Lay of the Land: Challenges to Data Center Construction—Past, Present and Future [Podcast]
In this episode of Lay of the Land, we are joined by Paul Manzer, principal and data center market leader with Navix Engineering, to explore the evolving landscape of data center construction. We dive into the unique civil engineering challenges—from site selection to due diligence—and trace the evolution of these challenges from past limitations to present-day complexities like supply chain issues and legal hurdles.
Looking ahead, we discuss future trends driven by AI and emerging technologies, examining how legal strategies and engineering innovation can address these challenges. We provide key takeaways for developers and investors, emphasizing the critical collaboration between legal and engineering teams.
President Trump’s Tariffs Announcement and their Impact on Mexico
On April 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his tariff policy for numerous countries. In the case of Mexico, exported products that comply with the USMCA regulations are exempt from tariffs, which are approximately half of Mexico’s exports to the United States.
Products exported from Mexico that do not qualify as originating under USMCA provisions will be subject to a 25% tariff. Previously, these products were subject to a 2.5% tariff rate. The 25% tariff on products not protected under the terms of the USMCA, which account for half of Mexico’s exports to the U.S., and have an estimated value of US$300 billion, was enacted by Trump to press Mexico on preventing fentanyl trafficking and undocumented migration. If Mexico continues working with the U.S. on issues of fentanyl and unauthorized immigration, products not protected by the USMCA will be lowered to a 12% tariff rate. Manufacturers and other producers may address compliance with USMCA regulations, but this will not be simple and in the process, could become less competitive and lose market share.
Mexico had a slightly better outcome as it relates to tariffs in comparison with other countries. President Trump’s announcement could potentially usher in new investment opportunities for Mexico, particularly by international companies involved in the export of manufactured products to the U.S. severely affected by tariffs. Countries such as Taiwan (32% tariff), Vietnam (46% tariff), and South Korea (25% tariff), among others, which export approximately US$380 billion in products to the U.S. could potentially look to relocate manufacturing operations to Mexico to bypass tariffs for exporting to the U.S. under the USMCA rules.
The current trade landscape is highly complex. Multinational companies will need to find ways to remain competitive and keep market share while assessing what their global operations may look like in the future.
Auto Tariffs: Pumping the Brakes on Imports
On or after April 3, 2025, all foreign automobiles imported into the U.S. will be subject to a 25 percent tariff. The new auto tariff will be applied in addition to the general tariff rate of 2.5 percent, plus any applicable steel derivative tariff. President Donald Trump issued a proclamation implementing the new tariffs on March 26, based upon a 2019 report under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which concluded that “automobiles and certain automobile parts are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”
The new auto tariffs will apply to automobiles from all countries. However, importers of autos that qualify for the tariff benefits of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA) will be permitted to subtract the value of the U.S. content of the autos from the full value of the vehicle for purposes of applying the 25 percent tariff.
The proclamation also provides that if U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determines that the U.S. content has been overstated, the 25 percent tariff will be applied to the full value of the auto without any exclusion of U.S. content. The 25 percent tariff would be applied retroactively (from April 3 to the date of inaccurate overstatement) as well as prospectively. Thus, significant enforcement efforts by CBP are anticipated.
The proclamation also covers certain auto parts in a yet-to-be published Annex. Because the 2019 Section 232 report specifically identified imported engines and engine parts, transmissions and power train parts, and electrical components of vehicles as a threat, it is anticipated that such parts will be subject to the tariffs. Moreover, within 90 days, the proclamation requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a process for adding additional parts to the Annex.
Today, only about half of the vehicles sold in the United States are manufactured domestically, a decline that jeopardizes our domestic industrial base and national security, and the United States’ share of worldwide automobile production has remained stagnant since the February 17, 2019, report.
www.whitehouse.gov/…
New-Aged Automakers Beware: CPPA’s Enforcement Action Against Honda Results in the Agency’s First Settlement
Key Takeaways:
CPPA launched its first major enforcement action in targeting connected vehicle-maker Honda.
Connected vehicles often collect various kinds of sensitive driver information, including geolocation, biometric and behavioral data.
After the CPPA found Honda in violation of several CCPA provisions, the company agreed to settle the enforcement action for approximately $650,000 while also agreeing to adopt certain remedial measures.
Other Connected vehicle-makers have also experienced a spike in regulatory scrutiny, signaling rising enforcement pressure and growing expectations for privacy-by-design.
CPPA’s Investigation into Connected Cars
In 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) commenced a formal investigation into the data privacy practices of vehicle manufacturers (the “Investigation”), focusing primarily on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by “connected vehicles.”
Connected vehicles are vehicles equipped with technologies able to capture, among other kinds of consumer information, geolocation, biometric and behavioral data, including global positioning systems (“GPS”), telematics sensors, onboard cameras and smartphone integrations. With over 35 million registered vehicles in California and the rapid growth of these technologies in newer vehicles, automakers must educate themselves about the growing privacy concerns presented by these connected vehicles, especially where these technologies are still linked to third party service providers.
