PayPal has agreed to waive roughly $30 million in fees to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into a 2020 program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. According to the government, the program unlawfully favored certain businesses on the basis of race, making the settlement a notable marker in the ongoing legal scrutiny of corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The matter is significant because it shows how civil-rights enforcement is being applied outside the traditional employment setting.

A newly filed putative class action in the Northern District of California takes aim at supplement maker Pharmavite LLC, placing the company’s marketing and labeling practices under the microscope. In Spencer et al v. Pharmavite LLC, filed May 29, 2026, the named plaintiffs appear to be pursuing claims on behalf of consumers who purchased Pharmavite products allegedly marketed in a misleading manner.

While the complaint will provide the precise contours of the proposed class, cases like this typically define the class as purchasers of the challenged products during a specified limitations period, often on a statewide or nationwide basis depending on the claims asserted.

A Massachusetts federal judge has allowed a multistate challenge against the federal government to continue, concluding at this early stage that the plaintiff states had already shown harm from the challenged federal actions. That ruling is important not because it resolves the merits, but because it clears one of the biggest threshold obstacles in public-law litigation: whether the states can establish a sufficiently concrete injury to stay in court.

According to the reporting, the U.S. Department of Justice will continue litigating the case in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts after the judge determined the states had made the necessary showing of harm.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s June 2, 2026 public order in IPR2026-00252 is brief but still worth attention for PTAB practitioners: the Director denied discretionary review, leaving the underlying Board action in place. In practical terms, the decision reinforces how difficult it remains to obtain Director intervention absent a clear policy issue, legal error, or case-specific circumstance warranting extraordinary review.

Because this filing is a “Director Discretionary Decision: Deny,” the key takeaway is procedural rather than merits-driven.

The Eleventh Circuit’s May 28, 2026 opinion in No. 24-11688 is now available, but practitioners should note an immediate practical issue: the publicly available case details provided here do not include the substance of the court’s ruling, the claims at issue, or the panel’s reasoning.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in fraud cases, preserving a remedy that has long been central to the agency’s enforcement playbook. For securities litigators and compliance professionals, the ruling matters not just as a doctrinal win for the SEC, but as a practical confirmation that one of the agency’s strongest settlement and deterrence tools remains available.

Disgorgement allows the SEC to force defendants to give up profits allegedly obtained through unlawful conduct.

In a short but noteworthy unanimous decision issued on May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in No. 24-935, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the Court. Although the Court’s disposition is formally simple—“AFFIRMED”—the opinion matters because unanimous Supreme Court affirmances often clarify how lower courts and litigants should understand the boundaries of appellate review, statutory interpretation, or the proper framework for resolving recurring procedural disputes.

Based on the Court’s action, the key takeaway for practitioners is straightforward: the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower court’s reasoning or result, and the opinion now carries precedential weight because it was issued as a signed opinion of the Court rather than as an unexplained summary disposition.

Antitrust enforcement remained one of the most important U.S. legal developments in the last 24 to 72 hours, with fresh activity in the government’s ongoing campaign against major technology platforms. Recent filings and hearing activity in several headline matters show enforcers moving beyond liability theories and deeper into the remedies phase—where structural relief, business-practice restrictions, and long-term compliance obligations become concrete risks rather than abstract possibilities.

That shift matters.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of California has blocked Nexstar Media Group’s proposed acquisition of Tegna while antitrust litigation proceeds, handing opponents of the deal an important early win and underscoring how merger challenges can survive even after federal regulators decline to stop a transaction.

Judge Troy Nunley found that the challengers were likely to succeed, a significant conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage.

The SEC is pushing back after a federal judge raised concerns about its proposed settlement with Elon Musk, with the agency arguing the deal is lawful, appropriate, and consistent with its enforcement discretion. The dispute puts a spotlight on a recurring question in securities enforcement: how much scrutiny should courts apply when regulators negotiate resolutions with high-profile defendants?

At issue is the SEC’s effort to defend a settlement arrangement after the judge reportedly cited “red flags” in reviewing the proposal.

The Justice Department’s latest announcement around health care fraud enforcement is one of the more consequential legal developments for companies operating in regulated industries this week. According to the reporting referenced, federal authorities have highlighted a major enforcement push targeting fraud schemes tied to health care billing and reimbursement, underscoring that prosecutors continue to view the sector as a core enforcement priority.

For legal professionals, the story is not simply about another round of criminal charges.

Vivint LLC has filed a new petition for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2026-00375, opened on June 1, 2026.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has invalidated a closely watched settlement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation that sought to define how criminal cases involving Native Americans would be handled within reservation boundaries. In State of Oklahoma ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa, the court concluded the agreement was not enforceable under Oklahoma law because it lacked approval from the governor and the legislature.

The ruling is significant because the settlement had attempted to create a practical framework for Tulsa’s continued exercise of criminal jurisdiction in an area where tribal, municipal, and state authority have been heavily contested since McGirt reshaped the legal map in eastern Oklahoma.

Seagate Technology has agreed to pay $175 million to resolve shareholder claims alleging the company misled investors about hard-drive sales to Huawei and its exposure under U.S. export-control laws. The proposed settlement, filed in federal court in San Francisco, ranks among the more significant recent securities resolutions tied to sanctions and export-control compliance issues.

The shareholder case centered on allegations that Seagate, along with CEO Dave Mosley and CFO Gianluca Romano, concealed or downplayed legal and regulatory risks arising from continued sales to Huawei after U.S. restrictions tightened.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution in IPR2026-00189, finding that the petitioner made the required threshold showing that at least one challenged claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable. At the institution stage, that is the key question under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): not whether the patent is ultimately invalid, but whether the petition presents a sufficiently strong merits case to justify full trial before the Board.

Although an institution decision is preliminary, it is often the first meaningful read on how the PTAB views the parties’ invalidity theories, prior art combinations, and claim construction disputes.