Featured Stories
Haynes & Boone: DOJ's National Fraud Enforcement Division Announces Enforcement Priorities - What You Need to Know
DALLAS, Texas, Aug. 15 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
DOJ's National Fraud Enforcement Division Announces Enforcement Priorities - What You Need to Know
By Ronald W. Breaux, J. Nicholas Bunch, Seth Farber, Taryn McDonald, Bill Morrison, Tim Newman, Richard Weber and Neil Issar
On Aug. 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued a memorandum outlining the enforcement priorities of the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") National Fraud Enforcement Division (the "NFED"). The memo represents the latest and most detailed articulation
... Show Full Article
DALLAS, Texas, Aug. 15 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
DOJ's National Fraud Enforcement Division Announces Enforcement Priorities - What You Need to Know
By Ronald W. Breaux, J. Nicholas Bunch, Seth Farber, Taryn McDonald, Bill Morrison, Tim Newman, Richard Weber and Neil Issar
On Aug. 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald issued a memorandum outlining the enforcement priorities of the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") National Fraud Enforcement Division (the "NFED"). The memo represents the latest and most detailed articulationof how the NFED intends to deploy its resources to combat fraud nationwide. This alert summarizes the memorandum and places it in context alongside prior enforcement announcements.
I. Background
The NFED was established in April 2026 when Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum directing the Criminal Division's Tax Section; Health Care Fraud Unit, and Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit to be consolidated under a new division dedicated exclusively to fraud enforcement. That memorandum also directed each U.S. Attorney's Office to designate an experienced prosecutor to be detailed to the new division. Moreover, it called for the establishment of a National Fraud Detection Center to help identify fraud and generate leads for investigators and prosecutors. Those moves fulfilled President Trump's January 2026 announcement that the DOJ would create a dedicated fraud enforcement division to address the "rampant and pervasive problem of fraud" across the country.
II. Enforcement Priorities
The NFED has grown rapidly since its April formation. In the latest memorandum, McDonald states that the division will reach approximately 500 attorneys and staff by Aug. 24, 2026, with plans to "significantly increase" personnel and specialists over the next two years. McDonald also emphasizes the NFED's forward-looking approach, describing a goal of building "the most sophisticated, innovative, and data-driven white-collar law enforcement component in the world." Toward that end, McDonald identifies five priority areas for enforcement by the NFED:
1. Public Trust and Financial Integrity. The NFED will prioritize government procurement fraud, including defective pricing, bid rigging, self-dealing, bribery, product substitution, and billing fraud. The division will also focus on fraud impacting federal benefit and grant programs, including student loans, childcare, veterans' benefits, nutritional supplements, disaster relief, and small business programs.
2. Health Care. The NFED's health care fraud targets will include telemedicine fraud, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, illegal prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances like opioids, home health and hospice scams, and deceptive marketing of unsafe products. McDonald also announced an intention to "supercharge" the DOJ's Health Care Fraud Strike Force by leveraging greater resources, data analytics, and technology. We expect the NFED's criminal health care components to work together with the False Claims Act Working Group, which the DOJ established jointly with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in July 2025 to advance the departments' civil enforcement priorities.
3. Internal Revenue. The memorandum highlights criminal tax enforcement as "integral" to the NFED's mandate, targeting unethical return preparers, income concealment, and abusive tax scheme promoters. The division will "foster intra-division and interagency coordination" for an "all-tools response" to those types of fraud.
4. Global Trade and Commerce. Through the cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force, the NFED will target illicit transshipment schemes, country-of-origin fraud, the undervaluation of imported goods designed to evade duties, sanctions evasion, and foreign forced-labor schemes. The Trade Fraud Task Force was launched in August 2025 and has already surpassed $1 billion in recoveries and charged losses. Taken together, the task force's activity and McDonald's memorandum indicate trade fraud is a durable and significant DOJ priority.
5. Corporate Misconduct. The NFED will hold organizations accountable while rewarding those that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate. This is consistent with the DOJ's existing framework for corporate self-disclosures in criminal matters, as detailed in the updated Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy announced in March 2026.
