Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Turning Defense Into Alpha - Why Trademark Enforcement is a Business Investment, Not a Cost
CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 1 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by counsel Kevin Soucek:* * *
Turning defense into alpha: why trademark enforcement is a business investment, not a cost
Trademark enforcement is often viewed as a sunk legal cost - something to avoid, minimize, or defer. The issue with that mindset is that it can erode brand value over time.
In reality, enforcement is a disciplined, strategic investment that strengthens market position, protects revenue, and promotes brand equity and goodwill established over time.
By consistently ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 1 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by counsel Kevin Soucek: * * * Turning defense into alpha: why trademark enforcement is a business investment, not a cost Trademark enforcement is often viewed as a sunk legal cost - something to avoid, minimize, or defer. The issue with that mindset is that it can erode brand value over time. In reality, enforcement is a disciplined, strategic investment that strengthens market position, protects revenue, and promotes brand equity and goodwill established over time. By consistentlymonitoring and addressing unauthorized use, owners can prevent third parties from exploiting their brand's recognition as well as avoiding consumer confusion and erosion of overall brand value.
As such, this article makes the business case for enforcement, details the costs of under-enforcement, and provides a practical, risk-based playbook and budget framework you can deploy now.
Reframing enforcement as a business investment
A trademark is a revenue-producing asset. Its value flows from distinctiveness and consumer trust. Enforcement preserves that value by deterring confusion, preventing dilution, and maintaining bargaining power with partners and competitors. It also has a signaling effect: consistent, fair enforcement communicates to the market that the brand is defended, which reduces infringement attempts over time and reassures distributors, licensees, owners and investors. Viewed this way, enforcement is the maintenance of the brand's productive capacity, as you are preserving pricing power, conversion rates, and channel access your brand already earns.
For example, a company that consistently removes unauthorized marketplace sellers can maintain pricing discipline and avoid the race-to-the-bottom discounting that often follows unchecked infringement.
When framed as an investment, enforcement can be evaluated like other brand spend, i.e., by its impact on sales protection, customer trust, and enterprise value. Businesses that treat enforcement as part of brand management, rather than one-off litigation, generally see fewer high-severity disputes and lower average matter costs over time. Enforcement maturity also pays dividends in M&A diligence, financing, and licensing. In addition, clean rights and documented policing can improve valuation and support stronger royalty rates by increasing confidence in brand exclusivity. Well-documented policing also reduces friction in co-branding and marketplace partnerships, improves insurer confidence for IP risk coverage, and shortens diligence cycles by demonstrating scope, priority, and quality control.
The consequences of under-enforcement
When trademark enforcement is inconsistent or deferred, both legal rights and commercial value can erode, often gradually at first, and then all at once. The risks are cumulative and tend to compound over time:
* Legal risks. Failure to police can contribute to loss of distinctiveness (including genericide), weaken the scope of protection, and invite defenses such as laches or acquiescence. In extreme cases, tolerating uncontrolled third-party use may resemble naked licensing, threatening the validity of marks that depend on quality control.
* Commercial risks. In the market, unaddressed infringements normalize copycat behavior, fuel consumer confusion, and erode price premiums. Competitors may adopt closer proximity to the brand's trade dress and messaging, creating channel conflict and undermining brand identity.
* Operational risks. Delayed enforcement often leads to more difficult, complex and expensive disputes later, requiring broader remedies, dealing with additional defenses due to potential delays, emergency actions, or multi-jurisdictional coordination that could have been avoided with earlier, measured intervention.
A measured response now is often far less costly than a reactive response later. Calibrating responses also avoids overreach by respecting appropriate fair use, comparative advertising, descriptive use, and parody, which reduces the risk of "trademark bullying" narratives. Setting guardrails for tone, evidence, and settlement terms keeps the brand principled and firm on core rights.
A benefit versus cost-based policing program (Not "enforce everything")
The most successful policing programs prioritize issues based on business impact and likelihood of success, and they resolve a majority of cases without litigation. Core components include:
* Portfolio triage and priority tiers. Classify marks and uses by commercial importance and risk. Flag "crown jewel" marks (flagship brand names and trade dress in core markets), "strategic" marks (growth products or categories), and "defensive" marks (ancillary logos or slogans). For each, define tolerance levels plus response timelines.
* Monitoring and watch protocols. Implement calibrated monitoring rather than blanket surveillance. Combine trademark watch services, marketplace sweeps, domain and social handle monitoring, and app store checks. Map monitors to priority tiers and key geographies to control volume and cost, while avoiding noise.
* Budget framework. Adopt a two-bucket model: (1) run-rate policing (watches, sweeps, cease-and-desists, takedowns) with monthly caps and (2) contingency reserve for administrative and litigated matters, with pre-approved thresholds for filing decisions. This approach allows organizations to forecast routine spend while preserving flexibility for higher-risk disputes.
* Graduated response playbook. Adopt a consistent escalation ladder that preserves relationships where possible and escalates when necessary:
* Educate: soft outreach clarifying rights and proposing coexistence where risk is low.
* Demand: formal cease-and-desist with evidence of confusion/dilution and a practical cure.
* Platform: marketplace, social, or domain takedown mechanisms for clear violations.
* Administrative: Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) for domains; U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) or foreign oppositions/cancellations as needed.
* Litigation: reserved for high-impact cases with strong merits and business justification.
Each step should be documented to create a defensible enforcement record over time.
Clear decision and escalation criteria
A risk-based enforcement program is only as effective as the decisions that drive it. Organizations should establish clear, repeatable criteria for when and how matters escalate, ensuring consistency across teams, jurisdictions, and time.
Global considerations. Align watches and escalation rules to key jurisdictions, recognizing differences in first-to-file systems, customs recordation, and platform takedown efficacy. Coordinate with distributors for evidence and with local counsel for swift actions.
