On July 9, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced enforcement of its new Data Security Program (“DSP”) to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data. Created earlier this year, the program seeks to prevent China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela (collectively, the “Countries of Concern”), as well as foreign entities or individuals with significant ties to these nations, from gaining access to U.S. government-related data and certain categories of U.S. sensitive personal data. Importantly, the rules apply “regardless of whether the data is anonymized, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted.” According to the DOJ, the threat of foreign adversaries collecting and weaponizing U.S. data had become “increasingly urgent, and ensuring prompt compliance with the DSP’s requirements is critical to addressing the administration’s priorities and stopping the flow of U.S. sensitive personal data and government-related data to countries of concern.” The seriousness of any infraction is reflected in the program’s steep civil and criminal penalties. Violators of the DSP could be subject to fines up to $368,136 per violation, or twice the value of each transaction in violation, whichever is greater. Willful violators could face imprisonment of up to 20 years and a $1 million fine.

The skies are darkening over the “walled garden” of Apple’s operating system. A Northern District of California court cleared the way for antitrust claims against Apple over its iCloud storage service on mobile devices. The court’s decision to deny Apple’s motion to dismiss in Gamboa v. Apple is a wake-up call for tech companies: courts are ready and willing to scrutinize platform-based restrictions, especially when those barriers are baked into product design. Judge Eumi Lee’s ruling also shows how a change in legal strategy can make all the difference for plaintiffs – or defendants – when charting a course through the early stages of antitrust litigation.

Some of the most critical evidence at trial comes in the form of deposition testimony from witnesses who are unable to testify live at trial. Done right, deposition designations can powerfully support your case. Done poorly, they can confuse the jury or worse yet, be excluded. Below are six best practices for California practitioners to ensure your designations are both effective and admissible.

Each year, upwards of 100,000 music fans pay up to $599 for the ticket price of weekend-long admission to the Coachella Music and Arts festival outside of Palm Springs, California. In 2025, however, nearly 60% of Coachella’s general admission ticket buyers turned to an increasingly ubiquitous short-term loan service to finance the steep cost of admission: Buy Now, Pay Later (“BNPL”). BNPL financial services typically allow consumers to split purchases into four or fewer interest-free installments, often without a traditional credit check. The organizers of Coachella, for example, partnered with a ticketing provider AXS to provide BNPL options allowing festival attendees to purchase tickets for as little as $49.99 up front with the remaining costs due in installments over the next several months.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC  provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s specification can evidence that the patentee intended for a term in the patent claims to have a different meaning than what is typical. Now, the Federal Circuit has held that the prosecution history—the exchanges between the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the patent applicant during the application process—can do the same.