McDonald's memorandum reflects both continuity with and evolution from prior enforcement announcements. Most notably, then-Criminal Division Head Matthew Galeotti issued a memorandum in May 2025 that identified the DOJ Criminal Division's 10 priority enforcement areas. They included waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and procurement fraud; trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion; fraud perpetrated through variable interest entities (VIEs), such as market manipulation schemes; investor fraud, such as Ponzi schemes; threats to national security, including foreign bribery and money laundering; violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, particularly fentanyl-related manufacturing and opioid distribution; and digital-asset-related crimes. Galeotti's memorandum also highlighted the benefits of self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation, which allow the DOJ to "[bring] more cases against individual wrongdoers while rewarding good corporate citizens."
The NFED's latest priorities absorb and consolidate those areas, with the core substantive priorities-government fraud, health care fraud, trade fraud, and corporate misconduct and self-disclosure-remaining largely intact. But the McDonald memorandum drops the specific emphasis on certain national security-adjacent priorities (bribery, money laundering, and VIE fraud) and digital assets, and adds a sharper focus on tax and an enforcement approach that is backed by data analytics and technology.
III. Key Takeaways
The McDonald memorandum confirms that the NFED was not created merely as a reorganization exercise but is a significant expansion of the DOJ's fraud enforcement capacity. Companies, health care providers, government contractors, importers, and tax professionals should note the following:
* The substantive enforcement priorities are largely consistent with those announced by the Criminal Division in May 2025, signaling institutional commitment rather than a shift in direction.
* The NFED's organizational consolidation and resource infusion, including the commitment of hundreds of employees and new technology, should lead to reduced red tape, faster investigations, and greater case volume. Companies should ensure their internal investigation and response protocols can keep pace.
* The DOJ is emphasizing an enforcement approach that integrates criminal, civil, and data-driven fraud detection. This may create multiple avenues of enforcement risk. In particular, it appears the NFED will be coordinating with U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the Civil and Criminal Divisions, federal law enforcement, and state and local partners. As a result, companies should anticipate parallel criminal, civil, and state proceedings and plan defense strategy accordingly from the outset.
* Companies in regulated industries should review their compliance programs with attention to the specific fraud categories identified, particularly procurement, health care, tax, and trade, and ensure they can proactively spot red flags and indicators of potential fraud.
* Companies that discover potential fraud should carefully evaluate whether voluntary self-disclosure is appropriate, as the DOJ has made it clear that self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation can result in concrete benefits, including potential declinations and reduced penalties.
Stay tuned to Haynes Boone's News page for the latest news on government enforcement actions and trends. If you have questions or need more information about any of the topics covered in the McDonald memorandum, please contact a member of Haynes Boone's White Collar and Investigations, Government Contracts, or Healthcare and Life Sciences Practice Groups.
***
Original text here: https://www.haynesboone.com/news/alerts/dojs-national-fraud-enforcement-division-priorities-what-you-need-to-know
Paul Hastings Advises Piper Sandler, BTIG and Brookline Capital Markets on Outlook Therapeutics' Public Offering of Common Stock and Warrants
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Paul Hastings, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Hastings Advises Piper Sandler, BTIG and Brookline Capital Markets on Outlook Therapeutics' Public Offering of Common Stock and Warrants
*
Paul Hastings LLP advised Piper Sandler, BTIG and Brookline Capital Markets as underwriters in a public offering by Outlook Therapeutics (Nasdaq: OTLK) of 55,555,556 shares of its common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 55,555,556 shares of its common stock at a price of $0.99 per share and accompanying
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Paul Hastings, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Hastings Advises Piper Sandler, BTIG and Brookline Capital Markets on Outlook Therapeutics' Public Offering of Common Stock and Warrants
*
Paul Hastings LLP advised Piper Sandler, BTIG and Brookline Capital Markets as underwriters in a public offering by Outlook Therapeutics (Nasdaq: OTLK) of 55,555,556 shares of its common stock and accompanying warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 55,555,556 shares of its common stock at a price of $0.99 per share and accompanyingwarrant.