The Investigation marks the CPPA’s first formal inquiry since gaining full enforcement authority on July 1, 2023, and seeks to determine whether automakers were complying with key provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). Specifically, the agency is examining whether these vehicle manufacturers: (i) provide sufficient notice; (ii) obtain valid consent; (iii) limit data collection consistent with data minimization principles; and (iv) maintain transparency around third-party data sharing practices. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.
CPPA’s inquiry underscores the agency’s intent to promote accountability among manufacturers and to ensure consumers retain meaningful control over their personal data.
Honda’s Privacy Violations and Settlement Terms
On March 12, the CPPA announced its first public enforcement action based on the Investigation[FAM3]. The action stemmed from a series of purported CCPA violations regarding American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda” or the “Company”)’s handling of consumer privacy rights. The CPPA found that:
Honda unlawfully interfered with consumers’ ability to exercise their data rights. For example, Honda required consumers to provide excess personal information even when such verification was not legally necessary. The CPPA determined that these burdensome conditions discouraged or delayed valid privacy requests, violating the CCPA’s intent to grant consumers meaningful control over their personal information without unreasonable obstacles.
Honda’s interface steered users toward surrendering their privacy rights. For example, Honda’s online privacy rights platform was designed in a way that made it easier for consumers to opt in to the sale of their personal information, while creating friction for those attempting to opt out. This unequal treatment of consumer choices violated CCPA’s requirement that options be presented in a fair and neutral manner.
Honda did not provide clear or accessible methods for consumers to authorize third-party representatives (i.e., “authorized agents”) to act on their behalf. The CPPA determined that this omission weakened an essential mechanism intended to support the exercise of privacy rights, which limited consumers ability to benefit from guaranteed privacy protections.
Honda failed to produce contracts with its advertising technology vendors that included the required privacy safeguards, raising serious concerns about whether the Company had properly limited how third parties could use, retain, or disclose consumer information as required under California law.
The CPPA enforcement action against Honda concluded with a settlement order (the “Order”) in which the Company agreed to pay $632,500 in monetary penalties and undertake significant reforms to its data privacy practices, including (i) creating a streamlined process for privacy rights requests, (ii) engaging a user experience designer to ensure the system meets CCPA fairness standards, (iii) training employees on proper handling of privacy requests, and (iv) revising contracts with third-party data recipients to include all required privacy protection clauses.
The Order also mandates several technical upgrades to Honda’s privacy infrastructure. For instance, Honda must establish separate processes for verifiable and non-verifiable privacy requests to reduce barriers to opting out. It must also add a “Reject All” button to its cookie management tool to ensure that privacy-protective choices are as accessible as opt-in options.
Broader Privacy Concerns in the Automotive Industry
Federal regulators and certain states, like Texas, have launched investigations into the data privacy practices of automakers, focusing on how personal information, such as driving behavior, is collected and shared with third party insurance companies. Recently Ford, Hyundai, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, were sent letters by the Texas Attorney General’s Office demanding sworn answers about how they collect, share and sell consumer data.
Other major automakers have also faced privacy controversies. Earlier this year, Tesla was sued over allegations that employees accessed and shared images and videos recorded by customers’ vehicles without their consent. Yeh v. Tesla, Inc.
California lawmakers are taking action to regulate in-vehicle data collection, including, for example, by restricting the collection and use of images and videos captured by in-car cameras.
Looking Ahead: CPPA’s Growing Role in Consumer Privacy
The CPPA is actively enforcing its authority across all industries, with penalties ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 per violation. The Honda settlement marks a clear warning: as connected devices like vehicles continue to harvest large volumes of personal data, the cost of noncompliance will continue to rise. In today’s fragmented U.S. privacy landscape, businesses must ensure they offer consumers clear, meaningful choices around data use. Working closely with legal counsel is essential to stay ahead of regulatory changes — because in this new era of enforcement, transparency and trust are no longer best practices; they’re legal imperatives.
Auto Insurer Settles With New York AG Over Insurance Application Platform Security Issues
The New York Attorney General recently entered into an assurance of discontinuance with Root Insurance Company following a 2021 data incident. According to the AG, the threat actors obtained people’s drivers’ license numbers by exploiting a website error on its car insurance application portal. Namely, upon entering a publicly available name and address, the site would generate a prefilled PDF that included that person’s drivers’ license number, which numbers were pulled from third-party databases. Threat actors used an automated bot to exploit this vulnerability, and gathered drivers’ license numbers of 44,449 New Yorkers (more than half of the total 72,852 people impacted). The threat actors then used many of these people’s information to file fake unemployment claims with New York, which according to the AG, was the goal of the attack.
According to the AG, the company was not aware of the design feature issue. Instead, the situation was discovered when company personnel noticed unusual application activity. Upon discovery, the company took measures to address the issue, including using CAPTCHA to ensure the application was made by a human, and masking the license numbers. The AG nevertheless brought this case, claiming that the incident occurred because the company did not have appropriate risk assessment measures in place to identify the design error. It also should have, according to the AG, used measures like masking sensitive data and detecting and deterring automated traffic. These failures, it alleged, constituted a violation of the state’s data security law, which requires that companies develop, implement and maintain “reasonable safeguards” to protect covered information. This information includes names and drivers’ license numbers.