Roles and resourcing. Clarify division of labor between brand, legal, and outside counsel; pre-approve firms for rapid action.
Playbook governance. Review Key Performance Indicators (KPI) quarterly, refresh priority tiers biannually, and run post-mortems on high severity matters to capture learnings.
Practical next steps
* Inventory and tier your marks
* Implement calibrated monitoring
* Adopt the escalation ladder
* Set KPIs and a two-bucket budget
* Socialize the playbook across brand, sales, and customer support
By formalizing decision criteria and governance processes, companies can move away from ad hoc enforcement and toward a disciplined, defensible approach that aligns legal strategy with business objectives.
For example: If a brand spends $200,000 annually on a policing program and can attribute even a 1-2% recovery in price premium across a $50 million revenue base, the enforcement "return" is $500,000-$1,000,000, which is a 2.5-5x multiple on the investment, before accounting for avoided litigation costs and valuation benefits.
In short, trademark enforcement is not about "suing more," it is about protecting the long-term value of one of a company's most important assets. Organizations that implement disciplined, risk-based enforcement programs position themselves to preserve brand equity, maintain pricing power, and avoid costly disputes down the road.
For more insight and information, please contact a member of our Intellectual Property team.
* * *
Kevin Soucek
Counsel
ksoucek@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/turning-defense-into-alpha-why-trademark-enforcement-is-a-business-investment-not-a-cost
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Managing Genetic Testing Risk and Lessons From Recent DOJ Enforcement
CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 1 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by counsel Rachel Carey and members Emily Johnson and Elizabeth Sullivan:* * *
Managing genetic testing risk and lessons from recent DOJ enforcement
Over the last several years, federal concern about genetic testing has been steadily growing. Regulators have watched Medicare Part B spending on molecular and genetic tests spike while a relatively small number of laboratories, marketers, and telemedicine vendors drove a disproportionate share of claims, often through schemes that targeted ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 1 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by counsel Rachel Carey and members Emily Johnson and Elizabeth Sullivan: * * * Managing genetic testing risk and lessons from recent DOJ enforcement Over the last several years, federal concern about genetic testing has been steadily growing. Regulators have watched Medicare Part B spending on molecular and genetic tests spike while a relatively small number of laboratories, marketers, and telemedicine vendors drove a disproportionate share of claims, often through schemes that targetedseniors in venues like health fairs, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. Several notable national takedowns, including actions alleging more than a billion dollars in fraudulent genetic testing and telemedicine claims, confirmed that this was not an isolated problem but a repeated business model.
Recent enforcement activity underscores that the government's concerns should be taken seriously. In the last year alone, federal prosecutors have charged a Florida laboratory owner who used telemarketing campaigns and purchased physician orders to bill tens of millions of dollars in medically unnecessary genetic tests to Medicare, sentenced an Alabama physician who signed prepopulated telemedicine orders for cancer risk testing and durable medical equipment based on call center scripts, and secured a conviction against a former NFL player who ran a cardiovascular genetic testing lab that paid per sample kickbacks to marketers. Taken together, these cases highlight that genetic testing fraud often involves a schemebuilt on the same core elements: telemarketing to vulnerable seniors, thin or nonexistent clinical oversight, and high dollar panels ordered at volume, and that labs, prescribers, and investors can all find themselves at the center of an investigation when those elements align.
That growing suspicion appears ripe to crystallize into a formal regulatory framework. In early 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rolled out its Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare (CRUSH) initiative, signaling the most aggressive, data driven fraud posture the agency has taken in a decade. Through a wide ranging Request for Information and related policy announcements, CMS has asked how it should "crush" fraud in laboratory testing, explicitly calling out genetic and molecular diagnostics, and is exploring tools such as expanded registration requirements, enhanced ownership and identity checks, and real time payment suspensions powered by advanced analytics. For providers, CRUSH is more than another acronym; it is a public declaration that lab and genetic testing fraud now sit squarely at the center of enforcement focus of an AI enabled oversight apparatus.
Against that backdrop, post acute settings, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and assisted living facilities (ALFs), where residents are frequent targets of "free DNA test" campaigns, should expect their genetic testing claims and vendor arrangements to draw heightened attention. The organizations that fare best will be those that act now to audit billing practices, pressure test their lab and vendor relationships, and prepare a clear playbook for addressing compliance problems before the CRUSH spotlight lands on them.
CRUSH meets the genetic testing gold rush
High dollar molecular tests that once lived only in academic centers are now widely marketed, including to seniors in long term care, often under the banners of "medication matching," "cancer screening," or "dementia risk." Many of these tests are clinically appropriate in the correct circumstances, but the combination of complex coding, large per test reimbursement, and vulnerable populations creates the exact conditions that draw fraud and abuse scrutiny in the genetic lab space.
Enforcement trends in recent years show recurring patterns: a handful of labs and telemedicine entities generating large volumes of claims; identical panels ordered for broad populations regardless of individual need; and beneficiaries who do not recall a meaningful discussion about why testing was ordered or how results would affect care. CRUSH effectively takes these concerns and embeds them in a more systematic, data driven oversight framework focused on outlier patterns and questionable arrangements across the Medicare program.
For SNFs and ALFs, that means genetic testing activity that might once have flown under the radar will increasingly be viewed as inherently high risk. High dollar claims tied to residents in institutional settings will be natural targets for CRUSH's analytics, especially where a small number of laboratories, marketers, or telehealth prescribers account for most of the volume.
What recent DOJ cases tell us
* Florida lab owner (approx. $52M): Florida laboratory owner admitted using marketers and telemarketing style outreach to generate DNA swabs and physician orders, then billing about $52 million to Medicare for medically unnecessary genetic tests; the labs received tens of millions in payments. The scheme hinged on kickbacks, purchased orders, and mass ordered test panels disconnected from individualized clinical need. U.S. Dep't of Just., Press Release, Florida Laboratory Owner Pleads Guilty to $52M Medicare Fraud Scheme Involving Genetic Tests (Jan. 25, 2026), https://www.justice.gov.
