2025 Federal and Regulatory Legal Actions

• Nearly 1,800 workers freed from restrictions limiting job mobility

• Gateway Services barred from enforcing or creating new noncompetes

• Case signals Trump-Vance FTC’s focus on anticompetitive labor practices

The Federal Trade Commission has ordered Gateway Services, Inc., the country’s largest pet cremation company, and its subsidiary to stop enforcing noncompete agreements that bound nearly all of its employees, a move aimed at protecting worker mobility and wages.

In a complaint, the FTC alleged that Gateway’s noncompete clauses prohibited employees from working anywhere in the U.S. pet cremation industry for one year after leaving the company. The agreements, in place since 2019, applied to workers across the company’s operations, from executives to hourly laborers at its more than 100 facilities serving 17,000 veterinary clinics nationwide.

Under a proposed consent order, Gateway must immediately end enforcement of the agreements, notify workers that they are no longer bound by them, and refrain from imposing similar restrictions in the future, except in limited circumstances. The FTC said the action will free nearly 1,800 employees.

“The Commission will stand up for workers and ensure that they receive all the benefits that flow from robust competition between employers,” said Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. He added that antitrust laws protect workers from being locked into jobs by unfair restrictions that block access to better pay or business opportunities.

Unfair labor practices

FTC officials said the action reflects the Trump-Vance administration’s emphasis on targeting unfair labor practices through its Joint Labor Task Force. “The Trump-Vance FTC will never stop fighting for American workers,” said Kelse Moen, deputy director of the Bureau of Competition.

The complaint said Gateway’s noncompete agreements unfairly tilted bargaining power toward the company and hindered competition by discouraging the growth of rival businesses. The proposed order also restricts Gateway from banning former employees from soliciting customers, except those they directly served in their final year with the company.

In brief:

• New Hampshire federal court halts Trump executive order targeting birthright citizenship

• Nationwide class certified to protect all children born on U.S. soil

• Civil rights groups hail ruling as crucial defense of the 14th Amendment

A federal court in New Hampshire Friday blocked President Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, delivering a significant victory to civil rights groups who argued the policy violates the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling, issued from the bench, also certified a nationwide class protecting the citizenship rights of all children born in the United States. Trump administration attorneys called the action an attempted "end run" around the Supreme Court, although Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the action a few weeks ago. 

The case, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump, emerged amid legal battles following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, which opened the door for potential partial enforcement of the executive order.

The lawsuit, filed on June 27, was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and several allied organizations. The groups represent a proposed class of babies who would have been subject to the executive order’s restrictions.

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, who argued the case in court.

Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, praised the decision as “once again affirming that President Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.” Chaffee underscored that the Constitution ensures no politician can decide who is worthy of citizenship among those born in the country.

Seven-day delay granted

The ruling includes a seven-day delay to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. However, even if an appeal is pursued, the injunction is set to go into effect well before July 27 — the date on which partial implementation of the executive order might otherwise have begun.

Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, called the decision “a powerful affirmation of the 14th Amendment and the enduring principle that citizenship in the United States is a right by birth, not a privilege granted by politics.”

Civil rights advocates hailed the ruling as a critical safeguard against what they describe as an unprecedented attack on constitutional principles. “Parents have lived in fear and uncertainty,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “This court’s injunction protecting birthright citizenship for all affected children is a major victory for families across this country.”

A growing judicial consensus

The decision underscores a growing judicial consensus rejecting attempts to narrow the Constitution’s promise of birthright citizenship, with Molly Curren Rowles of the ACLU of Maine emphasizing that the United States has “always been a nation of immigrants.”

Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, concluded that birthright citizenship “makes our country strong and vibrant,” describing the executive order as “simply un-American.”

Class actions ride again

Class actions have come to be associated with consumer issues — defective products, stock manipulation, etc. — but they were initially designed as a way for citizens to collectively contest government actions.

The Supreme Court itself explicitly opened the way to class actions against the federal government when Justice Coney Barrett suggested that litigants in Trump vs. CASA could use the class action as a way around the Trump administration's blocking of nationwide injunctions.  

It’s among several exceptions or workarounds that Trump adversaries are poised to seize on after the justices sharply limited judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

• FTC targets deceptive "Made in USA" claims with warning letters to four companies.

• Amazon and Walmart notified over suspect product listings by third-party sellers.