Similar to past settlements, the AG required that the company implement of additional security measures (see, for example, our posts about settlements with a social media app last month, ENT in December 2024, a biotech company in mid-2024, and Herff Jones in 2022). Included in these are developing and maintaining a written information security program, designating a chief information security officer to oversee the program, engaging in network monitoring and employing multi-factor authentication, and maintaining compliance records for six years that the attorney general can access. The company has also agreed, among other things, to develop a data inventory, have a written process to ensure secure software development processes, to monitor network activity, and to promptly investigate suspicious activity. The company has also agreed to pay $975,000.
Putting it Into Practice: This settlement outlines expectations from the New York attorney general of the proactive measures companies it believes companies should have in place if handling sensitive personal information. As companies launch new platforms, or revamp existing ones, this is a reminder to think not only about platforms where they collect personal information directly from individuals, but also where that information might be gathered from third party sources.
Listen to this post
Productively Pursuing and Maximizing Insurance Claims
Maximizing insurance claims starts with locating and notifying all potentially responsive coverages when facing a loss or claim. This article offers a 101 about what types of maritime-, transportation-, and shipping-related events insurance may cover and how to go about productively pursuing an insurance recovery when disaster strikes—even if your insurance company says “no.”
Two Overarching Types of Insurance
Without getting too far into the weeds of the many different types of insurance coverage available to policyholders, think about them as falling into one of these two broad buckets: (1) first-party insurance coverage, and (2) third-party insurance coverage.
First-party insurance describes coverages that respond to a policyholder’s losses, which do not involve any claim asserted against the policyholder (e.g., you, your business, your employer). First-party property policies such as marine property insurance and bumbershoot property insurance, for example, typically insure against loss of, or damage to, the policyholder’s property (e.g., structures, terminals (including piers, breasting dolphins, storage tanks, etc.), electronic equipment), as well as coverage for lost business revenue. These first-party property policies frequently are “all risk” policies, meaning they cover the policyholder’s losses unless caused by an expressly excluded peril that the insurer can prove (e.g., ordinary wear and tear). Property policies often include business interruption coverage and coverage for inventory or goods lost or damaged in transit. Other types of first-party policies relevant to the maritime industry include:
Inland Marine Insurance that protects movable business property for policyholders that aren’t on the seas, including trucking and construction companies, property developers, and contractors, for example;
Marine Hull and Machinery Insurance that protects from physical damage to ships, vessels, and their machinery on the water, at the dock, and under construction for most sizes of commercial vessels including tugs, barges, dredges, and passenger vessels;
Marine Cargo Insurance that protects goods while in transit, across various modes of transportation, and while in storage; and
Political Risk Insurance that protects against losses caused by “political” events in a foreign country.
Third-party insurance coverage sometimes is called liability insurance. That’s because it includes policies that provide insurance for the policyholder’s liability to third parties alleging damages. Perhaps the most well-known form of third-party insurance for policyholders in the maritime industry is maritime general liability insurance (and excess bumbershoot liability insurance), which provides broad coverage for allegations asserted against the policyholder for bodily injury, property damage, and product and completed operation for marine risks. Other types of potentially relevant third-party policies include:
Cargo Owner’s Liability Insurance to protect against the risks for property damage, bodily injury to third parties, and as a result of pollution from a cargo event in ocean transit;
Shipowners’ Liability (“SOL”) Insurance for a shipowner’s exposure arising from an alleged breach of a contract of carriage and certain liabilities that fall outside of the Protection and Indemnity (“P&I”) Club’s standard P&I rules;
Directors and Officers (“D&O”) Insurance that protects companies and their corporate officers and directors against claims alleging wrongful acts and may cover legal fees for responding to subpoenas and search warrants; and
Pollution Liability Insurance to supplement or bolster pollution coverage that may exist in other marine liability (and property) insurance; some policyholders have standalone pollution liability insurance to broadly cover allegations of property damage from an actual or threatened pollution incident (spill) including fines, penalties, criminal defense, and more.
A single event can implicate several types of coverage found in multiple different insurance policies. For example, a vessel colliding with a terminal may involve loss to:
the terminal’s structures and equipment covered by a marine property insurance policy;
the terminal owner’s profits covered by business interruption insurance (and other time element coverages);
claims by third parties (adjacent property owners or the government, for example) alleging property damage from pollutants released from the vessel or terminal’s structures that are covered by marine general liability insurance and pollution liability insurance;
claims by shareholders alleging malfeasance in allowing the collision to happen (depending on which entity was responsible for the tugs, for example) that are covered by D&O insurance; and
this does not begin to untangle the myriad insurance implications when analyzing claims against the vessel and potential subrogation claims.
It’s important to look for responsive coverage from a company’s entire insurance portfolio when facing a loss or claim.
Three Things to Keep in Mind When Pursuing Insurance
Many policyholders don’t productively or efficiently pursue all of the insurance that is provided by their insurance policies. Here are three considerations when filing claims:
Be prompt. One of the most important first steps in pursuing insurance is to make sure that notice of a loss, claim, or occurrence is prompt and otherwise meets the requirements of the insurance policy.
