Featured Stories
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain mobile electronic devices. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Maxell, Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan, on July 10, 2026. An amended complaint was filed on July 24, 2026. The amended complaint
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain mobile electronic devices. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Maxell, Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan, on July 10, 2026. An amended complaint was filed on July 24, 2026. The amended complaintalleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The amended complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:
* Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
* Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1516), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0812_69071.htm
SEC Files Settled Action as to Texas Resident Charged With Insider Trading
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Benjamin Tesfaye, No. 3:26-cv-02660-K (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 11, 2026)
On August 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled insider trading charges against Benjamin Tesfaye of Irving, Texas, in connection with allegations that he illegally traded Calliditas Therapeutics AB securities in advance of the May 28, 2024 announcement of Asahi Kasei Corp.'s tender offer to acquire Calliditas.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Benjamin Tesfaye, No. 3:26-cv-02660-K (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 11, 2026)
On August 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled insider trading charges against Benjamin Tesfaye of Irving, Texas, in connection with allegations that he illegally traded Calliditas Therapeutics AB securities in advance of the May 28, 2024 announcement of Asahi Kasei Corp.'s tender offer to acquire Calliditas.
According to the SEC's complaint, filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Tesfaye misappropriated material, nonpublic information about the tender offer from his then-romantic partner, who worked at a subsidiary of Asahi Kasei and whose role included assessing Calliditas's compliance program in connection with the pending acquisition. The complaint alleges that, on the basis of that information, Tesfaye purchased Calliditas securities, including American Depository Receipts and out-of-the-money call options on May 23, 2024, two trading days before the announcement of the tender offer, in his personal brokerage account and in a family member's account over which Tesfaye had control. As alleged, the price of Calliditas's shares increased by approximately 70% following the announcement of the tender offer and Tesfaye liquidated the Calliditas securities in his and his family member's accounts, generating $18,668 in illicit profits.
Without admitting the SEC's allegations, Tesfaye consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, that would permanently enjoin him from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder. The final judgment also would order Tesfaye to pay $18,668 in disgorgement plus $2,168 in prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $18,668.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Geoffrey Gettinger and Brittany Garmyn and supervised by Charles Joshua Felker and Pei Y. Chung, with assistance from David A. Nasse. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26609.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26609
SEC Charges Public Company and Officers in Alleged Fraudulent Scheme to Overstate Revenue
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Fanning et al., No. 26-civ-13665 (D. Mass. filed Aug. 10, 2026)
On August 10, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against the public company Netcapital Inc., and five affiliated individuals, including current and former officers and directors, for allegedly participating in a fraudulent scheme to overstate Netcapital's revenue while raising more than $25 million from investors. In addition to Netcapital, the complaint includes
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Fanning et al., No. 26-civ-13665 (D. Mass. filed Aug. 10, 2026)
On August 10, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against the public company Netcapital Inc., and five affiliated individuals, including current and former officers and directors, for allegedly participating in a fraudulent scheme to overstate Netcapital's revenue while raising more than $25 million from investors. In addition to Netcapital, the complaint includesas defendants John Fanning, who allegedly acted as an officer of Netcapital despite having no formal officer designation; Coreen Kraysler, Fanning's wife and Netcapital's Chief Financial Officer; Martin Kay, a former board member and Chief Executive Officer of Netcapital; Paul Riss, a certified public accountant who allegedly had substantial responsibilities related to revenue recognition and the preparation of Netcapital's financial statements; and Cecilia Lenk, who preceded Kay as Netcapital's Chief Executive Officer and served as the principal executive officer of the Netcapital subsidiary that entered into the purported consulting agreements that allegedly led to overstated revenue.
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court in Boston, Massachusetts, alleges that from approximately October 2021 through January 2024, Netcapital improperly recognized nearly $14 million in revenue from sham consulting agreements, some of which were forged, which amounted to Netcapital overstating its revenue by approximately 345 percent. According to the complaint, Netcapital included the inflated revenue in public SEC filings and Netcapital's securities offering materials. The alleged fraudulent scheme involved a Netcapital subsidiary that purportedly entered into consulting agreements with startups or other small companies seeking investment from the public under SEC Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg. CF). As alleged, however, the consulting agreements were fictitious, and the revenue that Netcapital recognized from them was improper.
