Password management company LastPass hasn’t seen any "threat actor activity,” since Oct. 26, the company said in a Wednesday email directing customers to a blog post updating them on steps it took since the data breach it disclosed Dec. 22. In the post, CEO Karim Toubba referenced an “exhaustive investigation” and encouraged users to review the security bulletin and make any necessary changes to their accounts.
The Court of International Trade on March 3 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A quesitonnaire response. CIT's order came after neither Ajmal nor AD petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted comments on the remand.
The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case which slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A questionnaire response originally rejected as untimely filed. The document was turned in late due to technical complications as a result of firm Barnes Richardson's switch to a work-from-home environment. The court remanded the issue since Commerce gave itself numerous extensions while rejecting the two-hour late submission.
GoodRx emailed customers Wednesday advising them the FTC alleged the company shared their personal identifiable information July 2017-April 2020 without their permission. Information included details about drug and health conditions customers searched for and their prescription medications. “We shared this information with third parties, including Facebook,” said the prescription discount drug firm. In some cases, GoodRx used the information to target customers with health ads, it said. “The Federal Trade Commission alleges we broke the law by sharing your health information without your permission,” it said, and to resolve the case, GoodRx agreed to an FTC order that it would tell third parties like Facebook to delete information it received from GoodRx, never share customers’ health information with third parties for advertising purposes, or without their permission, and put in place a comprehensive privacy program. The program will have “heightened procedures and controls” to protect personal and health information, and an auditor will review the program every two years for 20 years, it said. The FTC last month ordered GoodRx to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for failing to notify consumers and others of its unauthorized disclosures of consumers’ personal health information to Facebook, Google and other companies in violation of its health breach notification rule. A class action filed last week in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco alleges GoodRx’s representations that it complies with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy rules and follows the Digital Advertising Alliance “Sensitive Data Principle” are false (see Ref:2302220043).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 24 denied plaintiff Norca Industrial's motion to reconsider the trade court's order staying proceedings of an Enforce and Protect Act case pending resolution of a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the order after holding a status conference the same day (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
The Commerce Department failed in its obligation to calculate an accurate rate for a Kazakh exporter in a countervailing duty investigation when it unjustifiably rejected the exporter's questionnaire response, despite the response being only two hours late, the exporter, Tau-Ken Temir, said in the opening brief of its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).