Be thorough. It is important to look at all potentially responsive coverages that may be located in several different insurance policies with varying notice provisions. The general rule is that notices should be given under all possible policies that might be triggered—regardless of type, year, or layer. The old adage “better safe than sorry” never rings more true than when it comes to a company giving notice to its insurers.
Be diligent. As already stressed, the notice provisions in insurance policies also may specify how, and in what form, notice should be given. The policies typically identify to whom notice should be addressed, and request a statement regarding all the particulars of the underlying claims.
After a loss or claim has occurred, the policyholder should present its claim to the insurer in a way that will maximize coverage. Many legal issues, such as trigger of coverage, number of occurrences, and allocation, can significantly affect the existence or amount of an insurance recovery. Moreover, certain causes of loss or liability may be excluded from coverage, while others are not. These are complex issues that vary by state law and require a high level of legal sophistication to be understood and applied to the facts of a particular case.
The insurer may respond to its policyholder’s notice letter with a request for information. Such requests may seek to have the policyholder characterize its claim in a way that will limit coverage. Before the policyholder engages in any such communications with its insurance company, the policyholder should know what legal issues are likely to arise, and how best to describe its claim to maximize coverage.
It’s important to get the little things right from the beginning to avoid being blindsided and enhance the likelihood of succeeding at the finish line.
Class Action Litigation Newsletter | 4th Quarter 2024
This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from across the United States.
Highlights from this issue include:
First Circuit addresses four questions of first impression relating to CAFA jurisdiction and “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions.
Second Circuit holds class representative’s susceptibility to unique defenses is not a basis for finding lack of adequacy, though it may go to typicality.
Fourth Circuit reverses certification of FLSA class action, finding conclusory allegations of company policies were insufficient to satisfy commonality requirement.
Sixth Circuit vacates class certification based on individualized questions in automotive defect case.
Seventh Circuit affirms decertification of Rule 23(c)(4) issues class for lack of superiority.
Ninth Circuit holds unexecuted damages model sufficient to demonstrate damages are susceptible to common proof at the class certification stage.
Continue reading the full GT Class Action Litigation Newsletter | 4th Quarter 2024
Additional Authors: Richard Tabura, Aaron Van Nostrand, Gregory A. Nylen, David G. Thomas, Angela C. Bunnell, R. Morgan Carpenter, Gina Faldetta, and Gregory Franklin.
Foley Automotive Update with Tariff Rundown
Special Update — Trump Administration and Tariff Policies
Foley & Lardner partner Vanessa Miller commented on the Trump administration’s imposition of automotive tariffs in the Associated Press article, “Trump’s latest auto tariffs explained: What car buyers should know this year.” Miller, who is chair of Foley’s national Automotive Team, said that while some companies will be able to pivot their operations to the United States, others are too integrated with factories in Mexico and elsewhere to make a speedy transition.
Foley & Lardner provided an update for multinational companies regarding the potential for criminal enforcement of trade, import, and tariff rules. Visit Foley & Lardner’s 100 Days and Beyond: A Presidential Transition Hub for more updates on policy analysis and the business implications of the Trump administration across a range of areas.
Fully assembled automobiles are subject to a 25% U.S. import tariff,effective at 12:01 a.m. on April 3, 2025, through President Trump’s March 26 proclamation (90 FR 14705). An accompanying Fact Sheet states: “Importers of automobiles under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will be given the opportunity to certify their U.S. content and systems will be implemented such that the 25% tariff will only apply to the value of their non-U.S. content.”
U.S. import tariffs of 25% on certain major auto parts (engines and engine parts, transmissions and powertrain parts, and electrical components) are scheduled to take effect no later than May 3. The March 26 proclamation states “the ad valorem tariff of 25 percent described in clause (1) of this proclamation shall not apply to automobile parts that qualify for preferential treatment under the USMCA until such time that the Secretary, in consultation with CBP, establishes a process to apply the tariff exclusively to the value of the non-U.S. content of such automobile parts and publishes notice in the Federal Register.”
Reciprocal tariffs announced April 2 will be established at a baseline of 10% and ranging up 49% beginning on April 5. The reciprocal rates include 34% on China, 20% on the European Union, 46% on Vietnam and 32% on Taiwan. This announcement did not impose reciprocal tariff rates on Canada or Mexico.
The European Union intends to pursue countermeasures in response to the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum indicated trade negotiations are ongoing with the Trump administration, and Mexico thus far has not announced retaliatory tariffs.
The Canadian government imposed retaliatory tariffs on C$60 billion ($42 billion) worth of U.S.-made goods in response to U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum.
U.S. import tariffs on copper could be implemented before the 270-day deadline established in a February 25 executive order which directed the government to assess possible levies on the metal, according to unnamed sources in Bloomberg.
The U.S. Senate on April 2 voted 51-48 to approve a joint resolution (SJ Res 37) to terminate the national emergency declared on February 1, 2025, by the President in Executive Order 14193 (90 Fed. Reg. 9113) to impose tariffs on imports from Canada. The measure does not have the force of law, however it notably received support from four Republican Senators: Rand Paul (KY), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Mitch McConnell (KY). The U.S. House recently took steps to block the ability of tariff critics to expedite a floor vote on the issue.
