A tracker of corporate lawsuits challenging the Biden Administration’s rulemaking and enforcement actions that improve the lives of everyday Americans. 

Since President Biden’s term began three years ago, government enforcers and watchdogs have been cracking down on dominant corporate lawbreaking that hurts consumers, workers, small business owners, and local communities across the country. The Administration has pursued an aggressive agenda to address corporate misconduct in many sectors: including pharmaceuticals, social media, hospitals, auto dealers, payday lenders, nursing homes, realtors, Wall Street, and tobacco. One result is that over two-dozen large corporations and industry trade groups have launched a brazen assault of lawsuits against the Administration to weaken or outright eliminate the regulatory bodies that oversee them.

The cases brought by corporate America are designed to lower wages, hike prices for medicines, undermine product safety standards, spread junk fees, exploit children for profit, and enable big business to cheat Americans.

When corporate interests are this intent on undermining the government, it’s a sure sign that the government is acting on behalf of the American public. It’s also a sobering reminder that consolidated corporate power threatens democracy itself.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of litigation against the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Food and Drug Administration, National Labor Relations Board and more—and what’s at stake in each one.

Have a suit to add? Email us at info@economicliberties.us.

This data was last updated May 15, 2024.

SuitDate FiledAgency ActionNature of Suit
Federal Trade Commission
MGM Resorts International v. FTC and Lina Khan4/15/2024In the wake of a major cyberattack on MGM last year, the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) related to MGM’s data security practices. 
FTC Chair Lina Khan was a guest at the MGM Grand at the time of the attack, while in Las Vegas for a listening session on the Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger. Along with other guests, she had to write down her credit card information to check in to the hotel. 
MGM alleges that the Commission’s failure to disqualify Chair Khan from its investigation violates their due process rights under the 5th Amendment. Further, MGM alleges that the FTC’s administrative process for considering petitions for recusal is an “inadequate structure” in violation of the 5th Amendment.
Meta Platforms v. FTC11/29/23The FTC proposed banning Meta from profiting off data it collects from children and teens and restricting Meta’s ability to launch new products and services in response to repeated violations of consent decrees entered in 2012 and 2019.Meta filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in D.C. challenging the constitutionality of various aspects of the FTC, including the powers of the Commissioners and how they are appointed.
Lousiana Children’s Medical Center v. FTC4/19/23The FTC sought to temporarily block the merger of three hospitals in New Orleans after they failed to make disclosures required by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. That law is designed to give antitrust enforcers adequate time to review proposed mergers to determine if they comply with the Clayton Act.Louisiana Children’s Medical Center initiated a separate lawsuit in Louisiana federal court and successfully argued it was immune from antitrust law under the state action doctrine because the Louisana state legislature and attorney general’s office had already authorized the transactionwithout any input from the FTC or DOJ’s expert antitrust enforcers.
National Auto Dealers Association v. FTC1/4/24The FTC, after a thorough rulemaking process under Magnuson-Moss, implemented a new administrative rule aimed at providing consumers with more transparency in the car buying process, including a ban on bait-and-switch tactics, prohibiting charges for useless add-ons, and mandating additional pricing disclosures.The National Automobile Dealers Association and Texas Automobile Dealers Association filed a petition the Fifth Circuit to block implementation of the rule, making specious arguments that the rule was arbitrary, capricious and not promulgated using required proceduresdespite the FTC providing a lengthy comment period where over 27,000 comments were submitted, reviewed, and considered over more than a year’s time.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB03/07/2024The CFPB finalized a rule banning unjustified excessive credit card late fees, and capping the typical late fee at $8 instead of $32. The rule closes a loophole exploited by large credit card issuers, and will save consumers an estimated $10 billion annually. Banks can still charge more than $8 if they can prove their actual collection costs exceed that amount.The Chamber argues that the CFPB’s rule is arbitrary and capricious; that it violates the CARD Act of 2009 (which contains the loophole the new rule seeks to close); and, like several of the suits below, that the CFPB itself is unconstitutional.
Revenue Based Finance Coalition v. CFPB12/26/23The CFPB promulgated a fair lending rule to fulfill its mandate from Congress to prevent “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service.” The rule requires certain financial institutions to report to the Bureau data on applications for credit for small businesses, including those that are owned by women or minorities.The lawsuit by RBSC argues that the CFPB’s reporting rules unlawfully include sales-based financing as "credit," imposing burdensome compliance costs and extending regulatory requirements beyond the statutory scope. It parrots the constitutional arguments made in the CFSA litigation related to the CFPB’s funding.