The complaint charges the defendants with violating various anti-fraud, reporting, certification, and other provisions of the federal securities laws. Specifically:
* Netcapital is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act;
* Fanning is charged with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder and with aiding and abetting Netcapital's violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 10b-5(b) under the Exchange Act;
* Kraysler is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Rules 13a-14 and 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act;
* Kay is charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, and 13b2-2 thereunder;
* Riss is charged with violating Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and with aiding and abetting Netcapital's violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 10b-5(b) under the Exchange Act; and
* Lenk is charged with violating Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and Rule 13a-14 under the Exchange Act.
The SEC seeks permanent injunctions against all defendants; conduct based-injunctions against Fanning, Kraysler, Riss, Lenk, and Kay; disgorgement and prejudgment interest from Netcapital, Fanning, Kraysler, Riss, and Kay; officer-and-director bars against Fanning, Kraysler, Riss, and Kay; and civil monetary penalties against all defendants.
Without admitting the allegations made in the SEC's complaint, Lenk consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject to court approval, which would order permanent injunctions, a conduct-based injunction, and a civil monetary penalty of $50,000.
This matter is being handled by Ivan Panchenko, Mark Audet, John McCann, Michael Moran, and Colin Forbes in the SEC's Boston Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26607.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26607
SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins Letter to Robert Walley, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following letter on Aug. 10, 2026:
* * *
Chairman Paul S. Atkins Letter to Robert Walley, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
Mr. Robert Walley
Chair
CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
c/o Mr. Andre Owens
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Mr. Walley:
During my tenure, the Commission has achieved significant reductions in the annual operating costs of the Consolidated Audit Trail ("CAT") and eliminated reporting of personally identifiable information
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following letter on Aug. 10, 2026:
* * *
Chairman Paul S. Atkins Letter to Robert Walley, Chair, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
Mr. Robert Walley
Chair
CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee
c/o Mr. Andre Owens
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Mr. Walley:
During my tenure, the Commission has achieved significant reductions in the annual operating costs of the Consolidated Audit Trail ("CAT") and eliminated reporting of personally identifiable informationto the CAT. We made this progress by issuing targeted exemptive relief and approving amendments to the CAT NMS Plan.[1] I thank the Participants for their collaboration on these important reforms, which have reduced the costs and scope of the CAT, thereby creating a more efficient and cost-effective system. Nevertheless, further changes are needed to address the costs, governance, and funding of the CAT. To address these issues, I directed staff to initiate a comprehensive review of the CAT.
Accordingly, on April 16, 2026, the Commission issued a concept release soliciting public comment in support of a comprehensive review of the CAT and other audit trails and related data sources currently used in the regulation of the U.S. securities markets (the "Concept Release").[2] The Commission has received, and staff have reviewed, hundreds of comments in response to the Concept Release. One theme emerges from the comment file: investors and market participants want the Commission to take more responsibility for managing and funding this project.
Now that the comment period has concluded, I have requested that staff provide detailed recommendations on fundamental changes that should be made to the CAT. Based on my experience with the operation of the CAT, I believe that it is critical for the Commission to move quickly and lay the groundwork necessary to restructure the CAT to address persistent cost, governance, and funding issues.
Pursuant to this aim, I have instructed staff to:
1. explore ways to fund the CAT, including through the use of appropriated funds and Section 31 transaction fees;
2. draft for Commission consideration a rulemaking that, if adopted, would rescind Rule 613 and require the exchanges, FINRA and broker-dealers to report CAT data to the Commission or its designee while utilizing current CAT infrastructure and reporting specifications;
3. assess SEC resources for purposes of assuming responsibility of the CAT and identify needs related to SEC governance of the CAT.
These measures would provide a significant, positive change to the structure of the CAT and address fundamental issues with its current costs, governance, and funding. Because many of these actions would need to occur in tandem, the transition would likely not be complete until late 2027. It is therefore important to communicate our approach now, so that market participants and investors can understand the substantial reforms that we plan to make.