Dozens of Chinese companies were added to a Commerce Department entity list to restrict trade due to national security concerns.
Automotive Key Developments
Foley & Lardner provided an update on a notable federal court ruling against Stellantis in a supplier pricing dispute, and assessed the impact of the case in regards to what constitutes a valid requirements contract under Michigan law.
Certain major automakers could incur up to $1 billion to $7 billion annually in U.S. import costs, depending on the breadth and duration of the 25% automobile and auto parts tariffs announced by President Trump on March 26. The effects of these sector-specific tariffs in their current form could cost the auto industry up to $110 billion annually, according to investment bank estimates featured in The Wall Street Journaland Bloomberg.
S&P Global Mobility predicts U.S. light-vehicle sales could decline to between 14.5 and 15 million units annually if the automotive import tariffs proceed as announced, and the duties could “create a reset of the automotive value chain within North America and the world.”
Nearly 50% of U.S. new light vehicles sold in 2024 were assembled outside the U.S., and up to 70% of vehicles sold in the U.S. in a typical year contain imported components. New-vehicle prices could increase by 11% to 15% due to the pass-through effects of automotive import tariffs, and consumers could encounter tariffed inventory at dealerships by May or sooner.
President Trump warned U.S. automakers not to raise prices in response to tariffs, according to unnamed sources in The Wall Street Journal. The president stated in an NBC News interview that he “couldn’t care less” if foreign automakers raised prices because consumers would instead “buy American cars.” In the interview, the president did not comment on the potential for higher prices in domestically manufactured vehicles that may result from duties on imported components.
Cox Automotive estimates the cost impact of tariffs could make at least half of the 20 vehicle models priced below $30,000 “unviable for the U.S. market.”
Bloomberg reports Senate Republicans intend to utilize the Congressional Review Act to revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to grant Clean Air Act waivers allowing California to impose emissions standards that exceed federal regulations.
U.S. new light-vehicle sales in March reached a SAAR of 17.8 million units, representing an increase of 11% year-over-year, according to preliminary estimates from GlobalData. Increased volumes in March were attributed to accelerated consumer purchases to avoid tariffs.
OEMs/Suppliers
Hyundai on March 24 announced plans to invest an additional $21 billion in U.S.-based vehicle manufacturing and supply chains for critical materials, including a new steel mill in Louisiana.
Cleveland-Cliffs plans to lay off over 1,200 workers in Michigan and Minnesota due to market challenges that include the expectation for declining automotive demand amid higher prices caused by tariffs.
Toyota and Honda stated they currently have no plans to reduce manufacturing in Ontario, Canada in response to U.S. trade policies.
Certain luxury brands that performed well during previous market disruptions could be significantly exposed to automotive import tariffs because the vehicles do not meet the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement rules.
The American Trucking Associations estimates automotive import tariffs could add upwards of $30,000 to the cost of a new Class 8 truck.
Crain’s Detroit provided estimates of the Detroit Three automakers’ U.S. plant utilization rates, and an overview of which factories in Michigan have excess capacity.
The UAW in a March 26 statement praised President Trump’s automotive import tariffs, and suggested automakers could shift production to the U.S. “within a matter of months” by “adding additional shifts or lines in a number of underutilized auto plants.”
At least two major automakers recently stopped tracking purchases with minority-owned suppliers, according to a report in Crain’s Detroit.
Taiwanese automotive lighting supplier TYC Americas plans to invest $18.75 million to establish production in Wixom, Michigan.
The Chinese government intends to restructure a number of China’s state-owned automakers to improve competitiveness and market share. This could affect automakers including Dongfeng Motor Group, China FAW Group, Changan Automobile Co., SAIC Motor Corp., GAC Motor Co., BAIC Motor Co., Chery Automobile Co., and Jianghuai Automobile Co.
Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda spoke to Automotive News about the challenges of automotive consolidation.
Market Trends and Regulatory
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into more than 2 million Honda vehicles over reports that engines can fail to restart from idling.
The U.S. Commerce Department delayed a preliminary ruling on a Chinese graphite anode countervailing duty case to May 19, 2025. North American graphite miners had petitioned last year to impose a 920% tariff on Chinese suppliers to counter China’s control over critical minerals. Graphite is a key component in EV lithium-ion batteries.
President Trump stated U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson is “working on” a proposal that could allow tax deductions for the interest paid on auto loans for U.S.-made vehicles. Details of the plan were not provided.
President Trump nominated Derek Barrs, a former Florida Highway Patrol chief, to head the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
An estimated 1.73 million vehicles were repossessed in the U.S. in 2024, representing the highest level since 2009.
The University of Michigan’s March 2025 Index of Consumer Sentiment fell to 57, the lowest level since 2022. Two-thirds of consumers expect higher unemployment in the next year, the highest reading since 2009.
The Conference Board’s March 2025 Consumer Confidence Survey found that short-term expectations for income, business and labor-market conditions were at the lowest level in 12 years.