* Alabama telemedicine doctor (approx. $6M / $2.7M paid): Alabama physician pled guilty and was later sentenced for signing prepopulated telemedicine orders for cancer risk genetic tests and DME based on call center scripts, resulting in over $6 million in claims and about $2.7 million in paid amounts to Medicare. He had little or no legitimate physician-patient relationship and relied on telemarketing leads targeting Medicare beneficiaries. Press Release, U.S. Att'y's Office for the Dist. of Mass., Alabama Doctor Sentenced to Over One Year in Prison for $2.7 Million Telemedicine Health Care Fraud Scheme (Mar. 22, 2026), https://www.justice.gov.
* Former NFL player / lab owner ($328M billed / ~$54M paid): A Texas lab owner and former NFL player, was convicted for orchestrating a cardiovascular genetic testing scheme in which his labs billed about $328 million and received roughly $54 million from Medicare. He paid per sample kickbacks to marketers who ran telemarketing campaigns, collected DNA samples and personal identifiers, and engaged in "doctor chasing" by pressuring primary care physicians to sign off on genetic tests prequalified by nonmedical staff; the kickbacks were concealed through sham marketing contracts and bogus "software" and "loan" arrangements. U.S. Dep't of Just., Press Release, Former NFL Player and Laboratory Owner Convicted in $328M Genetic Testing Fraud Scheme (Feb. 19, 2026), https://www.justice.gov.
What recent DOJ cases reveal about the model
Taken together, three recent federal cases illustrate how the same basic genetic testing business model is used by perpetrators of these schemes. Across all three matters, the same risk features recur: telemarketing campaigns aimed at Medicare beneficiaries, high dollar genetic panels ordered at scale, thin or nonexistent clinical evaluation, and financial relationships that tie testing volume to marketer compensation. Those are precisely the patterns an AI enabled oversight program like CRUSH is designed to detect, especially when they surface in institutional settings like SNFs and ALFs.
The NFL case underscores that enforcement is not limited to traditional healthcare actors. A former NFL player turned laboratory owner was convicted not just for billing medically unnecessary cardiovascular genetic tests but for orchestrating the underlying kickback and money laundering structure, including sham marketing contracts reverse engineered to match per sample payments. While celebrity or high net worth investors may not design the day to day billing strategy, these cases show that capital backing and ownership do not insulate individuals from liability when they finance or control labs and marketing enterprises that depend on telemarketing, doctor chasing, and volume based compensation for genetic testing.
Nor is this the first time athletes and other public figures have surfaced in healthcare fraud matters: DOJ has previously prosecuted schemes involving former NBA players who submitted fraudulent claims through the NBA Players' Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, and similar cases continue to draw attention to the reputational and legal risk that comes with lending a name, or capital, to complex healthcare businesses without a deep understanding of compliance obligations. Office of Pub. Affs., U.S. Dep't of Just., Press Release, 19 Defendants Charged With Defrauding the National Basketball Association Players' Health and Welfare Benefit Plan (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.justice.gov.
How genetic testing risk shows up in SNFs and ALFs
Zooming in on post acute care, genetic testing risk rarely starts as an intentional scheme by facility leadership. It tends to show up through routine seeming encounters:
* A vendor offers to host a "free DNA screening event" on site, focusing on cancer, dementia, or medication response for residents.
* Marketers visit rooms with cheek swabs, assuring residents and families that "Medicare pays for this" and that the test will prevent adverse drug events.
* A telehealth prescriber, unknown to the facility's attending physicians, appears as the ordering provider for dozens of residents' genetic tests.
* Claims data reveal high dollar molecular pathology codes often in the 81400 81408 Tier 2 range, panel codes in the 8141x-8145x range, or unlisted code 81479 tied to a small set of laboratories.
In many of the national genetic testing fraud cases targeting seniors, laboratory and marketing entities have exploited precisely these dynamics in long term care and community settings. Residents often do not fully understand the testing, do not see results, and do not experience changes in their care plans, which raises questions about informed consent and medical necessity--even when facility leadership did not explicitly design the program.
When investigators arrive, they will ask straightforward questions:
* Who approved these vendors to operate on premises?
* What diligence was done on the laboratories and telehealth prescribers?
* How were residents selected and consent obtained?
* What documentation exists in the chart to support the specific tests and codes billed?
* What documentation exists in the chart to support that the test results were received and utilized in treatment?
Facilities that cannot clearly answer these questions risk being characterized as passive participants in arrangements that CRUSH is explicitly designed to detect. Legitimate labs must also keep in mind that they need to have trust in the operations of their ordering providers. If labs are working with facilities that cannot appropriately address the final three bullet points above, that increases the risk of insufficient documentation for medical necessity.
How to audit your genetic testing activity
In a CRUSH environment, a targeted billing audit focused on genetic and molecular testing is the most immediate step SNFs, ALFs, and their affiliated providers can take to "get ahead" of scrutiny. Providers also have different resources to allocate to compliance initiatives, which vary based on the provider's revenue. Whether you are able to hire a compliance consultant in order to outsource compliance completely to a vendor or simply looking for a roadmap to start the compliance improvement journey, the important thing is to start now with the resources that you have instead of burying your head in the sand.
A practical audit framework can include:
Define the code universe. Have your internal team, revenue cycle management company, or a hired external third party auditor to focus on:
* Tier 2 molecular pathology codes 81400-81408 (frequently implicated in improper "stacked" billing).
* Hereditary cancer and multi gene panel codes in the 8141x-8145x range.
* Unlisted molecular pathology code 81479, often used for proprietary or bundled panels.
* Pharmacogenomic / drug gene codes (e.g., common CYP related codes such as 81225-81227 and related Tier 1 PGx codes) that are frequently referenced in CMS and payer guidance.