Equity Capital Markets and Corporate Life Sciences co-chair Seo Salimi and partner Will Magioncalda led the Paul Hastings team, which also included associates Adam Swank and Agustina Guazzaroni.
More details can be found here.
About Paul Hastings
With widely recognized elite teams across 17 core practices, Paul Hastings is a premier law firm with a culture of excellence focused on providing intellectual capital and superior execution globally to the world's leading investment banks, asset managers and corporations. For more information, visit www.paulhastings.com.
***
Original text here: https://www.paulhastings.com/news/paul-hastings-advises-piper-sandler-btig-and-brookline-capital-markets-on-outlook-therapeutics-public-offering-of-common-stock-and-warrants
McGuireWoods Again Earns Nationwide Honors in Chambers High Net Worth Guide
RICHMOND, Virginia, Aug. 14 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Again Earns Nationwide Honors in Chambers High Net Worth Guide
McGuireWoods has once again secured its place among the nation's premier private wealth services firms, earning top honors in the 2026 edition of Chambers and Partners' High Net Worth Guide. The firm earned a nationwide ranking for the 11th consecutive year and was recognized among the top firms in Virginia.
Chambers also selected partners Michael Barker, Benjamin Candland, Meghan Gehr Hubbard, Michele McKinnon, Steven
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, Aug. 14 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Again Earns Nationwide Honors in Chambers High Net Worth Guide
McGuireWoods has once again secured its place among the nation's premier private wealth services firms, earning top honors in the 2026 edition of Chambers and Partners' High Net Worth Guide. The firm earned a nationwide ranking for the 11th consecutive year and was recognized among the top firms in Virginia.
Chambers also selected partners Michael Barker, Benjamin Candland, Meghan Gehr Hubbard, Michele McKinnon, StevenW. Murphy, William Sanderson and Gino Zaccardelli for individual honors.
McGuireWoods' private wealth lawyers advise high-net-worth clients, nonprofits, fiduciaries and businesses in tax and wealth planning and are influential voices in shaping U.S. tax policy. Clients interviewed by Chambers researchers praised McGuireWoods' broad capabilities and commitment to excellence.
"McGuireWoods' knowledge base is tremendous," a client said. "They are on the cutting edge of estate planning and estate administration techniques. In addition, they are the best in training their young associates, paralegals and administrative assistants. They are the best, top to bottom."
Another respondent added: "The attorneys at McGuireWoods provide thoughtful, comprehensive advice in a very time-efficient manner. My clients are consistently impressed with the level of service demonstrated in both formal written materials and the responsiveness of the attorneys."
Sanderson, co-leader of McGuireWoods' Private Wealth Services Practice Group, said the Chambers rankings reflect the team's sharp focus on aligning legal mastery with the broader strategic goals of high-net-worth clients.
"We have a deep and experienced team that combines sophisticated tax and estate planning with a hands-on understanding of how wealth intersects with business strategy, philanthropy and family dynamics," Sanderson said. "That integration is what our clients value most."
Barker, co-leader of the firm's Private Wealth Services Practice Group, added: "We are grateful to our clients for their trust and honored to be recognized for the comprehensive advisory services we deliver for high-net-worth individuals, family offices and closely held businesses."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/8/mcguirewoods-again-earns-nationwide-honors-in-chambers-high-net-worth-guide/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Goodwin Advises Naive on $28.5M Series A
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, posted the following news release:
* * *
Goodwin Advises Naive on $28.5M Series A
*
The Technology team advised Naive on raising a $28.5 million Series A to build autonomous company infrastructure. The round was led by Nexus, with participation from Y Combinator, Zetta, Liquid 2, and more. With the new capital, the company intends to invest in their new lab with four research areas: serverless agents, inference, brain, and agent workforce orchestration.
Naive is an artificial intelligence lab that is developing
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, posted the following news release:
* * *
Goodwin Advises Naive on $28.5M Series A
*
The Technology team advised Naive on raising a $28.5 million Series A to build autonomous company infrastructure. The round was led by Nexus, with participation from Y Combinator, Zetta, Liquid 2, and more. With the new capital, the company intends to invest in their new lab with four research areas: serverless agents, inference, brain, and agent workforce orchestration.