New vehicle registrations in the European Union declined 3% year-over-year in the first two months of 2025, according to analysis from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA). Registrations of new battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) in the EU increased 28.4% YOY, reaching 255,489 units for a 15.2% share of the total EU market. New EU registrations of hybrid-electric vehicles rose 18.7% YOY for a 35.2% share of the EU market.
The European Commission granted final approval to Tesla’s 2025 EU emissions pool, which includes Stellantis, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Subaru and Suzuki. The bloc’s other key pool is managed by Mercedes-Benz and it includes several Geely brands.
The European Commission fined 15 automakers and the European Automobiles Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) €458 million ($495.3 million) over participating in anticompetitive agreements concerning end-of-life vehicle recycling.
U.S. traffic fatalities in the first half of 2024 were 25% higher compared to the same period in 2014. Pedestrian fatalities in H1 2024 were up by 48% compared to H1 2014.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Ford intends to use artificial intelligence systems and Nvidia GPUs to improve the process of designing and bringing new vehicles to market.
Waymo plans to launch robotaxi services in Washington D.C. in 2026, following previously announced expansions in Miami and Atlanta. Waymo currently operates in parts of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin.
Lyft could offer driverless rides on its platform “as soon as this summer.”
Caterpillar will integrate lidar technology from Luminar to the Cat Command autonomy platform on its heavy-duty construction equipment.
Volkswagen will partner with Valeo and Mobileye to develop Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) for upcoming vehicle models. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines Level 2 as driver support features that require constant control and supervision.
Electric Vehicles and Low-Emissions Technology
BYD reported 2024 net income of 40 billion yuan ($5.6 billion) on total revenue of 777.1 billion yuan ($107 billion), representing YOY increases of 34% and 29%, respectively. BYD’s global vehicle sales rose 41% YOY to 4.27 million units in 2024, and it has a goal to double sales outside of China to over 800,000 units in 2025.
The Michigan Strategic Fund approved the transfer of over $180 million in state and local incentives to LG Energy Solution after GM exited a $2.5 billion project to construct an EV battery plant in Lansing.
Rivian will spin out its electric micromobility platform, Also Inc., into a new startup focused on lightweight vehicles that include scooters and bicycles.
Governor Gavin Newsom announced California has 178, 549 public and shared private EV chargers, which is 48% higher than the amount of gasoline nozzles in the state.
Contract electronics maker Hon Hai Precision Industry, known as Foxconn, is reported to be pursuing an agreement to produce EVs for Mitsubishi.
25% Tariff on Automobiles and Automobile Parts Begins April 3; USMCA Vehicles May Qualify for Partial Relief
Go-To Guide:
New 25% tariff on imported cars starts April 3, 2025, citing national security concerns.
Automobile parts from USMCA countries temporarily exempt, but full implementation expected by May 3, 2025.
USMCA-qualifying vehicles may receive partial relief based on U.S. content value.
Importers that do not carefully document U.S. content may face retroactive, full tariffs on misstatements.
On March 26, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a proclamation, “Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States,” directing the imposition of a 25% tariff on imports of passenger vehicles, light trucks, and certain automobile parts, citing national security concerns under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The 25% duty will apply to designated Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS) codes listed in the proclamation’s annex, which will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin collecting duties on imports of covered automobiles at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 3, 2025. Covered automobile parts will be subject to the same duty on a date to be determined, but no later than May 3, 2025.
Covered Products and Future Expansion
The proclamation applies the 25% tariff to passenger vehicles (sedans, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, cargo vans), light trucks, and selected automobile parts including engines and engine parts, transmissions and powertrain parts, and electrical components. The precise list of covered vehicles and parts (by HTSUS code) will be contained in the yet-to-be-published annex to the proclamation. Additional categories of automobile parts may be included over time. Domestic producers and industry associations may request the inclusion of other parts if they demonstrate that increased imports threaten to impair U.S. national security.
USMCA Automobiles: Partial Duty Based on US Content
The proclamation introduces a new content-based valuation system for qualifying automobiles under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Importers of USMCA-qualifying automobiles may submit documentation supporting the value of U.S. content in a given model, defined as “the value of parts wholly obtained, produced entirely, or substantially transformed in the United States.” The 25% tariff will apply only to the automobile’s non-U.S. content, calculated as the vehicle’s total value minus the verified U.S. content.
Enforcement and Penalties for Misstatements
Importers should take note of deterrent measures built into the proclamation. If CBP determines that the declared non-U.S. content of a USMCA-qualifying automobile has been understated, the 25% tariff will apply retroactively and prospectively to the full value of the affected model. Specifically, duties will be retroactively assessed from April 3, 2025, and will continue to apply to all subsequent imports of the same model by the same importer until CBP verifies corrected values.
USMCA Automobile Parts: Temporary Exemption
USMCA-qualifying automobile parts are temporarily exempt from the 25% tariff. This exemption will remain in place until the secretary of Commerce establishes a process to calculate and apply the tariff only to the non-U.S. content of each part and publishes a notice in the Federal Register. In contrast, non-USMCA-qualifying parts will become subject to the full 25% tariff no later than May 3, 2025.