Look for suspicious clustering. Your analytics should be able to catch any:
* High utilization of these risky codes tied to one or two laboratories or ordering clinicians.
* Spikes over discrete time periods that correlate with new vendor relationships or on site events that indicate more investigation is warranted.
* Multiple residents receiving identical panels on the same dates of service, regardless of differing clinical profiles.
Tie claims back to clinical reality. For a meaningful sample of residents:
* Confirm that a legitimate treating clinician is documented and that there is an audit trail and medical record with clinical rationale for the test.
* Check for appropriate indications, such as treatment failures, adverse drug reactions, relevant family history, or guideline supported use, rather than general "screening" or curiosity in visit notes and medical record.
* Verify that results are present in the chart, were reviewed, and (ideally) influenced medication changes or care plans.
Evaluate medical necessity and coding.
* Compare findings to CMS coverage articles and local policies for pharmacogenomic and molecular testing, which often specify narrow circumstances where certain genes or panels are considered reasonable and necessary. Overuse of broad panels or codes that do not match the documented indications should be flagged for further review and potential repayment.
SNF and ALF risk assessments: Pressure testing vendor and lab arrangements
Billing audits tell you what is happening; facility level risk assessments explain why it is happening and where the next problem is likely to surface. For SNFs and ALFs, that means looking beyond claim lines to the web of relationships with laboratories, telehealth companies, and marketers that can quietly set a high risk genetic testing program in motion. Regulators are increasingly interested in those relationships and incentives, not just the billing that flows from them.
A practical starting point is simply to map who is in your building and in your residents' charts. Facilities should be able to identify every laboratory performing genetic or molecular testing for their residents, any mobile testing companies or "infection prevention" or wellness vendors operating on site, and all telehealth groups involved in ordering or interpreting tests. If leadership cannot easily describe that ecosystem, it is difficult to argue that the facility is truly overseeing its genetic testing footprint.
From there, attention should shift to money and contracts. Risk tends to concentrate where labs or vendors provide "free" equipment, supplies, or staff, where marketing or education support is tied (explicitly or implicitly) to test volume, or where agreements grant unusually broad access to residents or data. Even when arrangements are papered as legitimate services, the combination of high dollar genetic testing and volume sensitive compensation will attract fraud and abuse scrutiny if it is not carefully structured and monitored.
Access, consent, and clinical oversight are the next pressure points. Facilities should know who is authorized to allow vendors to interact with residents, how frontline staff are trained to respond to unsolicited offers of genetic testing, and whether resident consent is being obtained in a consistent, documented way with real clinician involvement. Can you answer questions such as: when residents are swabbed at group events, do their attending physicians know about it, and do results make their way back into care plans, or do the labs and telehealth prescribers effectively operate in a parallel universe? Programs that can answer these are in a much stronger position when enforcement is knocking at the door.
Finally, a credible risk assessment will surface questions of governance. Someone at the senior level (compliance, legal, or clinical) should clearly "own" the approval and oversight of new testing programs, and there should be a defined path for staff to raise concerns about vendor behavior, unusual billing patterns, or resident complaints. Facilities that can demonstrate this kind of intentional oversight will be in a stronger position to show regulators that they are actively managing genetic testing risk, rather than simply providing a venue for others' business models.
When to consider self disclosure in a CRUSH environment
For many organizations, the hardest question is not whether something went wrong in their genetic testing program, but whether what they have found looks enough like the public cases that it warrants a formal self disclosure. In a CRUSH environment, that judgment call has become more consequential: DOJ and CMS are bringing cases against actors across the chain from nursing home telemedicine prescribers to investor backed laboratories where patterns of conduct, not isolated errors, drive enforcement.
Is this a pattern or a pile of mistakes?
A useful starting point is to ask whether the issue is truly episodic or reflects a pattern. One off documentation gaps, sporadic use of the wrong code, or a single problematic vendor event can often be addressed through direct repayments, policy updates, and targeted education. By contrast, sustained use of broad genetic panels across large resident cohorts, recurring "free DNA" events, or long running relationships with a small cluster of laboratories or telehealth prescribers typically signal something closer to a business model. When the conduct looks organized (scripts, standing order templates, standard panels, recurring marketing visits) leadership should assume such schemes can quickly be picked up by enforcement analytics.
Does it match with recent enforcement cases?
The next lens is whether the internal fact pattern "matches" with what regulators are already litigating. Recent federal cases have centered on the same core features: telemarketing campaigns or call centers driving demand; high dollar genetic panels ordered at scale; limited or nonexistent clinical evaluation; and financial relationships that tie compensation to completed tests rather than clinical services. Facilities that discover combinations of these elements, for example, vendors hosting on site "cancer risk" or "medication matching" events, telehealth prescribers appearing suddenly in large volumes of orders, or investor backed labs aggressively marketing panels to post acute residents, should recognize that these are precisely the dynamics reflected in current enforcement actions. The closer the situation is to one of these headlines, the more difficult it is to justify using only internal cleanup to address the matter.
Can you fix this quietly without hiding the ball?
A third consideration is whether the organization can credibly resolve the issue without appearing to minimize it. In some instances, it may be reasonable to quantify overpayments, process refunds to payors, terminate or remediate vendor relationships, and document corrective actions without a formal disclosure-especially if the amount identified is under a certain dollar threshold. In others-particularly where potential Anti Kickback Statute, False Claims Act, or civil monetary penalties exposure is present-simply sending checks back may be viewed as incomplete if the issue later surfaces through a whistleblower, data analytics, or a broader industry sweep. If leadership is not comfortable explaining to a regulator, after the fact, why the matter was handled entirely in house, that discomfort is itself a signal that a more formal, transparent approach may be warranted.
