Kannon K. Shanmugam

Oct 29, 2024 | lexology.com | Jarryd E. Anderson |Jessica Carey |John Carlin |Roberto González |Brad S. Karp |Kannon K. Shanmugam | +1 more

On October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) published a 594-page Notice of Final Rulemaking for its “Personal Financial Data Rights” rule, commonly known as the “Open Banking” rule, which will require covered entities—generally, providers of checking and prepaid accounts, credit cards, digital wallets, and other payment facilitators—to provide consumers and consumer-authorized third parties with access to consumers’ financial data free of charge.[1]...

Jul 24, 2024 | lexology.com | Robert Atkins |Joseph J. Bial |Rebecca Coccaro |Lina Dagnew |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Reuven Falik | +16 more

Current state of affairsTwo different federal district courts have now issued two different rulings in similar challenges to the same FTC Non-Compete Clause Rule. In the first, Ryan, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-cv-986 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024), the court granted plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and stayed the effective date of the rule pending a ruling on the merits. In the second, ATS Tree Services, LLC v.

May 24, 2024 | lexology.com | H. Christopher Boehning |Walter Brown |Geoffrey R. Chepiga |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Andrew Gordon |Gregory F. Laufer | +2 more

On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218, 601 U.S. __ (May 16, 2024), that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to stay litigation subject to a potential arbitration, rather than dismiss such claims. The decision requires district courts to retain jurisdiction over a matter that is subject to arbitration, which has important implications for which court will ultimately supervise and/or confirm or vacate an arbitration award.

Apr 24, 2024 | lexology.com | Kannon K. Shanmugam |Liza M. Velazquez |Walter Bonné |Isen Kang

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not require employees to suffer a “‘significant’ employment disadvantage” in order to state a viable discrimination claim.[1] Rather, to prevail under Title VII, an employee must demonstrate “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.”[2] This decision resolves a circuit split[3] on the standard for Title VII claims and potentially allows for more workplace...

Apr 24, 2024 | lexology.com | Robert Atkins |Joseph J. Bial |Rebecca Coccaro |Andrew Finch |Jarrett Hoffman |Brad S. Karp | +16 more

The FTC’s final non-compete clause rule would ban all new and nearly all existing employer-worker non-competes. The ban would go into effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. The final rule is only slightly narrower in scope than the initial proposed rule. The final rule does not ban existing non-compete agreements with “senior executives,” and it retains and expands upon an exemption for non-compete agreements related to sale of a business.