Naive is an artificial intelligence lab that is developingautonomous agents capable of setting up and running entire businesses. The company provides developers with tools to provision entire operating stacks, including identity verification, cloud storage, and governance gateways, allowing agents to function as secure, economic entities.
The Goodwin team was led by Andrew Harper, Mira Pranav, and Daisy Ramos Garcia, and included Justin C. Pierce, Monica Patel, Ora Grinberg, and Isabelle Greenblatt-Gunning.
For more information on the deal, please read the announcement.
***
Original text here: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/08/announcement-technology-goodwin-advises-naive-28-5-million-series-a
Foley Hoag: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Detained Noncitizens to Bond Hearings
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Foley Hoag, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Detained Noncitizens to Bond Hearings
*
This press release was originally published by the ACLU of Massachusetts and has been republished with permission.
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling declaring that the Trump administration is unlawfully denying bond hearings to thousands of people arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England
In 2025, the federal government abandoned its 29-year understanding
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 14 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Foley Hoag, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Detained Noncitizens to Bond Hearings
*
This press release was originally published by the ACLU of Massachusetts and has been republished with permission.
A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling declaring that the Trump administration is unlawfully denying bond hearings to thousands of people arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England
In 2025, the federal government abandoned its 29-year understandingof a 1996 law and announced that millions of noncitizens living in the United States would have no opportunity to ask for release on bond if detained by ICE. This new guidance defies decades of government practices, federal law, and fundamental due-process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more. Last night, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court ruling finding the new policy unlawful, reasoning that the federal government's interpretation violated the relevant statutory text and congressional intent.
"This ruling affirms that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally rewrite federal statutes to suit its political agenda," said Adriana Lafaille, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This is especially important for matters of fundamental fairness, like the ability to seek release from detention. The federal government must follow the law, provide bond hearings to class members, and allow those who pose no danger or flight risk to be released while immigration courts decide their cases."
With Thursday's ruling, seven appellate courts and hundreds of District Court judges have now issued rulings holding that the Trump administration's new policy of subjecting noncitizens living in the country to categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful.
"I am gratified that the First Circuit upheld the rule of law, affirming what we have known since 1996: Immigrants, regardless of how they entered our country, are entitled to bond hearings. I am in awe of our client's courage to fight for what is right, securing not only his freedom but that of hundreds of other immigrants in New England," said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Annelise Araujo Law.
"We are pleased that the court is vindicating the rights of immigrants unlawfully detained in Maine and throughout New England," said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. "The government's cruel mandatory detention policy stripped people of the chance to seek their freedom while indefinitely separating them from their loved ones, communities, and jobs. The policy also upended decades of standard civil immigration procedures, violating the clear language of federal law. The court's order today is clear: no administration is above the law. The government cannot arrest and detain people indefinitely without providing them with a hearing in front of a judge."
The petitioner and class in Guerrero Orellano v. Moniz are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, Annelise Araujo Law, Foley Hoag, Anderson & Kreiger, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic.
The original complaint in this case was filed in September 2025 on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a class of similarly situated individuals. In October, the court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered a bond hearing for Mr. Guerrero Orellana, who was later released on bond. Later that month, the court certified a class of people arrested by federal immigration officials inside the United States and held in New England detention facilities. In December, the court granted partial summary judgment and rejected the government's novel and erroneous statutory interpretation.
As disclosed in subsequent court filings, the government's chief immigration judge later instructed her colleagues to ignore declaratory judgments like the one entered in this case. Immigration judges have continued to systematically deny bond hearings to people arrested by ICE within the United States who are alleged to have entered without inspection, no matter how long the person has been in the country. This policy violates the plain language of the federal detention statutes and denies fundamental due process rights to potentially millions of people.
Read the opinion here.
The Foley Hoag team includes Anthony Mirenda, Hampton Dellinger, Gilleun Kang, Spenser Angel, Daniel Zaleznik, Joshua Nacht, and Judith Gallant.
