In dental board case, Supreme Court requires, but doesn't clearly define, active supervision

The following article first appeared on Feb. 25 on MLex. For more information on MLex, including getting access to its exclusive content, please contact sales@mlex.com....

Subscription required to view this article.

This content can only be accessed by FTCWatch subscribers. If you are an FTCWatch subscriber, please login to access this content

If you do not currently subscribe to FTCWatch please contact us for subscription information:
Email: customerservices@mlex.com

Try FTCWatch FREE for 45 days

FTCWatch is delivered in the following formats: via email alert and online at mlexwatch.com/ftcwatch

Current Issue: 1049
Next Issue: Jun 6, 2023

Browse Archives

In this Issue:

FTC typifies trend of disappearing commissioners, Wharton professors say
Parents’ pressure on legislators helping to change US privacy landscape
Judicial, political threats loom over FTC
Ex-Uber security chief’s sentence certain to lead to changes in cybersecurity industry
As FTC updates eyeglass rule, industry focuses on fallout
Calendar
Neil Averitt commentary: The president can fire the FTC chair at will – how’s that for control?
Endorsement guides have influence, researchers claim
People
On the Shelf: From Buzzfeed to Gawker, book revisits heydays of digital media
DOJ reaches settlement on hardware merger
Force may NOT be with you, ALJ says
Exploring the cons of ‘antiracist antitrust’ policies
Activist group Everytown seeks regulatory study of gun marketing
Number of antitrust cases declines
GOP lawmakers question Khan, other commissioners about FTC record
DOJ’s no-poach enforcement suffers major setback with judge acquitting six defendants mid-trial
Consumer advocates take to the Hill
Neil Averitt commentary: Walmart case shows promises, perils of new FTC strategies
Traffic Jam case could test FTC’s constitutional authority

RSS Feed