• Agency reaffirms strict compliance with "Made in USA" labeling standards.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken steps to encourage U.S. manufacturing, even placing tariffs on products made elsewhere. The Federal Trade Commission sent out a wave of warning letters this week to companies it says are stretching the truth in that regard.

The agency cautioned four manufacturers and sent notices to retail giants Amazon and Walmart regarding potentially deceptive labeling practices by third-party sellers on their platforms.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson underscored the significance of accurate labeling in a statement accompanying the announcement.

“’Made in the USA’ is not just a slogan – it’s a sign that a product connects us to the workers and businesses that make America great,” Ferguson said. “Consumers want to have confidence that when they buy something labelled ‘Made in the USA’ they are actually supporting American workers and the American economy. Companies that falsely claim their products are ‘Made in the USA’ can expect to hear from the FTC.”

Companies named in the warning

The warning letters target four businesses whose products are allegedly mislabeled or insufficiently substantiated as U.S.-made:

• Americana Liberty, a flagpole retailer

• Oak Street Manufacturing, LLC, a footwear manufacturer

• Pro Sports Group LLC, a football equipment company

• USA Big Mountain Paper Inc., a personal care product maker

The companies were reminded that under the FTC Act and the Made in USA Labeling Rule, any product marketed as “Made in USA” must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. The FTC instructed them to either halt such marketing or provide clear substantiation.

Failure to comply can result in legal consequences, including subpoenas, federal lawsuits, injunctive actions, and civil penalties.

Amazon and Walmart are also under scrutiny

In addition to targeting individual manufacturers, the FTC sent letters to Amazon and Walmart, emphasizing that their platforms host third-party sellers making questionable “Made in USA” assertions. The agency warned that such representations may violate both the FTC Act and the platforms’ own seller policies.

The letters serve not only as a warning but also as a guide, reminding online marketplaces of 

The FTC said the regulatory action is part of the FTC’s broader July campaign to reinforce the importance of accurate origin labeling. The agency said it is promoting consumer trust in American-made products while ensuring companies adhere to federal standards.

The U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly launched a civil fraud investigation into insurance giant UnitedHealth concerning its practices involving Medicare Advantage plans.

According to the Wall Street Journal, which cites “people familiar with the matter,” the probe is examining UnitedHealth’s practices for recording a patient’s diagnosis that results in an extra payment by Medicare. Those payments allegedly went to the company’s Medicare Advantage plans.

Under Medicare Advantage, health insurance companies receive payments from the U.S. government to monitor and manage recipients’ benefits. If a patient has a certain diagnosis, the payments increase. 

The Journal has been investigating the matter for several months and has interviewed a number of healthcare providers. The newspaper’s reporting claimed that Medicare paid UnitedHealth billions of dollars for “questionable diagnoses.”

The Journal’s previous reporting cited doctors who claimed UnitedHealth trained them to make “revenue-producing diagnoses,” some that were described as “obscure or irrelevant.”

According to the Journal, neither UnitedHealth nor any government agency has offered a comment on the report.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been issuing a spate of new regulations in advance of the inauguration of President-elect Trump. Now the American Bankers Association (ABA) has responded, with a letter urging Trump to pause all new regulations affecting banks and extend the deadlines for regulations that have already been finalized.

In the letter, they argue that this pause is needed to give the new administration's teams time to review and understand years of rules, guidance, and policies that they say have limited the ability of banks to respond to market changes.

“A new, commonsense approach to financial regulation is urgently needed, and that process can begin quickly by announcing an immediate regulatory pause and review,” the bankers said.

They also recommend that the Treasury Department conduct a comprehensive review of regulations under the Biden Administration, focusing on their impact on access to credit and capital markets.

CFPB actions have included:

• tougher scrutiny of overdraft and NSF fees;
• a medical debt rule that prohibits including medical debt in credit ratings;
• suing banks for fraud on Zelle;
• cracking down on student loan refinancing, servicing and debt collection; and
• closed a loophole that exempted overdraft loans from lending laws.

The banking associations argue that recent regulatory actions have hurt the ability of banks to provide credit and capital.

They contended that for the past several years, “the federal banking agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the capital markets regulators have pursued an aggressive and misguided regulatory agenda, upending longstanding, tested banking practices with questionable and unnecessary policy actions that undermine our members’ ability to provide capital and credit to Main Street.”