In today’s digital marketplace, direct sellers rely heavily on electronic agreements to govern their relationships with customers, vendors, and partners. But whether these electronic agreements are enforceable depends, at least in part, on how your policies and other terms are presented to users and the way assent is obtained. Courts scrutinize these issues closely, emphasizing that even minor design choices can make the difference between a binding electronic agreement and an unenforceable set of terms.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has initiated a public consultation process in preparation for the upcoming joint review of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), scheduled for July 1, 2026. This process is mandated by Article 34.7 of the USMCA and section 611 of the USMCA Implementation Act, which require a comprehensive evaluation of the agreement’s operation and a determination by each party on whether to extend the agreement for an additional 16-year term.

In what appears to be the first case to consider the issue, an Eastern District of Missouri court recently rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision overruling Chevron deference undermines the basis for express preemption in medical device cases.