As staff consider the restructuring of the CAT, we will make it a priority to ensure that market participants are given a voice in the process, both now, and after we have assumed responsibility of the CAT, to the extent the Commission adopts rules to restructure the CAT. We remain mindful that such changes should be implemented as seamlessly as possible. Additionally, we will continue to update the public regularly on notable developments as the Commission seeks to reform the CAT to a fit-for-purpose regulatory resource that is appropriately governed and operated at reasonable cost.
I look forward to further engagement with you, and other stakeholders, on this critical initiative.
Sincerely,
Paul S. Atkins Chairman
* * *
[1] See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104586 (Jan. 13, 2026), 91 FR 2164 (Jan. 16, 2026); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 105107 (Mar. 27, 2026), 91 FR 16284, 16307 (Apr. 1, 2026).
[2] See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 105251 (Apr. 16, 2026), 91 FR 20945 (Apr. 20, 2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-letter-robert-walley-regarding-consolidated-audit-trail-081026
FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Issues Public Notice: Applications for Auction 113 Licenses are Accepted for Filing
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-833):
* * *
On June 23, 2026, bidding concluded in the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission's) auction of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) licenses, and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) announced the results of that auction on June 26, 2026./1 Long-form applications (FCC Form 601) for licenses won in Auction 113 were due on July 13, 2026. The 6 long-form applications listed
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-833):
* * *
On June 23, 2026, bidding concluded in the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission's) auction of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) licenses, and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) announced the results of that auction on June 26, 2026./1 Long-form applications (FCC Form 601) for licenses won in Auction 113 were due on July 13, 2026. The 6 long-form applications listedin Attachment A have been found, upon initial review, to be acceptable for filing. The Commission may return or dismiss the applications, however, if upon further examination, they are found to be defective or not in compliance with the Commission's rules./2
Petitions to deny the applications listed in Attachment A must be filed no later than August 21, 2026, ten (10) days after the date of this Public Notice./3 Oppositions to a petition to deny must be filed no later than August 28, 2026, five (5) business days after the filing date for petitions to deny. Replies to oppositions must be filed no later than September 4, 2026, five (5) business days after the filing date for oppositions. All pleadings filed regarding any of these Auction 113 long-form applications should reference the file number of the application. Each application is a restricted proceeding under the Commission's rules./4 A petitioner shall serve a copy of its petition to deny on the applicant and on all other interested parties pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 1.47. Oppositions and replies shall be served on the petitioner and all other interested parties./5
Pleadings must be filed electronically through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS), pursuant to the following instructions./6 Pleadings must be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing ULS: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/systems-utilities/universal-licensing-system. Each screen indicates the information to be provided or the action(s) to be performed to complete that screen. From the ULS website, click on "SUBMIT A PLEADING" to begin the process of filing a pleading. The link takes the user to the Pleadings Information screen. Upon completing the Pleadings Information screen, click "CONTINUE" to go to the File Numbers/Call Signs screen. Upon providing the information required on that screen, complete steps three and four at the Attach File and Confirmation screens, respectively. For more information, detailed instructions can be found in the Public Notice announcing the implementation of electronic filing for pleadings./7
We request that one copy of each pleading be delivered electronically, by email to: Madelaine Maior and Jeffery Tignor at Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov and Jeffery.Tignor@fcc.gov. The applications listed in Attachment A are available to the public for electronic viewing through ULS. Any amendments to an FCC Form 601 application also must be filed electronically through ULS.
For technical assistance in using ULS for viewing an application or filing an amendment to an application, contact the ULS Licensing Support Hotline at (877) 480-3201. The ULS Licensing Support Hotline is available Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Eastern Time. All calls to the ULS Licensing Support Hotline are recorded. Questions regarding procedural issues should be directed to Madelaine Maior, (202) 418-1466 or Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov or Jeffrey Tignor, (202) 418-0774 or Jeffrey.Tignor@fcc.gov. Copies of materials can be obtained from the FCC's Reference Information Center at (202) 418-0270. Press contact: Will Wiquist at (202) 418-0500 or Will.Wiquist@fcc.gov.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Auction of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) Licenses Closes, Public Notice, DA 26-633 (OEA & WTB June 26, 2026).
2/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.934(a), (d).
3/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.2108 (Procedures for filing petitions to deny against long-form applications).
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.1208 (Restricted proceedings).
5/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.939(c).
