Consumer rights are on the line as the Supreme Court decides to take up mandatory binding arbitration clauses once again. Last time, in 2011’s AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision, the Supreme Court held that corporations can effectively ban class actions—both[...]
Hall of Shame: PayPal’s New User Agreement
Changes have come to PayPal’s user agreement, and of course, the changes are not for the benefit PayPal’s customers. The company recently added a section to its user agreement which takes away a user’s right to sue in court. PayPal[...]
In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Opinion: Getting It Right
Recently, Judge Seibel of the Southern District of New York denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.[1] The case involves the drug DDAVP, an antidiuretic containing desmopressin acetate. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Ferring[...]
Medical Devices in the Market: Are they Safe, or Just Similarly Dangerous?
Efficiency and speed is valued when bringing new medical devices to the market, but what remains relatively unknown are the risks inherent in the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process. The 510(k) process, outlined in the Federal[...]
The Seventh Circuit’s First Year of Living with Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Last summer, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), some commentators said that the case foreshadowed the end of large employment class actions. Those predictions are proving incorrect, at least[...]
Dodd-Frank Two Years Later, Part I
I spoke recently at the annual conference of the National Association of State Treasurers (“NAST”). The panel I was on was directed to Dodd-Frank and the impact of its financial reforms two years after the Act became law. I’m going[...]