The CFPB amended its small business lending rule, expanding what data commercial lenders are required to collect and report.A number of financial institutions filed follow-on suits following the 5th Circuit ruling that the the CFPB’s funding structure was unconstitutional, making parallel arguments that the CFPB is unconstitutional and that its amendments to the fair lending rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, imposed excessive compliance costs, and went beyond the statutory mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB9/28/22The CFPB declared discrimination in lending an “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practice,” otherwise known as a “UDAAP.” It amended its Supervision and Examination Manual to direct enforcers to examine whether an institution regularly and adequately analyze all of its decision-making processes and data for discrimination.Like the lawsuits listed above, this one challenges the constitutionality of the CFPB and argues that the new UDAAP rule goes beyond the CFPB’s statutory authority and imposes excessive compliance costs.
Community Financial Services of America v. CFPB04/2018The CFPB, created by the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the 2008 financial crisis, is funded through the Federal Reserve and not through the annual congressional appropriations process, so that the financial regulator can more readily maintain its independence. The CFSA argues that the mechanism for funding the CFPB violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause despite (1) the clause placing no restrictions on how agencies should be funded and (2) other agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Mint all being funded through sources untethered from the congressional appropriations process.
Department of Transportation
Airlines for America v. DOT5/10/2024The DOT issued a final rule requiring airlines to disclose flight change and baggage fees up-front rather than as hidden junk fees. The airline industry raked in $118 billion in “ancillary revenue” in 2023, primarily in the form of junk fees.Airlines for America (A4A), a lobbying group representing the biggest airlines, sued the DOT for overreach with sign-on from members Alaska, American, Delta, Hawaiian, JetBlue, and United. The suit claims the DOT’s "attempt to regulate private business operations in a thriving marketplace is beyond its authority"—despite AFA’s earlier testimony, when seeking taxpayer bailouts in 2020, that “the US Government has played a vital role in the near-term stability of the industry."
National Labor Relations Board
Care One et al v. NLRB6/24/23The NLRB charged a number of Connecticut nursing homes with unfair labor practices and obtained an injunction barring them from continuing the practices. A 39-day hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge followed, but delays related to legal challenges and COVID have left the matter unresolved.The nursing homes challenge the two-layered, for cause removal procedures that govern the appointment of administrative law judges.
SpaceX v. NLRB1/4/24The NLRB filed a complaint accusing SpaceX of unfair labor practices stemming from the firing of five employees who lodged complaints about sexism, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace.SpaceX filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB. SpaceX’s arguments mirror those lodged against other agencies, including that NLRB members and ALJs are unconstitutionally insulated from removal; that the administrative adjudications violate its 7th amendment right to a jury trial; and that their powers are unconstitutionally delegated by Congress.
US Chamber of Commerce et al v. NLRB11/9/23The NLRB revised its joint employer rule to align more closely to traditional common law principles, which consider “the alleged joint employers’ authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment, whether or not such control is exercised, and without regard to whether any such exercise of control is direct or indirect.”The Chamber of Commerce has challenged the new joint employer rule in federal court, arguing it is contrary to common law principles, as well as arbitrary and capricious.
  Department of Health and Human Services / Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
American Hospital Association et al v. HHS12/9/21HHS issued guidance warning healthcare providers that allowing a third-party technology company like Google to collect and analyze IP addresses and other information from visitors to their public websites or apps could be a HIPAA violation.The AHA alleges that the  rule “exceeds the government’s statutory and constitutional authority, fails to satisfy the requirements for agency rulemaking, and harms the very people it purports to protect.”