Once an organization leans toward self disclosure, execution matters. The first imperative is to define the scope: the relevant timeframe, facilities, laboratories, ordering clinicians or telehealth entities, and the specific code sets implicated. That scoping should support a defensible estimate of financial exposure, using appropriate sampling or extrapolation methods rather than speculative figures. In parallel, immediate remediation should begin by halting problematic testing programs, tightening consent and ordering processes, revising policies that allowed vendors too much access to residents, and reinforcing expectations for clinicians around medical necessity and documentation.
Equally important is the narrative the organization is prepared to present. A credible disclosure does more than list numbers; it explains how the arrangement emerged (for example, a vendor proposed "no cost" testing initiative, a telehealth partnership aimed at medication management, or an investor driven genetics strategy), how internal controls failed to detect or prevent problematic patterns earlier, what the investigation found, and how governance has changed to prevent recurrence. That narrative should be consistent across communications with payors, regulators, boards, and, where appropriate, residents and families.
Practical steps for SNFs, ALFs, and labs to get ahead
For post acute providers and the laboratories that work with them, the path to getting ahead of enforcement and the broader genetic testing crackdown can be distilled into a few concrete steps:
* Launch a focused genetic testing billing audit centered on high risk molecular and PGx codes, looking for clustering by lab, prescriber, and facility.
* Conduct a SNF/ALF specific risk assessment of all lab, telehealth, and marketing relationships that touch resident testing, with particular attention to financial flows and access to residents.
* Develop an internal playbook that outlines how leadership will respond if audits uncover significant issues, including criteria for when to consider self disclosure.
Providers that proactively examine their billing, vendor relationships, and response strategies now will be best positioned to weather the coming wave of scrutiny and, in many cases, to turn a high risk area into a demonstration of mature governance instead of a headline.
* * *
Rachel Carey
Counsel
rcarey@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Emily Johnson
Member
ejohnson@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Elizabeth Sullivan
Member
esullivan@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/managing-genetic-testing-risk-and-lessons-from-recent-doj-enforcement
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: UK - Consultation Launched on Threshold for Triggering Collective Redundancy Obligations
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by associate Kate Richards:* * *
UK: Consultation Launched on Threshold for Triggering Collective Redundancy Obligations
The Government's consultation for collective redundancy seeks views on the level and methods for the new threshold.
At a Glance
The UK Employment Rights Act 2025 ("ERA 2025") is set to introduce key changes to the legal framework for collective redundancy. In particular, changes are expected to come into force in 2027 to introduce a new organisation-wide threshold ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by associate Kate Richards: * * * UK: Consultation Launched on Threshold for Triggering Collective Redundancy Obligations The Government's consultation for collective redundancy seeks views on the level and methods for the new threshold. At a Glance The UK Employment Rights Act 2025 ("ERA 2025") is set to introduce key changes to the legal framework for collective redundancy. In particular, changes are expected to come into force in 2027 to introduce a new organisation-wide thresholdtest for collective redundancy consultation. On February 26, 2026, the Government launched a consultation to seek views on the level and methods by which this new threshold might be set. In this article, we explore the alternative proposals put forward and what this could mean for employers.
*
Currently, collective redundancy consultation (and the requirement to submit the HR1 form to the Government) is triggered where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant, within a period of 90 days or less, 20 or more employees at one establishment. This is a complex area and has been the subject of commentary in recent months in light of a recent case, which provided some clarity for employers on how to calculate whether the trigger for collective consultation is met.
Where employers fail to comply with the collective consultation requirements, they may be ordered to pay a protective award to employees of up to 90 days' gross pay per employee.
ERA 2025 Reforms
The ERA 2025 will introduce an additional organisation-wide trigger, such that collective redundancy consultation obligations will also be triggered when an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant, within a period of 90 days or less, a "threshold number of employees" across the business. Where this threshold will be set and how it will operate will be matters for regulations, however the Government's recent consultation provides some insight on the Government's proposed way forwards.
In addition, from April 6, 2026, the protective award that may be ordered for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations will double to 180 days' gross pay per employee.
Consultation Options
The consultation is seeking views on the right method to use and the right level to set the organisation-wide threshold in order to "balance the needs of businesses while still enhancing protections for employees."
The options put forward in the consultation consider setting the threshold as a fixed number, as a percentage of employees, as the highest or lowest of two or more numbers, or determined in some other way, noting that the ERA 2025 does not permit the threshold to be set lower than 20. The Government has narrowed it down to two proposals:
* Option 1 (the Government's Lead Proposal) - Single Fixed Number
This would use a single fixed number within the range of 250-1,000 proposed redundancies. The Government believes that this will be the easiest way to ensure employers understand their obligations and that employees and trade unions can be certain when they should be collectively consulted.
Views are sought on where within the range of 250-1,000 employees the threshold should be set, however the consultation indicates that this is likely to be at one of 250, 500, 750 or 1,000. The Government estimates that this could lead to between 19 and 97 additional collective consultations per year, depending on which figure is chosen.
* Option 2 - Tiered Fixed Based on Number of Employees
The alternative proposal would set the threshold by applying different fixed numbers according to the employer's size, as follows:
* 250 redundancies for organisations with 0-2,499 employees
* 500 redundancies for organisations with 2,500-9,999 employees
* 750 redundancies for organisations with 10,000 or more employees
This is estimated to have a greater impact on the number of collective consultations run by employers annually, but the Government notes that this option may not provide adequate protection to employees in permitting large employers to make large numbers of redundancies without collectively consulting. There is also a concern from the Government around how employers should calculate their business size to determine the appropriate threshold. To reduce the potential burden that this could place on businesses, this proposal suggests taking a snapshot date annually of April 5, which would apply to any redundancy proposals for the following year.
Two other proposals were explored, which would either use a percentage of total workforce, or a combined fixed number and percentage threshold method. However, the Government appears to be moving away from the possibility of using variable percentage calculation methods, given the complexity this would create for all parties.