***
Original text here: https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/news/2026/august/federal-appeals-court-upholds-rights-of-detained-noncitizens-to-bond-hearings/
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Workplace Violence Prevention Rules About To Go Into Effect For NY Medical Facilities - How To Prepare
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 13, 2026:
* * *
New Workplace Violence Prevention Rules About To Go Into Effect For NY Medical Facilities: How To Prepare
Hospitals and nursing homes in New York face a pending deadline to implement workplace violence prevention programs, following a new law passed last year. Starting September 18, general hospitals and nursing homes have 12 months to establish a program to address threats and hazards related to workplace violence. NY hospitals will also have separate obligations to review their safety
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 13, 2026:
* * *
New Workplace Violence Prevention Rules About To Go Into Effect For NY Medical Facilities: How To Prepare
Hospitals and nursing homes in New York face a pending deadline to implement workplace violence prevention programs, following a new law passed last year. Starting September 18, general hospitals and nursing homes have 12 months to establish a program to address threats and hazards related to workplace violence. NY hospitals will also have separate obligations to review their safetyand security protocols annually and develop plans to mitigate risks specific to their facilities. Here's everything you need to know about the law ahead of its upcoming effective dates.
Key Provisions
Next month, New York general hospitals and nursing homes will be expected to start the process of creating a workplace violence prevention program covering healthcare workers, patients, residents, and visitors. Medical facilities subject to the law have 12 months to establish the program to maintain compliance with the new law. For general hospitals, the law also requires annual workplace safety and security assessments, as well as the development and implementation of a safety and security plan.
The state law doesn't impose these specific program requirements on employers generally, but healthcare employers should review their services with counsel to see if one of their operations fall within the law's definition of a covered "facility."
Special Requirements For Hospitals
Starting January 1, 2027, general hospitals must begin conducting annual workplace safety and security hazard assessments. From there, hospitals are required to develop a "safety and security" plan that protects patients and staff from aggressive or violent behavior, and addresses the specific risks identified by the review.
NY hospitals should keep in mind that the assessment should generally:
* Be site- or facility-specific. Tailor the review to the hospital's size, complexity, and local geographic factors.
* Consider data like incident reports and logs, as well as complaints or concerns from employees, patients, visitors, and unions.
* Review the facility's physical layouts, access points, and communication systems.
* Audit the adequacy of training and response procedures for disruptive or violent individuals or events. You must train hospital security staff.
* Be updated when material risks or operating conditions change.
Other important reminders: The law explicitly instructs hospitals to actively involve employees and any recognized collective-bargaining representatives in developing their safety and security assessment and plan. General hospitals must give employees and applicable unions a written, detailed summary of the safety and security plan, and explain how workplace-violence incidents should be reported. General hospitals must also share appropriately redacted workplace violence incident-log summaries, trends, and analyses with the hospital security or safety committee responsible for workplace violence.
Hospital Emergency Department Security
Once the law goes into effect on September 18, New York general hospitals are also required to have continuous emergency department security on staff. The required number of officers depends on hospital location and size:
* City or county population = one million or more: At least one off-duty law-enforcement officer or trained security person must always be physically present in the emergency department (ED).
* Population < one million: At least one officer or trained security person must be on premises at all times, with physical presence prioritized near the ED and direct responsibility for it.
* Critical-access, sole-community, and rural emergency hospitals: Excluded from the mandate, but may be required to hire an officer or security personnel if the facility experiences increased ED violence or abuse at a level determined by the state Health Commissioner.
Potential Penalties For Non-Compliance
The statute doesn't define what a "violation" of the new law is or list specific penalties, leaving broad discretion to state enforcement. Failing to create a program, conduct a required assessment, maintain necessary documentation, involve employees or union representatives, or satisfy ED security requirements could potentially be treated as separate compliance issues and generate individual fines.
Non-compliance may be enforced under NY's Public Health Law, which applies where the law is silent on penalties. Currently, that law permits civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation. At the state Health Commissioner's request, the state Attorney General can also issue an injunction compelling a facility to comply with parts of the law.