The Inflation Reducation Act established a Medicare “Drug Price Negotiation Program” that allows Medicare to negotiate directly with drug companies to improve access to some of the costliest single-source brand-name Medicare Part B and Part D drugs, an authority previously not available to the program. In August 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the first 10 drugs it selected for negotiation.Multiple pharmaceutical companies, the Chamber of Commerce, and lobbying group Phrma all filed suit against HHS and CMS to block implementation of the program. They argue that giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices is an unlawful taking under the 5th Amendment, compelled speech endorsing government negotiations in violation of the 1st amendment, an impermissible delegation of authority by Congress, and a due process violation.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
SVB Financial Group v. FDIC 12/19/23In the wake of SVB’s collapse, the FDIC formed a bridge bank to protect its deposits, including the those in SVB’s accounts. FDIC is also the receiver in the SVB bankruptcy proceeding, and the FDIC has denied SVB’s requests for access to its accounts.SVB sued the FDIC in bankruptcy court, seeking the release of its funds.
Minnesota Bankers Association v. FDIC7/20/23The FDIC issued guidance for state-chartered banks related to the legal and financial risks of of charging multiple NSF fees for the re-presentment of the same unpaid transaction. The FDIC primarily suggested that banks only charge one NSF fee for any given transaction or eliminate NSF fees altogether.The MBA challenged the rule, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act and was arbitrary and capricious and went beyond the FDIC’s authority and intruded on the FTC’s sole authority to define unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
Independence Bank v. FDIC10/27/23An investment company operating as "SBA Loan Program" encouraged struggling small businesses to seek SBA Loans and then referred them to Independence Bank to obtain bridge loans while their applications were processed. The lendees used most of the funds from their approved SBA loans to repay the loans. However, bridge loans had interest rates exceeding 50% and nearly half of the lendees defaulted. The two primary people involved in the scheme were charged with fraud, and the FDIC ordered them to maintain operations at Independence Bank.Independence Bank sued the FDIC, arguing that it lacked any authority to prevent the bank from winding down. The two people charged with fraud argued in administrative proceedings that the FDIC was violating their right to a jury trial.
American Bankers Association v. FDIC2/5/24The FDIC adopted a final rule, intended to better implement the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that “[e]ncourage[s] banks to expand access to credit, investment, and banking services in Low and Moderate Income (LMI) communities” and adopt to modern internet and mobile banking technologies.The ABA and several other banking associations challenged the rule in federal court, arguing the FDIC rule exceeds its authority and is arbitrary and capricious.
Department of Labor
Associated Builder and Contractors of Southeast Texas v. DOL11/7/23The DOL implemented a final rule, using its authority umder the Davis-Bacon Act, that modernizes how contractors must pay workers on constructions projects and how prevailing wages are calculated. The rule imposes union wage rates on government procurements and benefits workers.Several trade associations have challenged the rule, making the usual arguments that it is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the law. They further argue that the sitting Secretary of the Department of Labor was not properly appointed and confirmed under Article II of the Constitution.
Surface Transportation Board
Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Surface Transportation Board9/15/22CSX Transportation sued Norfolk for denying it access to the Belt Line railway. The STB ruled, on a question referred to it by the district court, that the agency’s prior approval of an acquisition by Norfolk did not afford it immunity from U.S. antitrust laws.Norflk sued the STB, challenging its ruling as unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious.
Food & Drug Administration
United States Vaping Ass. V. FDA10/4/22The FDA implemented a final rule, using its authority the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to promulgate premarket authorization requirements for new tobacco products, designed to ensure that vaping products are properly marketed in a way that promotes or does not harm public health.A group of small business challenged the rule, arguing the rule was promulgated in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Consumers Research et al v. Consumer Product Safety Commission7/2/21The CPSC issued a rule increasing the cost of responses to FOIA requests by $0.05 per page and eliminating duplication fees for electronic records.A non-profit challenged the rule, saying the for-cause removal protections for CPSC commissioners violated the constitution and unduly restricted the president's ability to remove CPSC commissioners.
Leachco v. Consumer Product Safety Commission8/17/22The CPSC ordered a recall of nearly 200,000 baby lounger pillows that it found posed a risk of asphyxiation and two infant deaths.Leacho, with funding from a libertarian group, challenged the ruling and  Leachco sued over the constitutionality of the CPSC itself.