Impacts for Employers and Next Steps
Employers may be relieved to see the Government's preferred direction of travel with this reform, as the proposed range is higher than many had predicted. It is also worth noting that some flexibility has been included in the ERA 2025 to provide that the collective consultation obligations will not require employers to consult all representatives together, nor to undertake consultation with a view to reaching the same agreement with all representatives. The consultation explains that this means employers will have flexibility to hold a single consultation exercise with representatives of all affected employees or have separate consultation discussions across different groups.
However, this is still expected to be a significant change and may lead to multi-site employers having to collectively consult more often. Centralised record-keeping systems will become critical for businesses with multiple establishments to keep track of proposals for redundancies across different sites. This will also mean that multi-site businesses will need to have a centralised and more holistic approach to workforce planning and redundancies.
The consultation is scheduled to close on May 21, 2026, with the new threshold due to come into force in 2027. Responses can be submitted online here.
The Government has also indicated that it intends to produce a Code of Practice on collective redundancy obligations, subject to consultation expected during 2026.
Don't forget the upcoming changes to protective awards, due to take effect on April 6, 2026. The doubling of the protective award to 180 days' gross pay represents a substantial increase in the potential liability for non-compliance. It is understood that this will apply to dismissals which happen on or after April 6, 2026, meaning it will affect collective redundancy proposals underway prior to this date, if terminations take place afterwards. It will therefore become even more important for employers to carefully plan upcoming reductions in force to assess whether the threshold for collective consultation has been met and if so, to plan a compliant process.
For more information about this and the other ERA 2025 developments, please visit our Reform Hub (https://littler.co.uk/insights/reform-hub/).
* * *
Authors
Kate Richards
Associate
London
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-consultation-launched-threshold-triggering-collective-redundancy-obligations
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Levin to Speak on Crypto Market Structure at STANY 90th Annual Conference
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, April 1 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news:* * *
Levin to Speak on Crypto Market Structure at STANY 90th Annual Conference
*
Richard B. Levin, the Chair of Taft's FinTech Practice, will be speaking on a panel at the securities Traders Association of New York (STANY) 90th Annual Conference on April 13, 2026, at the NYSE. The all-day conference will feature panels on market structure, crypto, and trading innovation. Levin will be a speaker on the panel, Crypto at the Trading Desk: Institutional Execution, Liquidity & Market Structure ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, April 1 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Levin to Speak on Crypto Market Structure at STANY 90th Annual Conference * Richard B. Levin, the Chair of Taft's FinTech Practice, will be speaking on a panel at the securities Traders Association of New York (STANY) 90th Annual Conference on April 13, 2026, at the NYSE. The all-day conference will feature panels on market structure, crypto, and trading innovation. Levin will be a speaker on the panel, Crypto at the Trading Desk: Institutional Execution, Liquidity & Market Structurein 2026. Other speakers on the panel include, Chen Arad, Founder and CXO of Solidus Labs, Douglas Love, Director of Product and Customer Success of CoinRoutes, and Andrew Murphy, General Counsel of Talos.
STANY has represented professionals in the trading and financial services community across the greater New York City area for more than 85 years. Learn more and register for the annual conference here.
Levin focuses on the representation of early stage and publicly traded FinTech and traditional financial services firms, including crypto trading platforms and custodians, broker-dealers, alternative trading systems (ATS), and exchanges. He represents these clients before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), state regulators, and Congress.
***
Original text here: https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/levin-to-speak-on-crypto-market-structure-at-stany-90th-annual-conference/
Hanson Bridgett Opens Fresno Office, Expanding Commitment to Central Valley and Statewide Growth Strategy
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 1 -- Hanson Bridgett, a law firm, issued the following news release:* * *
Hanson Bridgett Opens Fresno Office, Expanding Commitment to Central Valley and Statewide Growth Strategy
Opening of downtown Fresno office underscores firm's commitment to a rapidly growing Central Valley market
*
Hanson Bridgett LLP announced today the opening of its downtown Fresno office, establishing a permanent home in the Central Valley and marking a significant milestone in the firm's continued expansion across California. The new office reinforces the firm's long-term commitment ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 1 -- Hanson Bridgett, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Hanson Bridgett Opens Fresno Office, Expanding Commitment to Central Valley and Statewide Growth Strategy Opening of downtown Fresno office underscores firm's commitment to a rapidly growing Central Valley market * Hanson Bridgett LLP announced today the opening of its downtown Fresno office, establishing a permanent home in the Central Valley and marking a significant milestone in the firm's continued expansion across California. The new office reinforces the firm's long-term commitmentto clients, the legal community, and strategic growth in one of California's most important regional markets.
Located in the heart of downtown Fresno at 2440 Tulare Street, Suite 200, the new 6,029-square-foot office establishes a permanent presence in a region anchored by California's fifth-largest city, and represents a growing focus of the firm's all-California strategy. The office is led by partner and Fresno Market Leader Ryan Eddings of the firm's labor and employment practice group, who joined the firm in 2025 to spearhead its expansion in the Central Valley.
"This is the next step in our intentional growth plan and aligned with our 'all-California' strategy," said Kristina Lawson, managing partner at Hanson Bridgett. "This office reflects a deliberate long-term investment in Fresno and in the Central Valley. Fresno is a vital and evolving market, and opening a physical office here reflects both the strength of the region and our long-term commitment to being a meaningful partner to our existing clients here, new clients, and the Central Valley community."
The Fresno office builds on Hanson Bridgett's statewide growth momentum, which has included recent lateral additions across key markets and practice areas. In recent months, the firm has welcomed real estate partners Tara Castro Narayanan and Susan Daly, as well as Jenica Maldonado, a labor and employment partner -- further strengthening its ability to serve clients across California's complex and interconnected legal landscape.
