The Federal Trade Commission has sued Humboldt Merchant Services, alleging the payment processor knowingly enabled scam operators and shell merchants to access the payments system for unauthorized billing and deceptive consumer charges. The agency’s theory is notable: rather than focusing only on the merchants that allegedly carried out the scams, the FTC is aiming at the infrastructure provider it says made those schemes possible.

According to the FTC, Humboldt processed payments for entities tied to sham businesses and billing operations that allegedly lacked legitimate merchant activity.

The Federal Trade Commission said it and five states have notified the court that they intend to file a stipulated order to resolve antitrust litigation against Zillow and Redfin, marking a potentially important development in platform-market enforcement.

The Federal Trade Commission has rescinded a Biden-era policy statement that had expanded expectations around breach notifications for certain health apps and connected-device providers. The move is part of a broader agency push toward regulatory streamlining, but it also sends a clear signal to the digital-health market: the FTC may be narrowing how aggressively it interprets and enforces health-data breach obligations outside traditional healthcare settings.

At issue is the FTC’s approach to the Health Breach Notification Rule, which applies to certain vendors of personal health records and related entities not covered by HIPAA.

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut have announced a $4 million settlement with Manchester City Nissan over alleged deceptive-fee practices, marking another notable enforcement action aimed at dealer pricing transparency. The matter is particularly significant because it underscores continued coordination between federal and state regulators in policing so-called “junk fees” and other allegedly misleading charges in consumer transactions.

According to the FTC, the case focused on allegations that the dealership used deceptive fees in connection with vehicle sales.

The Federal Trade Commission has said it will file a stipulated order to resolve its litigation against Zillow and Redfin, signaling that a closely watched enforcement matter involving two of the best-known online real-estate platforms is nearing a negotiated finish rather than continuing through active court litigation.

Although the FTC’s announcement does not spell out the full terms, the move is notable on its own.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a $400 million settlement with TikTok and ByteDance resolving children’s privacy litigation under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. According to the government, the deal resolves a 2024 lawsuit alleging unlawful data practices involving minors and ranks among the largest recoveries ever obtained in a COPPA matter.

For companies operating consumer-facing digital platforms, the size of the settlement is the headline—but the broader takeaway is the government’s continued willingness to pursue major privacy penalties where minors are involved.

The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in behind a proposal before the Ohio Supreme Court that would reduce the American Bar Association’s central role in determining which law schools qualify graduates for bar admission. While the change is specific to Ohio’s attorney-licensing framework, the implications are much broader: it touches the long-running debate over whether a single private organization should wield outsized influence over entry into the legal profession.

For decades, ABA accreditation has functioned as the default gatekeeper for many state bar systems.

The FTC has secured what it says is the largest civil penalty ever obtained for a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing failure: a combined $12 million settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech over the acquisition of JC Medical. According to the agency, the companies structured the transaction to avoid premerger notification and waiting-period requirements under the HSR Act, prompting an enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf.

That headline number matters.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced what it calls a major antitrust settlement with Caremark, resolving a closely watched case against one of the country’s largest pharmacy benefit managers. Even without the full settlement details in hand, the development is important: it signals that the FTC is continuing to press competition theories aimed at the role PBMs play in drug pricing, formulary design, and pharmacy reimbursement.

For antitrust and healthcare lawyers, the significance goes well beyond a single company.

The Federal Trade Commission has inserted itself into a debate with potentially long-term consequences for the legal profession: who gets to decide whether a lawyer’s education is good enough for bar admission. In a recent endorsement of an Ohio Supreme Court proposal, the FTC supported reducing the American Bar Association’s outsized role in determining whether a law school credential qualifies an applicant to sit for the bar.

That is more than an academic governance issue.

The FTC has announced a significant settlement with Caremark Rx LLC and Zinc Health Services LLC in its insulin-pricing antitrust matter, marking one of the clearest signals yet that pharmacy benefit manager rebate structures remain a top enforcement priority. According to the agency, the deal is designed to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs, increase transparency, and curb rebate practices that allegedly contributed to higher insulin list prices.

The proceeding, Caremark Rx, Zinc Health Services, et al., In the Matter of (Insulin), is part of the FTC’s broader challenge to how major drug middlemen negotiate formularies, rebates, and placement decisions for high-demand medications.

The Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling, siding with President Donald Trump in a dispute over the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and sharply expanding presidential removal authority over independent agencies. In doing so, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long been understood to shield FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, is likely to become a cornerstone decision in the Court’s modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling with immediate consequences for federal agencies, regulated businesses, and the lawyers who advise them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a consequential separation-of-powers decision, ruling 6-3 that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will. In doing so, the Court allowed President Donald Trump’s firing of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to stand and overturned the longstanding 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had insulated FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The dispute, now reflected on Docket Alarm as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, marks one of the Court’s most significant recent statements on presidential control over the administrative state.

The Supreme Court’s latest action backing President Trump’s firing of an FTC member is likely to reverberate well beyond the Federal Trade Commission. For lawyers tracking the administrative state, the immediate takeaway is not just about one personnel dispute—it is about the Court’s growing willingness to reconsider how much insulation Congress can give independent agencies from presidential control.

That shift matters because many enforcement and rulemaking frameworks rest on the assumption that certain regulators can operate with a measure of independence from the White House.