Want to learn more about what should be included in a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan? Read FP's primer here.
Steps To Take Now
With two key deadlines approaching, hospitals and nursing homes covered by the law should start working to comply now. Start by following this list:
1. Determine whether your organization operates a general hospital or nursing home covered by the law. The state's health law excludes residential health care facilities, public health centers, diagnostic centers, treatment centers, among other facilities from its definition of covered "general hospitals."
2. Identify and assign executive, security, HR, and labor relations staff to lead development and implementation of the workplace violence plan. Reach out to FP's Workplace Safety team for assistance with hazard assessments or crafting a prevention program or plan.
3. Compare your existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' compliance, accreditations, as well as incident-reporting and security policies against the new statute's specific requirements to identify gaps.
4. Create a documented annual risk assessment process that incorporates incident data, workforce input, and union participation where applicable.
5. Evaluate emergency-department security coverage, including staffing models, training, vendor arrangements, and funding needs.
6. Develop a written safety and security plan that includes clear employee-reporting protocols, training processes, and mechanisms to share appropriately redacted incident data and trends with relevant employee representatives.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments on this law, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our New York City office.
* * *
Related People
Phillip C. Bauknight
Partner
908.516.1059
pbauknight@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Amanda M. Blair
Associate
212.899.9989
ablair@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Melissa Camire
Partner
212.899.9965
mcamire@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-workplace-violence-prevention-rules-about-to-go-into-effect-for-ny-medical-facilities
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Florida Federal Court Permits Another Digital Wiretapping Claim to Proceed - What Every Business With a Website Needs to Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 8, 2026:
* * *
Florida Federal Court Permits Another Digital Wiretapping Claim to Proceed: What Every Business With a Website Needs to Know
A Florida federal court just gave the green light to a proposed class action accusing a business of illegally intercepting communications simply by using common website tracking tools, delivering yet another blow to any Florida business with a website. The August 11 decision in Crespi v. BayCare Health System from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 14 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 8, 2026:
* * *
Florida Federal Court Permits Another Digital Wiretapping Claim to Proceed: What Every Business With a Website Needs to Know
A Florida federal court just gave the green light to a proposed class action accusing a business of illegally intercepting communications simply by using common website tracking tools, delivering yet another blow to any Florida business with a website. The August 11 decision in Crespi v. BayCare Health System from the U.S. District Court for the Middle Districtof Florida is the latest chapter in the fast-growing category of privacy litigation. It confirms Florida's status as the second-hottest venue in the nation for this particularly challenging kind of claim. Here's what happened, what the court decided, and what it means for you.
What Happened?
Three people sued BayCare Health System, a nonprofit healthcare network in Central Florida, over its use of two common analytics tracking tools on its website.
* The plaintiffs claim that they used BayCare's website over periods ranging from three to more than 10 years to search for physicians, request appointments, and research medical conditions such as arthritis.
* They claimed that while they were logged into their personal browsers, the tracking tools captured their searches, clicks, and other website activity and sent that information to the search engine without their consent.
* Because the plaintiffs were logged in, they argued the data was personally identifiable and tied directly to their browser profiles.
* They alleged this amounted to an interception of their private medical communications with BayCare, exposing details like which doctors they were researching and what conditions they were dealing with.
* They filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act and the federal Wiretap Act, along with a breach of confidence claim.
* Get Caught Up: What are Digital Wiretapping Lawsuits?
If you're new to this field, digital wiretapping claims arise when opportunistic plaintiffs' attorneys and pro se plaintiffs repurpose existing statutes originally intended to prevent people from listening in on phone calls and other communications. They claim that the very common practice of collecting data from website visitors through analytics tools (like cookies, pixels, session replay software, etc.) amounts to a violation of these old federal and state statutes. FP has been tracking these lawsuits on our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map and has seen an explosion unfold over the past few years - we are currently monitoring over 5,400 such cases from coast to coast.
Court Deals Blow to Businesses
BayCare moved to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and had not adequately pleaded any of their claims. The court sided with the plaintiffs on nearly every issue that mattered.
