as agriculture, pharmaceuticals, labor, and technology. Panelists expected that with respect to merger remedies, structural ones—as opposed to behavioral commitments that are only in effect for the term of the settlement—will still be favored. However, the general consensus was while the authorities have signaled more openness to remedies, that should not be interpreted as a more permissive approach to deal evaluations in general.
FGS Global + Capitol Forum: Panel Discussion
Alongside the ABA’s Antitrust Section of the Spring Meeting, FGS Global + Capitol Forum separately presented a panel discussion “Antitrust under Trump” on April 2, 2025, where leaders from the DOJ and FTC spoke.
Highlights from the panel include noting the return of grants of early termination of the HSR waiting period. Regulators noted that the revised HSR form gives regulators additional information sooner in the review process, enabling them to grant early termination where warranted.
The panel suggested the second Trump administration’s antitrust enforcement would be similar to the first Trump administration. Thus far there has been an interest in Big Tech and censorship, as well as other priorities focused on where Americans spend their money: housing, healthcare, insurance, transportation, food, groceries, and entertainment. Authorities also noted a continued interest in labor markets, seeking to protect Americans as consumers and workers.
FTC Chair Ferguson noted his goals of promoting certainty and clarity so that businesses can plan appropriately, noting that he kept the 2023 merger guidelines for that reason.
Assistant Attorney General Slater noted that in contrast to the Biden administration, the FTC and DOJ will be more amenable to remedies in merger cases. The agencies will support remedies where they are confident the proposed remedy will be successful. As a time saving suggestion, regulators noted an openness to parties proposing a remedy contemporaneously with HSR filing (fix it first).
The FTC’s non-compete ban is currently stayed. Ferguson dissented, and it is not his priority, but authorities noted that many non-compete agreements would not meet a rule of reason standard. Those non-competes would still be challenged as needed.
European Union (EU)
With respect to enforcement practice in the EU, both by the European Commission and European nations, delegates noted a subtle shift in prioritization and enforcement practice. Agencies acknowledged the role they should play to encourage economic growth. In fringe events, senior officials from the European Commission recognized that they could do more to give guidance and to facilitate collaboration, especially where it potentially supports growth. They cited steps already taken to listen to industry and the professional community as examples of how they are part of a solution. However, there was no suggestion that their commitment to enforcement would be diluted in the forthcoming year.
Merger Control: Representatives of the European agencies argued that their enforcement practice has been highly targeted over the years and that their interventions have increased growth through competition, rather than the opposite. There also remains a desire within the EU to tackle those transactions that fall below filing thresholds but nevertheless give rise to potential competition concerns. The agencies indicated that they remain committed to addressing this issue.
Cartel Enforcement: The European Commission highlighted that cartel enforcement continues to remain a priority. The European Commission reported reducing its reliance on leniency applications, though its pipeline of cases remains strong due to an improved ability to identify suspected breaches of law through technology. The European Commission is deploying new technology to screen evidence and to identify potential breaches, and it has recently commenced investigations using these tools.
Technology Market Enforcement: The agencies additionally mentioned that enforcement within technology markets will remain a priority. Despite the adoption of bespoke regulation (e.g. the Digital Markets Act), European agencies continue to see antitrust enforcement as evolving. AI and algorithms are areas the agencies are monitoring closely.
Throughout the meeting, European agencies emphasized their desire to continue collaborating with their peers across the Atlantic. Generally, they underscored the desire to continue collaboration efforts in connection with individual cases.
Lastly, there were some identifiable differences, particularly with respect to ex ante regulation of digital platforms. This is one area that may be debated between the agencies in the months to come.
Mexico
Andrea Marvan, chair of Mexico’s competition authority, attended the meeting and engaged in discussions with officials from the U.S. FTC and the National Association of Attorneys General to explore avenues for strengthening cross-border cooperation in fostering fair and dynamic markets.
Additionally, Marvan connected with European leaders, including Teresa Ribera, executive vice-president for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, and Olivier Guersent, director-general for Competition at the European Commission. During this discussion, the group focused on aligning agendas to promote innovation and competition through sustainable practices.
Marvan emphasized the importance of international collaboration across the board to assist in driving competition policies that benefit consumers and empower micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises.
Holly Smith Letourneau, Nicole Ring, and Manish Das contributed to this article.