(United States Fifth Circuit) - In the bankruptcy proceeding of an investment business that had committed securities fraud, revived some of the bankruptcy trustee's claims against individuals and entities that referred potential investors in exchange for sales commissions. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that a hospital did not fail to pay funds owed Medicate for the treatment of the plaintiff's mother, despite being a bit late in their payment, meaning that the plaintiff was not entitled to double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated the denial of an exemption from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel standard program. A small refinery sought an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuel standard program, which requires refineries and other facilities to allocate a certain percentage of their fuel production to renewable fuels. When the EPA denied the request for an extension, the refinery petitioned the Fourth Circuit, which concluded that the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the EPA's denial and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed an order enjoining the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a Medicaid reimbursement policy that was set forth in a Frequently Asked Questions document. The plaintiff, a hospital, contended that the reimbursement policy was not validly promulgated because there was no formal rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Agreeing, the Fourth Circuit held that the FAQ document was insufficient and that notice-and-comment rulemaking was necessary.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated federal agency decisions approving construction of a natural gas pipeline through a national forest. Several environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management's and U.S. Forest Service's rulings allowing the pipeline to be built. On a petition for review, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the environmental groups that the federal agencies failed to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded to the agencies for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that the United States should be substituted as a party defendant in a lawsuit in which two defendants were tobacco industry businesspeople who had agreed to perform undercover work for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The question before the Fourth Circuit was whether the United States should be substituted as a party defendant. The panel held that the answer was yes, and thus reversed the district court's ruling on the matter.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed a district court denial of the City's and grant of the company's motions for summary judgment in a case involving a ban on advertisements in Uber and Lyft vehicles because the limited taxicab exception allows the ban on advertisements to survive First Amendment scrutiny.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A complaint alleging claims for forced labor and human trafficking in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was improperly dismissed because the plaintiff plausibly stated claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs appealed a dismissal of their claims that Facebook unlawfully assisted Hamas in terrorist attacks in Israel. The court affirmed the claims were barred by a federal law that prohibits treating one provider of an interactive computer service as the publisher of information provided by another.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Financial institutions that hold junior notes issued by the defendant, as trustee, appeal the grant of summary judgement. The district court erred in holding that ICA § 47(b) does not give rise to a private right of action. However, the district court ordered distribution of the assets of the trust according to the terms of the trust’s governing indenture, so summary judgment affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Collective bargaining agreement contains unambiguous language vesting welfare benefits and there is a sufficiently serious question as to whether retirees were entitled to lifetime medical coverage. District court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of union retirees is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Finding the promise to arbitrate in the franchise application was supported by adequate consideration, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of DAI’s motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of an antitrust claim alleging anti-competitive activities engaged in by a labor union and a multi-employer collective bargaining association, holding that nonstatutory exemption, the Noerrr-Pennington doctrine, and Sherman Act immunized defendants' activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanding a case in which a Miami retirement trust obtained the stock of a company and later complained of false statements that the district court found to be puffery, forward looking, appropriately cautioned, without knowledge of their falsity, or protected by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act but the panel found that many of these exceptions did not apply in the given situation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating the district court's determination that a carpenters union was entitled to summary judgment as to Sherman Act Antitrust charges, but affirmed summary judgment for them as to unfair labor practices charges in a case where the union used subcontracting to include ironworking in their activities because the union did not qualify for the non-statutory exemption to antitrust liability, but qualified for the construction industry proviso.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that, for customs classification purposes, acrylamido tertiary butyl sulfonic acid is not an amide, but is an amide derivative as defined by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a district court dismissal of a case brought by numerous taxi associations seeking to prevent Uber from taking their business because Uber's conduct didn't arise to an antitrust violation, attempted monopoly, or other unfair business activity, even if it is killing the old taxicab businesses.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to a group of table saw manufacturers sued under antitrust laws because the acts upon which the complaint was based occurred prior to 2002, the claims expired in 2006, and the suit was not filed until 2014, refusing to apply the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment because the plaintiff was found to have had notice, at latest, by 2003.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal of antitrust and state law claims of golf caddies who participated in the PGA Tour, who were required to wear bibs containing advertisements. The court reasoned that the caddies consented to wearing the bibs when they filled out the participation form and that they had not alleged plausible product markets to support antitrust claims. The court, however, vacated the decision to deny leave to amend caddies’ complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a case involving states' power to regulate liquor sales, held that the plaintiffs stated a claim that Illinois unlawfully refused to license out-of-state retailers to ship liquor to consumers in the state, in violation of the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a healthcare antitrust case, affirmed a protective order that said certain confidential business documents belonging to a non-party health insurer should be unsealed (but redacted) if and when they are filed on the public docket. The non-party sought stronger confidentiality protections.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a RICO lawsuit brought by importers of garlic who alleged that rival importers had conspired to harm their businesses. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute between two companies in the agriculture-related biotechnology field, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after a jury trial. The case involved antitrust claims, patent infringement claims and an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, in a lawsuit accusing certain organizations and individuals of attempting to restrain trade and monopolize a city's medical marijuana market.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the federal government could not block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. The government had sued to enjoin the vertical merger on the basis that it would have anticompetitive effects. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the government's evidence was insufficient, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of medical syringes that falsely advertised its products did not have to disgorge its profits. That remedy would not be equitable under the circumstances here. Affirmed a post-trial ruling, in this lawsuit brought by a competing syringe manufacturer that also involved antitrust claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a company offering bar exam review courses did not plausibly plead that a competitor conspired with certain law schools to enable it to obtain a monopoly. Affirmed the dismissal of this antitrust lawsuit.

