The Federal Trade Commission has said it will file a stipulated order to resolve its litigation against Zillow and Redfin, signaling that a closely watched enforcement matter involving two of the best-known online real-estate platforms is nearing a negotiated finish rather than continuing through active court litigation.

Although the FTC’s announcement does not spell out the full terms, the move is notable on its own.

In a recent decision in Opinion, No. 24-10178, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed a recurring issue for appellate practitioners: when an order is sufficiently final to support appellate jurisdiction. Although the opinion is case-specific, its practical significance lies in the court’s treatment of finality, the scope of review, and the consequences for litigants who appeal too early or without a clear jurisdictional basis.

The Eleventh Circuit ultimately focused on its threshold obligation to confirm jurisdiction before reaching the merits.

The Justice Department has announced that Deloitte and several affiliated entities agreed to pay $21.5 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by failing to comply with anti-discrimination obligations in federal contracts and by discriminating against employees and applicants. The settlement involves Deloitte LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Touche LLP, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, and Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP.

The case is significant not simply because of the dollar amount, but because it reflects the government’s continuing use of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. That initiative treats alleged workplace discrimination by federal contractors as more than a traditional employment-law problem.

The Justice Department’s announcement of a $400 million settlement with TikTok and ByteDance over children’s privacy claims is a major federal enforcement event—and a clear signal that regulators continue to treat minors’ data practices as a top priority. By any measure, the size of the resolution places it among the most significant recent privacy outcomes involving a major consumer technology platform.

While the headline number is striking, the broader legal significance is what should command attention from counsel and compliance teams.

The Justice Department has announced a new National Fraud Detection Center, a prosecutor-led, multi-agency effort designed to generate criminal leads involving fraud against taxpayer-funded programs. Although this is not a court decision, it is a significant enforcement development with immediate implications for companies and individuals operating in heavily regulated sectors, especially healthcare, government procurement, and public benefits.

The new center appears aimed at centralizing fraud detection and accelerating the path from data analysis to investigation.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced a $400 million settlement with TikTok and ByteDance resolving children’s privacy litigation under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. According to the government, the deal resolves a 2024 lawsuit alleging unlawful data practices involving minors and ranks among the largest recoveries ever obtained in a COPPA matter.

For companies operating consumer-facing digital platforms, the size of the settlement is the headline—but the broader takeaway is the government’s continued willingness to pursue major privacy penalties where minors are involved.

The Eleventh Circuit’s August 18, 2026 opinion in Case No. 25-11441 is now available, but before drawing substantive conclusions, practitioners should note an important limitation: the public case listing currently identifies the filing only as “Opinion,” without additional party-caption detail in the materials provided here.

A federal court in New Jersey has permanently enjoined Roxanna Cedeno, who did business as RC Travel Agency, from preparing federal tax returns or participating in any tax-preparation business. The order, entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, marks a significant enforcement action in the government’s ongoing effort to police alleged misconduct by return preparers.

The case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CEDENO, is a reminder that the Department of Justice continues to use civil injunction actions to shut down preparers it believes pose an ongoing risk to the tax system.

Federal prosecutors have unsealed a nine-count indictment charging Louis Trejo, Kenneth Garner, Harold Stevenson, and Erihk Belis in a sweeping alleged scheme that combines classic healthcare fraud allegations with racketeering, firearms, narcotics, money laundering, and violence-related counts. According to the Justice Department, the case centers on an alleged “War Room” enterprise that used fabricated transportation data to support at least $12 million in fraudulent Medicaid claims.

The charging mix is what makes this filing especially notable.

A California federal judge has approved the Justice Department’s settlement allowing Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks to move forward, rejecting objections from a coalition of state attorneys general and closing a closely watched chapter in federal merger enforcement.

The case, United States of America v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al, drew unusual attention because the dispute was not just over the substance of the antitrust remedy, but also over whether the court should probe claims that outside lobbying may have influenced the DOJ’s settlement decision.

Veloxis Pharmaceuticals has agreed to pay more than $46 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that it used kickbacks to drive prescriptions and purchases of Envarsus XR, its kidney-transplant drug. According to the Department of Justice, the resolution includes a deferred prosecution agreement tied to a criminal information filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, underscoring the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical marketing practices that allegedly influence prescribing decisions.

The matter is significant because it combines both criminal and civil exposure in a single healthcare-fraud resolution.

The latest entry in D.C. Circuit appeal No. 25-7156 is procedural rather than merits-based, but it is still worth watching. On August 18, 2026, the clerk’s office entered an order scheduling oral argument for Tuesday, October 13, 2026. View full case on Docket Alarm.

Because this is a scheduling order, the court did not decide any substantive legal issue, announce a new rule, or alter existing precedent.

Apple has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00437 on August 17, 2026. At this stage, the publicly available docket information is limited, but the filing itself is noteworthy for patent litigators and in-house IP teams tracking how major technology companies are using PTAB proceedings as part of broader enforcement and defense strategies.

The proceeding is captioned Apple Inc., indicating Apple is the petitioner seeking review of an issued patent.

The legal fallout is still building from a federal judge’s decision to throw out a settlement in President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, concluding the agreement had “no basis in law.” The ruling did more than unwind a headline-grabbing deal: it opened the door to sanctions, ethics referrals, and renewed scrutiny of how government lawyers and private counsel structure settlements in politically sensitive litigation.

In the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kathleen Williams reportedly found that the settlement could not stand because it exceeded lawful authority and appeared to use the judicial process in a way the court would not endorse.

A federal judge in California has sided with the federal government in a closely watched fight over the Santa Ynez pipeline system, rejecting the state’s attempt to block an order requiring Sable Offshore to keep the system operating under the Defense Production Act. The decision gives the Trump administration an early win in a dispute that sits at the intersection of emergency federal power, energy infrastructure, and state environmental oversight.

At the center of the controversy is whether California regulators can effectively countermand a federal directive issued in the name of energy security.