6/ See 47 CFR Sec. 1.939(b); Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 19-212, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10781, 10788-89, paras. 22-26 (2020).
7/ Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Enhances the Commission's Universal Licensing System To Implement Electronic Filing for Pleadings, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 424 (WTB 2006).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-833A1.pdf
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Commission Announces Conditionally Approved Cybersecurity Label Administrators
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-239):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) announces the conditional approval of two additional Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) voluntary cybersecurity labeling program for consumer wireless Internet of Things (IoT) products (U.S. Cyber Trust Mark (USCTM) Program) and reiterates program obligations./1 The Bureau finds
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-239):
* * *
By this Public Notice, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) announces the conditional approval of two additional Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) voluntary cybersecurity labeling program for consumer wireless Internet of Things (IoT) products (U.S. Cyber Trust Mark (USCTM) Program) and reiterates program obligations./1 The Bureau findsthat the following entities meet the Commission's program criteria and requirements and conditionally approves each to serve as a CLA:
IIA Lab Services, LLC
Element Materials Technology Portland - Evergreen, Inc.
By this Public Notice, the Bureau also announces the opening of a new filing window for applications from entities seeking authority to be recognized as a CLA. This CLA application filing window will open on August 11, 2026 and will remain open until closed by the Bureau./2
I. CLA RESPONSIBILITIES
CLAs will be responsible for certifying use of the FCC IoT label and USCTM and day-to-day management of the program./3 The Commission retains ultimate control and oversight over the program as the USCTM Program owner./4 CLAs are responsible for sharing the Lead Administrator's costs in performing its Lead Administrator duties on behalf of the program./5 CLAs will review for reasonableness the Lead Administrator's estimated forward-looking costs which have been submitted to the Bureau and the Office of Managing Director (OMD), which will include program stand-up costs and ongoing program costs to perform the Lead Administrator's duties for the upcoming calendar year./6 If these estimated costs are determined by the Bureau and OMD to be reasonable, they will be used to estimate the overall CLA cost sharing obligation. Each CLA will work with the Lead Administrator and other CLAs, subject to Commission oversight, to develop a reasonable and equitable cost sharing methodology whereby CLAs will share in the Lead Administrator's expenses incurred as a result of the performance of its duties under this program. The cost sharing methodology will be subject to ongoing oversight by the Commission.
Each CLA must undertake the duties outlined in the IoT Labeling Order, which include but are not limited to participation in the ongoing Lead Administrator-led stakeholder engagement process, participation in the development of a consumer outreach campaign, and only after the Trademark Use Agreement has been signed, execution of the consumer outreach campaign./7
Each entity's CLA approval is conditioned upon its execution of a Trademark Use Agreement/8 with the FCC, and its commitment to obtain International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17065 accreditation with the appropriate FCC program scope within six (6) months of the effective date of the Commission's adoption of IoT cybersecurity labeling standards and testing procedures./9 Conditionally approved CLAs are not authorized by the Commission to approve the use of the FCC IoT Label. The Bureau will only approve a CLA to accept and process manufacturer applications and authorize use of the FCC IoT Label, including the Trust Mark, after the CLA has executed the Trademark Use Agreement, demonstrated to the Bureau that it has obtained ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the FCC's program scope, and demonstrated compliance with other CLA requirements (e.g., development of a cybersecurity risk management plan)./10
Further, to address national security concerns, the authority of CLAs to grant applications to use the FCC IoT Label under the USCTM Program, will automatically terminate if the CLA subsequently becomes owned or controlled by or affiliated with an entity that produces equipment found on the Covered List, or otherwise added to any exclusionary list identified in the IoT Labeling Order as precluding authorization as a CLA./11 A CLA's authority may also be terminated for failure to uphold the required competencies or accreditations enumerated in the IoT Labeling Order, including those addressing national security risks./12 As noted above, CLAs are conditionally approved pending ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the Commission's program scope. CLAs may apply for accreditation after the Commission has established accreditation program(s) with FCC-recognized accrediting bodies. Once a CLA has obtained the appropriate accreditation, it will notify the Bureau and request Bureau recognition. Once it has been recognized by the Bureau, a CLA will be authorized to approve applications for authority to affix the FCC IoT Label to products that comply with all of the program requirements.
