The FTC has secured what it says is the largest civil penalty ever obtained for a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing failure: a combined $12 million settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech over the acquisition of JC Medical. According to the agency, the companies structured the transaction to avoid premerger notification and waiting-period requirements under the HSR Act, prompting an enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf.

That headline number matters.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced what it calls a major antitrust settlement with Caremark, resolving a closely watched case against one of the country’s largest pharmacy benefit managers. Even without the full settlement details in hand, the development is important: it signals that the FTC is continuing to press competition theories aimed at the role PBMs play in drug pricing, formulary design, and pharmacy reimbursement.

For antitrust and healthcare lawyers, the significance goes well beyond a single company.

The Federal Trade Commission has inserted itself into a debate with potentially long-term consequences for the legal profession: who gets to decide whether a lawyer’s education is good enough for bar admission. In a recent endorsement of an Ohio Supreme Court proposal, the FTC supported reducing the American Bar Association’s outsized role in determining whether a law school credential qualifies an applicant to sit for the bar.

That is more than an academic governance issue.

The FTC has announced a significant settlement with Caremark Rx LLC and Zinc Health Services LLC in its insulin-pricing antitrust matter, marking one of the clearest signals yet that pharmacy benefit manager rebate structures remain a top enforcement priority. According to the agency, the deal is designed to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs, increase transparency, and curb rebate practices that allegedly contributed to higher insulin list prices.

The proceeding, Caremark Rx, Zinc Health Services, et al., In the Matter of (Insulin), is part of the FTC’s broader challenge to how major drug middlemen negotiate formularies, rebates, and placement decisions for high-demand medications.

The Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling, siding with President Donald Trump in a dispute over the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and sharply expanding presidential removal authority over independent agencies. In doing so, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long been understood to shield FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, is likely to become a cornerstone decision in the Court’s modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling with immediate consequences for federal agencies, regulated businesses, and the lawyers who advise them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a consequential separation-of-powers decision, ruling 6-3 that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will. In doing so, the Court allowed President Donald Trump’s firing of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to stand and overturned the longstanding 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had insulated FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The dispute, now reflected on Docket Alarm as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, marks one of the Court’s most significant recent statements on presidential control over the administrative state.

The Supreme Court’s latest action backing President Trump’s firing of an FTC member is likely to reverberate well beyond the Federal Trade Commission. For lawyers tracking the administrative state, the immediate takeaway is not just about one personnel dispute—it is about the Court’s growing willingness to reconsider how much insulation Congress can give independent agencies from presidential control.

That shift matters because many enforcement and rulemaking frameworks rest on the assumption that certain regulators can operate with a measure of independence from the White House.

The Federal Trade Commission has given final approval to its order against Illuminate Education, closing out a closely watched enforcement action arising from a data breach that exposed information tied to roughly 10.1 million students. For education companies and the schools that rely on them, the case is a sharp reminder that student-data security is now firmly in regulators’ crosshairs.

According to the FTC, Illuminate failed to reasonably secure sensitive student information, resulting in a breach with sweeping impact.

The Federal Trade Commission has given final approval to its order against Illuminate Education, closing an administrative enforcement action that centered on allegations the ed-tech company failed to adequately safeguard highly sensitive student information. According to the FTC, those security failures contributed to a breach affecting 10.1 million students — a scale that makes this one of the most significant recent privacy matters involving school-related data.

The agency’s action, announced here, is notable not just because of the number of affected individuals, but because it underscores the FTC’s continued willingness to treat data-security lapses as consumer-protection violations in sectors handling especially sensitive populations.

Antitrust enforcement remained one of the most important U.S. legal developments in the last 24 to 72 hours, with fresh activity in the government’s ongoing campaign against major technology platforms. Recent filings and hearing activity in several headline matters show enforcers moving beyond liability theories and deeper into the remedies phase—where structural relief, business-practice restrictions, and long-term compliance obligations become concrete risks rather than abstract possibilities.

That shift matters.

Shutterstock has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that it used deceptive subscription and cancellation practices, adding to a growing line of enforcement actions targeting so-called “negative option” marketing. According to the FTC, Shutterstock obscured important terms tied to annual subscription and content-pack plans and made it harder for customers to cancel than to sign up.

While the dollar amount is notable, the broader significance lies in what the case signals about the FTC’s enforcement priorities.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced a $35 million settlement with Shutterstock over allegations that the company used deceptive subscription practices, including misleading consumers about billing terms and making cancellation unnecessarily difficult. The action is the latest in the FTC’s broader campaign against so-called “dark patterns” — interface designs or workflows that steer consumers into purchases, renewals, or ongoing charges they may not have knowingly agreed to.

At a high level, the case reflects a familiar enforcement theory: regulators are focusing not just on what companies disclose, but on how those disclosures are presented and whether consumers can realistically avoid or end recurring charges.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued Uber over its Uber One subscription program, alleging the company enrolled consumers without valid consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made cancellation more difficult than advertised. The case, now pending in the Northern District of California, puts one of the country’s most visible subscription products at the center of the FTC’s ongoing campaign against so-called “dark patterns” in online commerce.

According to the agency, Uber used deceptive interfaces and billing practices to sign users up for Uber One and then created unnecessary friction when they tried to cancel.

The FTC’s lawsuit against Uber has taken on added significance with the agency’s announcement that participating states joined in an amended complaint, reinforcing a broader enforcement trend: consumer-protection cases involving billing, cancellation, and subscription design are increasingly being pursued through coordinated federal-state action.

For legal and compliance teams, that multistate posture matters.