(United States Second Circuit) - Plaintiff brought suit against three dental supply distributors alleging that they conspired to violate antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's antitrust claims for lack of standing and tort claims for failure to state a claim. Second circuit affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, but vacated the judgment for the tort claims. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment which had denied an employee's Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation claims. A field sales representative for a company in the medical field alleged she was denied a promotion based on her sex and that she was fired in retaliation for asserting her Title VII rights. However, the First Circuit concluded that she failed to present sufficient evidence of unlawful conduct to create a genuine factual dispute.

(United States First Circuit) - Reinstated an employee's claims that she was harassed based on her age and retaliated against in violation of both federal and Puerto Rico law, claims which had been dismissed on summary judgment. The employee argued that there were genuine disputes of material fact. In reversing summary judgment, the First Circuit agreed with the employee's argument that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to certain claims.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an employee's claim brought under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. An employee of an investment brokerage firm claimed that she suffered retaliation after she reported to her supervisors and a company hotline that she suspected certain coworkers to be in violation of federal securities law. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that her whistleblower claim failed because she did not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the claim.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a homeowners' action to void a mortgage and enjoin their property's foreclosure sale. The lenders argued that the homeowners had waited too long to assert their claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, RICO and other statutes, because they entered into the mortgage in 2005 and defaulted on it in 2009. The First Circuit agreed that their claims were time-barred, rejecting the homeowners' fraudulent concealment argument and other attempts to escape the time bars.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a consumer complaint alleging that manufacturers of prescription eye drops deliberately designed their bottles to emit unnecessarily large drops in a ploy to force patients to waste the expensive medication and thus buy more of it. Moving to dismiss on preemption grounds, the manufacturers contended that the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any modification of the medication's bottle. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that FDA regulations preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims seeking to force a change in the bottle design.

(United States First Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a health insurance company improperly denied coverage for in-patient mental health services. After several unsuccessful administrative appeals, the insured sued the insurance company under ERISA, claiming that all of her time spent at a mental health residential treatment facility was medically necessary and thus should have been covered under an employer-provided healthcare plan. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated an order granting summary judgment for the insurance company, holding that the district court should have allowed the insured to supplement the administrative record.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a German company in a trademark infringement action did not violate due process. The German company, which operated an English-language website, argued that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the United States. Disagreeing, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was constitutional.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a retail chain's motion to compel arbitration of a proposed class action brought by blind customers. The retailer moved to compel arbitration of the discrimination lawsuit, citing an arbitration provision in the terms and conditions of a loyalty program of which the individual plaintiffs were members. However, the district court concluded that the arbitration provision was not enforceable here, and the First Circuit found no error in that ruling.

Twentysomething men in L.A. teach seduction through an app.