The European Commission (the Commission) has announced it's decision that Motorola Mobility's (Motorola) injunction application against Apple based on a smartphone standard essential patent (SEP) constituted an abuse of dominant position. The Commission found that since Motorola had committed to license its SEP on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms, and where Apple had agreed to take a licence and be bound by FRAND terms, it was abusive for Motorola to both seek and enforce an injunction against Apple in such circumstances.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has made available the following infringement notices (both dated 3 March 2014) issued under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 No. 51 (Cth) against financial services company Wealth Within for misleading online advertisements:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has announced that the Federal Court of Australia has handed down its decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Startel Communication Co Pty Ltd  FCA 352 (8 April 2014), fining Startel Communication (Startel) a total of A$320,000 for "misleading consumers about their rights under [Schedule 2 (The Australian Consumer Law) (the ACL) to the Competition and Consumer Act (2010) 1974 No. 51 (Cth)] when cold calling consumers to sell mobile phone plans".
Bank of America (BofA) has announced that it has reached an agreement with the following United States (US) regulators to "resolve issues related to the marketing and sale of credit card debt cancellation products and billing of identity theft protection products, including those marketed and billed by its vendors":
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has released A guide for business - Country of origin claims and the Australian Consumer Law (April 2014). The guide provides information to assist businesses in complying with Schedule 2 (The Australian Consumer Law) (the ACL) to the Competition and Consumer Act (2010) 1974 No. 51 (Cth) when making country of origin claims, including when businesses can make "made in", "product of" or "grown in" Australia claims, and how they can rely on the safe harbour provisions of the ACL.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has made available the judgment ACMA v TPG Internet Pty Ltd  FCA 382 (16 April 2014) in which, according to the ACMA, the Federal Court of Australia has fined telecommunications service provider TPG Internet (TPG) A$400,000 for breaching the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2009.
Anthony J. McFarland, Partner - Bass, Berry & Sims PLC
Brian R. Iverson, Associate - Bass, Berry & Sims PLC
Third-party risk and relationship management has become a point of concern and focus for many financial service providers. This is due, in part, to an increased focus by regulators. Both the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) have released guidance on the subject, even asserting authority to regulate the third-party providers themselves. We have also seen recent enforcement action taken by both of these regulators relating to proper third-party risk management.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has made available Undertaking by Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) (3 April 2014), which it accepted on 7 April 2014. According to the ACCC, the undertaking follows an ACCC investigation into a Coles promotional video which dairy farmer organisations had complained about "during a time of intense public debate about the impact of [Coles's A$1 milk product] on Australian dairy farmers who supplied the product".
The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that it has approved Decision and Order (3 April 2014), which "settl[es] charges that [NEW Plastics Corp (NEW)] ... misled consumers and distributors about the recycled content, post-consumer recycled content, and recyclability of its products".
The United States (US) District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has ordered Japan-based Takeda Pharmaceutical Co (Takeda) and US-based Takeda partner Eli Lilly & Co (Lilly) to pay US$6 billion and US$3 billion in punitive damages, respectively, after a jury found that the companies sought to cover up cancer risks associated with their diabetes medicine "Actos".
- Anti-Bribery & Anti-Corruption (138)
- Anti-Money Laundering (135)
- Business Ethics and Corporate Culture (180)
- Careful Communication and Proper Use of Computers (16)
- Code of Conduct (6)
- Competition (230)
- Confidentiality and Intellectual Property (35)
- Conflicts of Interest (21)
- Consumer Protection (413)
- Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (214)
- Employment and Workplace Issues (387)
- Environment, Health & Safety (193)
- Financial Integrity (236)
- Government Contracting (30)
- Information Security (49)
- Insider Trading (96)
- Other (4)
- Privacy and Data Protection (222)
- Records Management (19)
- Respect in the Workplace (6)