With its Fresno presence, Hanson Bridgett is extending that platform into the Central Valley -- bringing full-service, cross-sector capabilities to a region experiencing sustained population growth, economic development, and increasing demand for sophisticated legal counsel within core industries, including agriculture, health care, transportation, energy, and government.
"This office is a clear signal of our commitment to the Central Valley and to Fresno as a long-term market for the firm," said Eddings. "I'm from Fresno, and establishing and growing this physical office -- a local presence right in the heart of downtown -- means a lot to our clients here and this community, and we're of course more accessible, more connected, and better positioned to succeed."
"What's exciting about this moment is that we're building something from the ground up with a clear vision," Eddings said. "This space gives us the foundation to grow thoughtfully -- bringing in the right talent, expanding our capabilities, and delivering the kind of sophisticated, responsive service that clients in the Central Valley are looking for."
The downtown location reflects both the firm's practical approach to client service and its broader civic orientation. Hanson Bridgett plans to continue expanding the Fresno office in the coming months, including expected attorney additions in April, as part of a broader effort to build out a multi-practice team aligned with the region's economic landscape.
"We're already seeing strong interest from attorneys who want to be part of what we're building here," Eddings added. "That momentum, combined with the strength of the market, gives us a lot of confidence in where this office is headed."
* * *
About Hanson Bridgett
Hanson Bridgett LLP is an Am Law 200 law firm with more than 200 attorneys and offices across California. Rooted in California and well-versed in its complex legal landscape, the firm proudly serves clients nationwide. The firm is structured to support businesses, public agencies, nonprofits, and individuals spanning industries including: construction, corporate and risk management, government and transportation, employer services, health and senior care, wealth management, and real estate and environment. As the first law firm certified as a B Corp, Hanson Bridgett is deeply committed to public service, sustainability, and advancing the communities where we live and work - in California and beyond.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hansonbridgett.com/press-release/hanson-bridgett-opens-fresno-office-expanding-commitment-central-valley-and-statewide
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Commentary: Letting Salespeople Choose Their Pay Plan? Here's What Could Go Wrong For Your Dealership - And 5 Steps to Do It Right
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by senior counsel John K. Skousen:* * *
Letting Salespeople Choose Their Pay Plan? Here's What Could Go Wrong For Your Dealership - And 5 Steps to Do it Right
Offering your salespeople a choice between two pay plans sounds like a win-win, but it can create legal headaches that outlast the goodwill. Before your dealership rolls out a Plan A versus Plan B compensation structure, here's what you need to know.
What Could Two Pay Plans Look Like?
While the specifics will vary by dealership, ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, April 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 31, 2026, by senior counsel John K. Skousen: * * * Letting Salespeople Choose Their Pay Plan? Here's What Could Go Wrong For Your Dealership - And 5 Steps to Do it Right Offering your salespeople a choice between two pay plans sounds like a win-win, but it can create legal headaches that outlast the goodwill. Before your dealership rolls out a Plan A versus Plan B compensation structure, here's what you need to know. What Could Two Pay Plans Look Like? While the specifics will vary by dealership,here's one common way a two-pay plan system could take shape in practice.
* Your dealership offers Plan A with a higher base hourly wage and a lower commission rate to offset labor costs: steady, predictable, good for someone still building their stride.
* You also offer Plan B to flip that equation, with a lower base hourly rate at or near the minimum wage, but a higher commission rate that can pay off handsomely for a high-volume closer.
You let your salespeople choose which pay plan they would like. This means you will have salespeople working side by side, with the same job title and work on the same showroom floor, but potentially earning very different paychecks even if their output is about the same.
The Business Case Makes Sense
The logic is intuitive. Some salespeople, especially newer hires, want the security of a meaningful level of guaranteed base pay in the beginning because they are still in training or need to build a customer base. Others, typically your experienced salespersons, who are the highest producers, will gladly trade a lower hourly base guarantee for a richer commission rate that rewards their output. Offering both can help you recruit a broader range of talent while keeping top performers motivated.
A tiered structure can also serve as a developmental ladder: Plan A as a higher-base starting point for employees still building their pipeline, with Plan B as the performance-oriented option once they've proven themselves and seek higher rewards. In practice, dealers who use this model report that it works, as long as they manage it carefully.
The Equal Pay Concern is Real
Here's the risk that should keep you up at night: two salespeople doing the same job, but making meaningfully different amounts under plans they nominally "chose." That's a fact pattern that invites an Equal Pay Act claim.
Under the federal Equal Pay Act, differences in pay for employees doing substantially equal work must be tied to seniority, merit, production quantity or quality, or some other legitimate factor. A voluntary plan election could qualify, but only if the choice is genuinely free, consistently applied, and not producing a discriminatory pattern along protected lines.
State laws raise the stakes further. California's Equal Pay Act, for example, extends the analysis beyond sex to race and ethnicity, and requires that any pay differential be tied to a bona fide, job-related factor. Colorado, Illinois, and New York have enacted similarly broad protections in recent years.
The real danger isn't that Plan A and Plan B pay differently. It's that, over time, employees in protected categories may end up clustered in the lower-earning plan. For example, if your data shows that women are disproportionately in the lower-paying option, you could have a problem, regardless of whether the original choice was technically voluntary.
The Motivation Problem is Just as Real
This one is less legal and more human. Dealership floors are not known for compensation privacy. When two people doing the same job can compare paychecks and calculate that they would have made more under the other plan, resentment follows.
A salesperson on Plan B who had a slow month and realizes Plan A would have paid significantly more will be unhappy. They'll do the math on whether they've been set up to lose, and could start looking for the exit to find a new employer. Many auto dealers seek to hire discontented salespersons with a history of high performance in other dealerships by offering temporary pay guarantees over the first 90 days (e.g., $10,000 per month x 3 months).
