This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Many such users manufacture devices or provide other applications that use spectrum or otherwise benefit from FCC regulation, but right now do not pay fees. As part of that proceeding, the FCC also decided to seek comment on assessing fees in the future on users of unlicensed spectrum, especially large tech companies.
One of these amendments was a poorly thought-out rule that, if implemented, will render virtually unusable the current best price exclusion for manufacturer patient savings programs in the form of coupons, patient rebates/refunds, copay assistance, vouchers, and free drug programs. The effective date of this amendment is January 1, 2023.
Just last December, Google reached a settlement in a multidistrict litigation involving all 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands. The settlement addressed issues very similar to those raised in this case, as explicitly outlined in the agreement.
The plaintiffs were associations representing the trucking industry, car and truck dealers, automobile manufacturers, the oil and gas industry, and refiners and petrochemical manufacturers. United States VirginIslands Office of the Attorney General v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. , 2016 CA 2469 (D.C.
VirginIslands, and Washington D.C. Experts who spoke with FiveThirtyEight added there was no clear, national data on how crime guns go from manufacturers and dealers to the black market, how trafficking differed from state to state or even the street price of trafficked firearms in different markets.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content