* Standing. The court found that the alleged disclosure of sensitive medical searches and communications, without consent, was enough on its own to establish a concrete injury sufficient for the case to proceed in federal court.
* Florida Security of Communications Act. The court rejected BayCare's argument that plaintiffs needed to have shown a subjective expectation of privacy to proceed, holding that such a requirement applies only to oral communications, not electronic ones like website activity. The court also found it plausible that the tracking tools "intercepted" the plaintiffs' communications and that information like physician searches and medical condition inquiries qualified as protected "contents" under the statute.
* Federal Wiretap Act. BayCare argued it could not be liable because it was a party to the communications at issue, which is normally a defense to a wiretapping claim. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly invoked an exception to that defense by alleging BayCare intercepted the communications for the purpose of violating HIPAA and its common-law duties of confidentiality, which was enough to let the claim move forward.
* Breach of confidence. The court found that the plaintiffs' repeated, years-long use of the website to research physicians and conditions was enough to plausibly allege a confidential relationship with BayCare, even though two of the named plaintiffs were not BayCare patients.
Florida is the New Hotbed
We asked in January whether Florida is the new hotbed for digital wiretapping lawsuits. This latest court decision confirms the answer is yes. After all, it is not an isolated ruling. It follows the same pattern we also flagged earlier this year when the same district court issued a similar ruling.
Moreover, Florida is not slowing down in its pursuit to catch California as the epicenter of digital wiretapping litigation. Our firm's Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map shows the current state-by-state breakdown of these lawsuits and reveals Florida to be the only state within reach of California. Decisions like this one will only accelerate that trend.
The reason? Florida courts are increasingly willing to let digital wiretapping claims clear the motion to dismiss stage on nearly identical theories. They usually conclude that standard analytics and advertising tools amount to unlawful interception when they capture identifiable, sensitive information about what a website visitor searched for or disclosed.
All Florida Businesses Should Take Note
Any healthcare business that operates a patient portal, health-related content, or a site touching similarly sensitive subject matter should pay attention to this latest decision. But the reasoning in this case is not limited to healthcare. The same tracking technologies power e-commerce sites, customer service platforms, marketing pages, and career sites across every industry. The court's logic on this case will most likely extend well beyond hospitals and health systems.
What Should Florida Businesses Do Now?
In order not to get caught up in this wave of litigation, every Florida business with a website should consider the following:
1. Audit your tracking technologies. Catalog every pixel, analytics tool, session replay tool, and marketing script on your website. If you are a healthcare business, also look at any patient, customer, or applicant portal. Have your outside counsel lead this review to preserve attorney-client privilege.
2. Fix your consent flow. A privacy policy buried in a footer link is not enough. Consent needs to be clear, conspicuous, and obtained before tracking begins, not after.
3. Flag sensitive content areas. Pages touching health information, financial data, or similarly sensitive topics deserve extra scrutiny. Work with your counsel to determine whether tracking should be turned off entirely.
4. Revisit vendor contracts. Make sure agreements with analytics and advertising vendors clearly assign responsibility for compliance and include indemnification where possible.
5. Get involved in efforts to amend Florida's law. Several states, including Tennessee and New Hampshire, have amended their state wiretapping laws to clarify that it is not a violation of the law for a business to deploy third-party cookies and pixels on its website. California is considering a bill to tighten the law as well (and one of our attorneys recently testified in aid of that ongoing legislative effort). Florida is primed for a similar clarification of its law, and FP attorneys are involved in legislative efforts that will take shape by early 2027. Contact your Florida business industry association to voice your concerns regarding this troubling litigation trend. And contact your Fisher Phillips attorney or our FP Gov group to inquire about ways you can support ongoing legislative efforts.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to track how Florida courts handle digital wiretapping claims and what it means for businesses. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, any attorney in our Florida offices, or any member of our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Team.
* * *
Related People
Ilanit Fischler
Partner
954.847.4723
ifischler@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Brett P. Owens
Partner
813.769.7512
bowens@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/florida-federal-court-permits-another-digital-wiretapping-claim-to-proceed
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