Other Implementation Measures: FTZs and Duty Drawback
Any automobile or automobile part subject to the 25% tariff and admitted into a U.S. foreign-trade zone (FTZ) on or after the effective date must be admitted in privileged foreign (PF) status—unless eligible for admission under domestic status (referring to goods that have been imported to the United States and for which all duties and taxes paid). Upon entry for consumption from the FTZ, the article will be subject to the duty rate applicable to its HTSUS subheading as of the admission date into the FTZ. Importers utilizing FTZs should review inventory and entry strategies, as this provision may reduce one of the traditional benefits of FTZ operations.
Additionally, duty drawback will not be available for the new 25% tariffs. Companies seeking to recover duties through export programs will not be able to claim refunds for these duties, even if the automobile or part is subsequently exported. This may affect cost planning for companies with international supply chains and re-export strategies.
Key Takeaways: Automobiles
1.
Effective at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 3, 2025, covered imports of passenger vehicles and light trucks will be subject to a 25% duty on entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption.
2.
USMCA-qualifying automobiles may receive a partial exemption, with the 25% duty applied only to the non-U.S. content of each model.
3.
Understatement of non-U.S. content will trigger full-duty liability on the total value of all affected models, retroactive to April 3, 2025, and continuing until CBP verifies corrected values.
4.
Importers must maintain thorough documentation of U.S. content and be prepared for CBP audits and potential enforcement actions.
5.
Additional automobile parts may be added to the tariff schedule based on industry petitions and agency determinations.
Key Takeaways: Automobile Parts
1.
A 25% duty will apply to covered automobile parts—engines, transmissions, and electrical components—no later than May 3, 2025.
2.
USMCA-qualifying parts are temporarily exempt until Commerce and CBP establish a U.S. content-based valuation system.
3.
Additional automobile parts may be included under the tariff regime upon petition by domestic producers or industry groups.
4.
Importers should prepare for heightened CBP scrutiny on valuation and content origin, especially for complex supply chains involving USMCA-qualifying parts.
Stephanie Vélez contributed to this article
Pedestrian Fatalities Up Almost Half from a Decade Ago
During the first half of 2024, drivers killed 3,304 pedestrians in the United States, a 2.6% decrease from the same period in 2023, according to a new study from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). However, this decline does not overshadow the alarming trend of rising pedestrian fatalities over the past decade, which have increased by 48% since 2014, translating to 1,072 more deaths.
Pedestrian Fatality Trends
Each year, the GHSA releases the first comprehensive look at pedestrian traffic death trends for the first six months of the year, using preliminary data from State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs). The analysis indicates that while pedestrian fatalities decreased slightly from last year, they remain 12% higher than in 2019, emphasizing a concerning trajectory for road safety.
The slight decrease in pedestrian fatalities in early 2024 aligns with a broader trend in overall traffic deaths. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), total roadway fatalities dropped 3.2% during the first half of 2023. Nevertheless, the overall numbers remain significantly higher than those recorded five and ten years ago. In the first half of 2024, there were 18,720 roadway deaths, showing a 10% increase from 17,025 in the same period of 2019 and a 25% rise from 15,035 in 2014.
At the state level, the GHSA report reveals mixed results: pedestrian fatalities decreased in 22 states, while 23 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) saw increases. Five states reported no change in their numbers. Notably, seven states experienced consecutive decreases in pedestrian fatalities, whereas four states faced two significant increases.
Why Are Roads So Dangerous for Pedestrians?
There is a combination of factors contributing to this rising danger for pedestrians. A decline in traffic enforcement since 2020 has allowed dangerous driving behaviors—such as speeding, distracted driving, and driving under the influence—to grow rapidly. Additionally, many roadways are designed primarily for fast-moving vehicles, often neglecting the needs of pedestrians. Many communities lack infrastructure – such as missing sidewalks and poorly lit crosswalks – that also help protect pedestrians. Furthermore, the growing presence of larger, heavier vehicles on roads increases the risk of severe injuries or fatalities in pedestrian accidents.
What Can Be Done?
To tackle this pedestrian safety crisis, the GHSA advocates for an approach that establishes a strong safety net that can protect everyone on the road. A crucial part of this strategy is traffic enforcement focused on dangerous driving behaviors – like speeding, and impaired or distracted driving – that disproportionately endanger pedestrians.
In summary, while there are signs of progress in addressing pedestrian safety, the statistics reveal a pressing need for ongoing efforts to protect those who walk on our roads. By strengthening enforcement, improving infrastructure, and promoting safe practices among both drivers and pedestrians, we can work toward reversing this tragic trend and ensuring safer streets for everyone.
The Chapter 93A Hurdle: Mass. Court Rejects ‘Artificial Price Inflation’ Claims in Energy Marketing Lawsuit
In Ortiz v. Eversource Energy, a putative class action, plaintiffs brought suit against Eversource Energy alleging that Eversource knowingly marketed natural gas and related services as clean and safe for residential consumers and the environment despite knowing this was not true. Allegedly, Eversource knowingly issued communications that were purposefully misleading and inconsistent with scientific studies. Plaintiffs further allege that had they known the truth about the health and environmental risks associated with the natural gas, they would not have purchased the gas.