Each of the parties listed above is advised that its selection does not constitute FCC or United States Government approval, acceptance, or endorsement of anything other than the organization's participation in the administration of the USCTM Program, and they shall not so construe, claim, or imply such. By accepting their roles, each party similarly acknowledges that activities undertaken in connection with the administration of the USCTM Program are voluntary and not intended to provide goods or services to the FCC or any other agency or instrumentality of the United States Government. The selected entities may not submit claims for compensation to the FCC or any other agency or instrumentality of the United States Government for activities related to its role as CLA. Moreover, each party's selection does not obligate funds for any particular expenditure, nor does it authorize the transfer of funds and/or resources. The Commission does not intend to commit funds on behalf of the FCC or any other agency or instrumentality of the U.S Government for the administration of the USCTM Program nor does it provide for the payment of funds by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to any entity./13 Each selected party accepts the risk of loss in engaging in its respective roles in the USCTM Program.
II. CLA APPLICATION PROCEDURES
By this Notice, the Bureau opens a new filing window for applications for CLA, which will remain open until closed by the Bureau. The Bureau outlined the format of CLA applications and the process for Bureau selection of these administrators, among other issues, in its September 2024 Initial Filing Window Public Notice./14 The Bureau also provided guidance for who may apply and the relevant application procedures./15 Applicants for CLA are advised to follow the same instructions, including the general filing instructions, provided in the Initial Filing Window Public Notice, as well as the additional guidance on confidential filing requirements published in October 2024./16 We reiterate that conditionally approved CLAs are obligated to maintain their commitments made under their applications, including, demonstrations and certifications provided with respect to national security, obtaining accreditation pursuant to all of the requirements associated with ISO/IEC 17065 with the forthcoming FCC program scope, and implementing and updating cybersecurity risk management plans./17
The Bureau will, on a rolling basis, review CLA applications for compliance with the criteria set forth in the IoT Labeling Order and to best ensure the success of the program./18 The Bureau's selection of CLA(s) will be announced by public notice.
People with Disabilities
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
Privacy Act Statement
Authority. The FCC is authorized to collect the information pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(n), 302, 303(r), 312, 333, and 503, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 302a, 303(r), 312, 333, 503; the IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 278g-3a to Sec. 278g-3e.
Purpose. The information collected in CLA applications includes contact and certification information from entities voluntarily applying to serve as CLA in this FCC program. The information is used to communicate with such entities and enforce their compliance with statements made in their applications.
Routine Uses. While CLA applications will be presumed confidential, in addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the FCC may disclose contact and certification information collected from applicants as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b)(3), including: to authorized third parties to administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to FCC programs and activities; to other Federal agencies in order to administer, support, participate in, or receive information related to FCC programs and activities; and to non-federal personnel, including contractors, who have been engaged to assist the FCC in the performance of a contract service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity. A full, detailed list of the routine uses is published in the system of records notice associated with this collection, FCC-2, Business Contacts and Certifications, which is available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/sor-fcc-2.pdf.
Disclosure. This information collection is voluntary. The Bureau's Public Notice provides entities the opportunity to apply to be designated a CLA.
Action by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Cybersecurity Labeling for Internet of Things, PS Docket No. 23-239, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 39 FCC Rcd 2497, 2525, 2523, paras. 42, 53 (2024) (IoT Labeling Order).
2/ The IoT Labeling Order delegated authority to the Bureau to open additional application filing windows, as necessary, for entities seeking authority to be recognized by the Bureau as a CLA. IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2523, 2532, paras. 51, 64.
3/ IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2526, para. 55 (subject to Commission oversight CLAs will evaluate and grant or deny requests to use the FCC IoT Label); 47 CFR Sec. 8.220(f)(11).
4/ IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2519-20, paras. 40-41 (Commission fosters public-private collaboration, including with regard to administration of the program, while retaining ultimate control and oversight of the program).
5/ IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2543, para. 93.
6/ See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces 15-Day Filing Window for Cybersecurity Labeling Administrator and Lead Administrator Applications Under the Cybersecurity Labeling for Internet of Things Program, PS Docket No. 23-239, Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd 10372, 10380, paras. 18-19 (Sept. 10, 2024) (Initial Filing Window Public Notice).
