The project included various prompts and refinements on my part, and time reviewing and confirming or adjusting inferred or borderline findings manually. The proposal, for those who don’t know, aims to create new device classifications covering hundreds of currently marketed antimicrobial wound dressings—devices that primarily incorporate ingredients like hypochlorous acid or silver, have been staples of wound care for decades, and have excellent safety and efficacy profiles. 

• “Bulk” Has a New Definition: The volume thresholds under the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Bulk Sensitive Data (BSD) Transfer Rule are surprisingly low—sharing genomic data on just 100 people can trigger compliance requirements, catching many organizations off guard.
• HIPAA Compliance Is Not Enough: The BSD Transfer Rule creates an entirely new compliance layer that goes beyond existing privacy frameworks, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), applying even when data has been de-identified or anonymized.
• It’s About Access, Not Just Transfers: Simply giving a foreign vendor, board member, or investor the ability to view sensitive data can trigger the BSD Transfer Rule—no formal data-sharing agreement is required.

In this episode of Diagnosing Health Care^®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Laura DePonio, Elizabeth McEvoy, and Elena Quattrone walk health care and life sciences organizations through the DOJ’s BSD Transfer Rule—from scoping and compliance to enforcement risks and exemptions.

The regulation currently requires the DSHEA disclaimer—which states that the product has not been evaluated by FDA and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease—to appear on each panel of a product label where a qualifying structure/function claim is made.

Based on its initial review, FDA indicated that removing the “each panel” requirement would be consistent with the DSHEA, could reduce label clutter and unnecessary costs, and would align with the agency’s historical enforcement posture, noting that the requirement has rarely, if ever, been enforced. FDA further stated that, absent significant concerns, it is likely to propose formal rulemaking to amend the regulation.

Six months after implementation—with the U.S. Senate now passing the BIOSECURE Act restricting certain biotech business with China—compliance remains the key for affected stakeholders, including those exchanging personal health data. As we reported in July, the 2025 Final Rule implemented the prior administration’s Executive Order 14117 of February 28, 2024, by prohibiting and restricting “bulk” data transactions with countries that could threaten U.S. national security through the use of Americans’ sensitive personal data.

While the 2025 Final Rule remains largely untested, federal agencies and stakeholders alike have taken action to test the bounds of the Rule and, in some instances, expand applicability beyond 28 CFR Part 202. Below is a brief refresher of the key elements of the Rule and some recent developments.

The FDA also released nearly 40 untitled letters sent to specific drug manufacturers from its Office of Prescription Drug Promotion on September 9 and 23, similarly informing them that one or more direct-to-consumer TV ads misbrands a specific drug.

These actions follow the September 9th announcement that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA would be targeting “misleading” DTC pharmaceutical advertisements—the same day that a presidential memorandum directed HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary to act.

The letters also reflect a broader shift in the FDA’s oversight of pharmaceutical advertising, particularly in DTC channels. With regulators taking a more aggressive posture across both broadcast and social media platforms, companies should be prepared for shifting regulatory requirements and heightened enforcement risk.

Discover how the “Food as Medicine” movement is reshaping health care and what it means for patients, providers, and the future of wellness.

On this episode, special guests Noah Voreades of OLIPOP and Ivan Wasserman of Amin Wasserman Gurnani join Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jessika Tuazon and Ada Peters to explore how food is being integrated into health care to prevent and manage chronic diseases.

Perhaps not for good, but for the foreseeable future, at least.

The FDA has let the clock run out on the 60-day time period to appeal the March 31, 2025, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas concluding that: 1) the FDA overstepped its authority, and 2) the LDT Final Rule of May 6, 2024, was unlawful. As we explained at that time, the Final Rule would have required virtually all clinical laboratories offering their own LDTs to comply with FDA expectations for medical device manufacturers in phases over a four-year period—with the first compliance deadlines set for May 2025.

The March 2025 opinion by Judge Sean D. Jordan vacated the controversial Final Rule a little more than a month before the first implementation deadlines were to take effect, and remanded the issue back to the FDA.

The court’s judgment vacates the agency’s controversial final rule of May 6, 2024 (the “Final Rule”), regulating LDTs as medical devices, just weeks before the Final Rule’s initial implementation deadline and remands the issue back to the FDA for further consideration.

How have vaccine exemptions posed a significant risk to populations across the country? What are the long-lasting effects of the new administration's federal health agency funding cuts?

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Richard Hughes, Spreeha Choudhury, and Will Walters, as well as Anna Larson of EBG Advisors, discuss vaccine-related topics ranging from the measles outbreak and the reduction of the federal workforce to decreased government funding of public health programs.