Plaintiffs sought (1) a declaration that defendant’s promotional and advertising of its natural gas contained unlawfully false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements; (2) an order enjoining defendant from promoting and marketing its natural gas using such unlawfully false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements; and (3) an order that defendant be required to make reasonable and regular corrective disclosures to plaintiffs and the putative class members that accurately describe the potential health and safety risks. Plaintiffs also sought monetary damages under Chapter 93A.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Paying for a product whose price was artificially inflated by deceptive advertising is a recognized economic injury cognizable under Chapter 93A; however, a plaintiff may not base the claim on speculative harm or risk of economic damages. Here, plaintiff did not allege that the natural gas they purchased from Eversource was functionally deficient or that they suffered any adverse health effects from the natural gas they purchased. To the contrary, plaintiffs claimed they were harmed when they had been misled regarding the environmental and health risks of the gas. In other words, plaintiffs paid too much for the gas they received. However, the Massachusetts Superior Court noted that pursuant to the current regulatory regime in Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has the exclusive power to regulate operations, service, and rates. Thus, as the rates Eversource charged were not entirely within its control, the connection between the purported false statements and the costs plaintiff incurred was too attenuated to serve as a cognizable injury. Plaintiff was unable to establish that they would have paid a lower price for natural gas had it been honestly advertised.
High Court Upholds Use of Omnibus Claims in Mass Motor Finance Litigation
A recent High Court decision in claims brought by thousands of claimants against motor finance providers has reaffirmed the validity of using omnibus claim forms in large-scale consumer litigation. The ruling has implications both for the many motor-finance mis-selling claims pending before the courts and also for mass claims in a variety of other contexts.
Background
The case involved eight omnibus claim forms issued on behalf of over 5,800 claimants against eight defendants. While the claims were at an early stage procedurally, the core allegations were that the defendants had paid undisclosed, variable commissions to motor finance brokers (car dealers), creating conflicts of interest which the claimants argued rendered the ensuing credit agreements unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).
Shortly after the claims were issued, and before filing any defence, the defendants objected to the use of omnibus claim forms and invited the court to sever the claims, such that the claimants’ solicitors would need to issue a separate claim form (and pay a court fee) for each claim.
Initially, a County Court judge ruled that the claims should be severed into individual cases, following Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] 1 WLR 4002. This would have required a separate claim form to be issued (and court fee paid) for each case. The claimants appealed, arguing that the claims could and should more appropriately be commenced under omnibus claim forms, as contemplated by CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1.
Key Legal Considerations
CPR 7.3 allows a single claim form to be used for multiple claims if they can be “conveniently disposed of” in the same proceedings. CPR 19.1 provides that any number of claimants may be joined as parties to a claim.
In Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376 the Court of Appeal clarified that no gloss should be put on the words of CPR 7.3 and 19.1, which should be given their ordinary meaning. The exclusionary “real progress,” “real significance,” and “must bind” tests proposed in Abbott were factors to consider but should not be viewed as exclusionary tests – the omnibus claim form jurisdiction was not as restrictive as the Group Litigation Order regime in CPR 19.21-28, and should not be treated as “GLO-light”. Abbott was overruled.
Factors Supporting Omnibus Claims
The High Court carried out a detailed analysis of the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether the claims could conveniently be disposed of together per CPR 7.3. Key points cited in favour of allowing omnibus claims to proceed included:
The large number of claimants and small number of defendants.
The claims arose from the same or similar transactions, with broadly common allegations and the same legal causes of action, raising a number of common legal and factual issues.
The likelihood that case managing the cases together by way of lead or test cases would likely facilitate the disposal of many or all of the following cases. Whereas if separate claims were issued it would be random chance which claims were heard first and whether they were appropriate test cases.
Managing the claims together would be more efficient and just, in line with the CPR 1.1 overriding objective. Costs would likely be saved overall, and court time would likely be reduced. The imbalance of financial power between individual claimants and defendants would be mitigated. There were advantages to omnibus claims management in terms of the timing and usefulness of disclosure, and the availability of expert evidence.
Practical Implications
For Defendants facing mass claims this ruling will be a concerning precedent for the use of omnibus claim forms by claimants as a strategy, with obvious advantages for claimant law firms in terms of cost, use of case management applications to gain early disclosure, and selection of common issues and test cases.
For Claimants and their advisers the decision will encourage the use of omnibus claims over the impracticality of litigating individual cases, and the relative restrictiveness of the GLO regime.
For the Courts omnibus claim forms could see large volumes of individual claims taken out of the County Courts and case managed collectively and in a less haphazard fashion than has so far been the case, with potential for many following cases to be settled out of court once lead claims have been determined. This may help with significant delays and backlogs often experienced in the County Courts.
Wider Significance
The significance of this decision in the context of motor finance claims may to some extent be rendered moot by the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal in Johnson v FirstRand and the FCA’s decision on a whether and to what extent to impose a consumer redress scheme. But in reaffirming the broad scope and flexibility of CPR 7.3 and 19.1, the ruling may pave the way for more mass claims in financial services and other contexts.