7/ IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2523-28, paras. 51-58 (detailing the duties of the CLAs); see also 47 CFR Sec. 8.220.
8/ The Commission anticipates that it will periodically amend the Trademark Use Agreement as we gain experience in the program. The Trademark Use Agreement will not be transferable. That means that once executed, a CLA may not transfer the Trademark Use Agreement, or any interest in the Trademark Use Agreement, to another party. A purported transfer in violation of this would annul the Trademark Use Agreement, except that all rights pertaining to the FCC would be reserved.
9/ See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 8.220(c)(6) (The Commission will accept and conditionally approve a CLA application provided the entity obtains accreditation to ISO/IEC 17065 with the appropriate scope within six (6) months of the effective date by the adopted standards and testing procedures and otherwise meets the FCC's IoT Labeling Program requirements). IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2532, para. 64.
10/ Upon a CLA's successful ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation with the FCC scope, and compliance with additional program requirements, PSHSB will release a public notice announcing that a CLA has moved from conditional approval to full approval and has authorization to accept and process manufacturer applications.
11/ IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2530-31, paras. 61, 63.
12/ Id. at 2531, para. 63.
13/ As outlined in the IoT Labeling Order, "to the extent that the Lead Administrator may incur costs in performing its duties on behalf of the program as a whole, we expect these costs to be shared among CLAs as a whole." IoT Labeling Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 2543, para. 93.
14/ Initial Filing Window Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd at 10373-86, paras. 3-32 (setting forth the format, filing fees, and selection process for CLA and Lead Administrator applications, as well as Lead Administrator cost-sharing among the CLAs, guardrails for Lead Administrator neutrality, and confidentiality and security requirements).
15/ Initial Filing Window Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd at 10386-91, paras. 33-41.
16/ Initial Filing Window Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd at 10395, Appx. A; Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Provides Additional Guidance on Confidential Filing Requirements for Cybersecurity Label Administrator and Lead Administrator Applications Under the Cybersecurity Labeling for Internet of Things Program, PS Docket No. 23-239, Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd 10972 (PSHSB Oct. 3, 2024).
17/ Initial Filing Window Public Notice, 39 FCC Rcd at 10385, 10386-89, 10390-91, paras. 30, 33-35, 37.
18/ The Bureau may request clarifying information from applicants in its review, as needed.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-834A1.pdf
EEOC Sues Washington University for Retaliation
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Washington University for Retaliation
*
Federal suit alleges university fired employee after she complained of race discrimination related to mandatory DEI training
ST. LOUIS -Washington University, a private research university in St. Louis, violated federal law when it fired an employee in retaliation for her opposition to race discrimination and filing a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency alleged in a lawsuit
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Washington University for Retaliation
*
Federal suit alleges university fired employee after she complained of race discrimination related to mandatory DEI training
ST. LOUIS -Washington University, a private research university in St. Louis, violated federal law when it fired an employee in retaliation for her opposition to race discrimination and filing a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency alleged in a lawsuitannounced today.
According to the suit, Amega Thaier, who worked as a senior program manager at Washington University's Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, complained to both the university and the EEOC that she was separated from her colleagues because of her race during a mandatory training session provided by the University's Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Thaier complained about the incident internally in January 2025 and later filed a charge with the EEOC in July 2025. After, Thaier's supervisors retaliated against her by transferring her job responsibilities to other employees and eventually eliminating her position completely in November 2025, resulting in her termination, the suit said.
"Despite expressing in advance that being separated from her white colleagues during a DEI training would make her uncomfortable, a black employee was subjected exactly to that treatment. After she filed a charge with the EEOC, the employer decided to eliminate her position," said acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine L. Eschbach. "Employees have the right to oppose and complain about race discrimination in all aspects of their employment, including trainings, without fear of retribution."
The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation for opposing race discrimination or filing a charge of discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The Washington University, Case No. 4:26-cv-01289) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
"Federal law protects workers who complain about race discrimination in the workplace, regardless of whether those complaints are made inside or outside the employer's organization," said David S. Davis, director of the EEOC's St. Louis District.
For more information on retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation.
The EEOC's St. Louis District Office has jurisdiction over discrimination charges and agency litigation in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and a portion of southern Illinois.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-washington-university-retaliation