You might think that you can solve this problem by prohibiting your workers from talking about their pay. Think again. Besides the fact that such a policy cannot realistically be enforced, it might very be well illegal. States like California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, and New Jersey (and more) protect workers who discuss or ask each other about wage information and prohibit retaliation for having these discussions. Beyond that, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives most private-sector employees (unionized or not) the right to engage in concerted activity - which may include discussing wages and working conditions, regardless of state law.
California Adds Another Layer (Of Course)
California dealers face additional complexity, and it's worth understanding why. While the state Labor Commissioner has blessed "greater of" pay plans as long as they are not a subterfuge for avoiding minimum wage and/or overtime requirements, some courts have read this approval very narrowly and approach creative compensation structures with skepticism. Some judges, in fact, have gone as far as to accuse employers of mathematical witchcraft and sorcery when reviewing dual-calculation pay plans - even when the math was clean and employees were earning well above minimum wage.
The California Supreme Court brought some sanity back to the analysis with its 2020 decision in Oman v. Delta Air Lines. In that case, a group of flight attendants worked under a complex pay system that paid the highest of four pay calculations based on various factors. Although hours worked were elements in the computations, the airline did not promise to pay by the hour, nor to "pay for certain hours and not others." It was undisputed that the employees earned more than the minimum wage. But the workers filed a minimum wage lawsuit anyway.
The court ruled for the employer. The main reason? It said that when a pay agreement provides a path for earning compensation above the legal minimum, courts should enforce the contract as written. Stated differently, "straight-time wages above the minimum wage are a matter of private contract between the employer and employee."
The key takeaway for dealers is that, if your compensation structure always pays the higher of multiple calculations, you're generally on firmer ground.
Risks Still Remain (Sorry, Employers)
But that Oman ruling didn't eliminate all risk for California dealerships. Wage and hour challenges can be brought as representative actions under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) where one unhappy employee can open the door to claims on behalf of the entire workforce. Employees may also file class actions in state or federal court.
Dealerships have faced many PAGA and class action lawsuits involving minimum wage and overtime claims filed by highly paid employees whose incentive agreements allegedly had gaps (triggering minimum wage claims) or whose compensation was not structured properly to satisfy an exemption (triggering overtime claims). That means you need to review any dual-plan structure in California for compliance with the state's minimum wage laws as well as the state's conditional overtime exemption for commissioned salespersons. This requires that more than half of an employee's compensation represent commissions and that the effective hourly rate exceed one-and-a-half times the state minimum wage.
The bottom line in California: creative pay plans are legally defensible, but they require real legal infrastructure to hold up.
5 Steps Before You Roll Out Different Pay Plans
A few practical steps before you roll anything out:
* Have your attorney review each plan independently for compliance. Both plans need to satisfy minimum wage and overtime requirements on their own, not just as a blended outcome.
* Build objective criteria for plan transitions. If Plan A is meant to be a steppingstone, document objective benchmarks for moving to Plan B. Subjective, case-by-case decisions about who advances are a discrimination claim in waiting.
* Track outcomes by protected category. If employees in protected categories are consistently ending up in the lower-earning plan, address it before someone else does.
* Ask whether "free choice" is actually free. If plan transitions are voluntary rather than strictly performance-based, courts and agencies will scrutinize whether certain employees faced pressure (explicit or implicit) to stay in a particular plan. Among other things, your FP counsel can assist in setting up acknowledgments and election forms with sufficient disclosures to help establish the voluntary nature of a choice.
* Keep good records. Documentation of pay-plan elections, transition criteria, and any internal plan comparisons will be essential if a claim arises.
Conclusion
If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, any attorney on our Auto Dealership Team, or any member of our Wage and Hour Team. Make sure you are subscribed to our Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
John K. Skousen
Senior Counsel
jskousen@fisherphillips.com
214.220.8305
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/letting-salespeople-choose-their-pay-plan
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
12 Hausfeld Lawyers Honored in Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers Guide
WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:* * *
12 Hausfeld Lawyers honored in Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers Guide
Hausfeld is proud to announce that 12 of its attorneys in the United States have been recognized by the 2026 Lawdragon '500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers Guide'.
They were selected through a process that combines independent journalistic research with a robust, open nomination process. Final candidates are vetted by peers and competitors before the final 500 are selected.
Hausfeld lawyers honored by Lawdragon as among the nation's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 1 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * 12 Hausfeld Lawyers honored in Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers Guide Hausfeld is proud to announce that 12 of its attorneys in the United States have been recognized by the 2026 Lawdragon '500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers Guide'. They were selected through a process that combines independent journalistic research with a robust, open nomination process. Final candidates are vetted by peers and competitors before the final 500 are selected. Hausfeld lawyers honored by Lawdragon as among the nation's500 Leading Financial Lawyers:
- Swathi Bojedla (Antitrust, Environmental & Data Breach)
- Melinda R. Coolidge (Antitrust & Competition Law)
- Reena A. Gambhir (Antitrust & Competition Law, Human Rights)
- Sathya S. Gosselin (Antitrust, Human Rights, IP)
- Michael D. Hausfeld/* (Human Rights, Antitrust, Discrimination Litigation)
- Megan E. Jones (Antitrust & Competition Law)
- Jeannine M. Kenney (Antitrust)
- Christopher L. Lebsock (Antitrust & Financial Litigation)
- Michael P. Lehmann (Antitrust & Competition Law)
- Scott Martin (Antitrust & Environmental Litigation)
- Brian A. Ratner (Commercial Litigation & Appeals, esp. Antitrust)
- Hilary K. Scherrer (Antitrust, Financial Litigation & Consumer Fraud)
* * *
*/ Member of Lawdragon's Hall of Fame
View the full list here: The 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers | Lawdragon (https://www.lawdragon.com/guides/2026-03-27-the-2026-lawdragon-500-leading-plaintiff-financial-lawyers)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/12-hausfeld-lawyers-honored-in-lawdragon-s-leading-plaintiff-financial-lawyers-guide-1
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]