United States: Administrative Procedure Act Litigation: The Changing Regulatory Landscape, The Role Of Industry, And Emerging Issues

Last Updated: June 29 2017
Article by David W. Ogden, Brian Boynton and Kelly P. Dunbar

As the Trump Administration concludes its fifth month, industry is facing a changing regulatory landscape that offers both opportunities and challenges. In this period of transition, litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has played, and will continue to play, a more important role than ever in shaping the burdens facing regulated industries. The lawyers in WilmerHale's Administrative Law Practice have been litigating cases, advising clients, and closely tracking developments in this changing environment. We offer below some thoughts on (1) the changing regulatory landscape, (2) the role of industry at this time, and (3) the emerging administrative law issues that will be important for our clients in the months and years ahead.


Transitions between administrations often result in a period of significant regulatory upheaval. The current transition is no exception. The outgoing Obama Administration finalized a number of regulations in its final months. Now, under the Trump Administration, agencies are reconsidering their approaches to many critical regulatory and policy questions. All of this has already generated—and will continue generating—a significant amount of APA litigation. Some of that litigation in the future may address the degree to which agencies have met their obligations under the APA to explain adequately changes in agency policy and to allow the public to comment on those changes.

Litigation Over Obama Administration Actions

A number of the regulations promulgated by the Obama Administration in its final months were successfully blocked in APA litigation. For example, in January 2017, a team of WilmerHale lawyers obtained a preliminary injunction against a new "interim final" regulation promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) without notice and comment that would have interfered with the relationship between patients with end-stage renal disease and their health insurers.1 In December 2016, a district court preliminarily enjoined HHS regulations enacted under the Affordable Care Act prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and termination of pregnancy.2 And in November 2016, a district court preliminarily enjoined the Department of Labor's new overtime regulations that would have increased the minimum wage.3

In some cases, courts have stayed challenges to permit the Trump Administration to reconsider the regulations at issue. On March 22, 2017, the district court hearing the challenges to the Obama Administration's deferred action immigration program stayed the litigation.4 On April 27, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the Trump Administration's motion to stay the challenge to the EPA's rule limiting mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants.5 And on April 28, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the Trump Administration's motion to hold the litigation challenging the "Clean Power Plan" in abeyance.6 But not all challenges have been stayed. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, declined to stay proceedings in the challenge to EPA's "Waters of the United States" rule.7

Policy Reversals by the Trump Administration

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has begun to reconsider numerous regulatory regimes. Some agencies have already taken actions to reverse Obama Administration policies. For example, the State Department has changed course and issued a permit for the Keystone pipeline, and the Departments of Education and Justice have withdrawn their prior guidance document addressing gender-identity discrimination.

But many of the most significant changes will come in the months ahead as agencies review existing regulations governing a wide range of industries. The executive orders issued by President Trump create a roadmap for much of this change. One early executive order pronounced that "whenever an executive department or agency ... publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed."8

Other orders address particular regulations. For example, one executive order requires the Secretary of the Treasury to review regulations governing the financial services industry.9 Another calls on all executive agencies to "immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law."10 The same order specifically requires EPA to review the "Clean Power Plan" and regulations governing oil and gas development.11 A separate order requires EPA to review the "Waters of the United States" rule.12 The Trump Administration has also announced that EPA will reopen its consideration of automobile fuel economy standards.13 And finally, President Trump has directed the Department of Labor to review the Fiduciary Duty Rule.14

Agency Obligations When Changing Course

In light of the policy reversals already under way and expected in the months ahead, it is important to consider the obligations the APA imposes on administrative agencies seeking to change course.

To alter regulations previously finalized, an agency typically must follow the notice and comment procedures set forth in the APA.15 Although an agency does not bear a heightened burden to justify the change, it must nevertheless provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.16 And where a new policy rests on factual findings that contradict prior findings by the agency or where the "prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests," the agency must "provide a more detailed justification than what would suffice for a new policy created on a blank slate."17 As in all cases, an agency must consider the relevant factors and address the important aspects of the problem it faces, "examin[ing] the relevant data and articulat[ing] a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'"18

In some cases, a notice of proposed rulemaking has been published but final regulations have yet to be issued. In that situation, the final rule promulgated by the agency "need not be identical" to what was proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking.19 But significant changes require a new notice of proposed rulemaking because the final rule must still be the "logical outgrowth" of what was proposed.20

As agencies seek to alter prior regulatory approaches, they will need to keep these important limitations in mind.


In the coming months, industry will likely find itself supporting many deregulatory efforts while simultaneously opposing other agency actions. In either case, there is an important role for industry to play.

Helping Agencies Engage in Reasoned Decisionmaking

When industry supports a proposed change, it should be prepared to help agencies engage in reasoned decisionmaking. Agencies considering a dramatic change to complex regulations face a daunting task. They must thoroughly grapple not only with comments opposing the change but also with the agency's own prior statements. There is often a need to move quickly. But early in an administration, agencies are not fully staffed and are overwhelmed with all the work to be done. In addition, outside groups are poised to bring APA challenges. In these circumstances, any shortcuts taken by an agency could doom a critical regulatory change.

Industry groups that support proposed regulatory changes can take a number of steps to help the relevant administrative agency:

  • Submitting Written Comments: Industry associations or interested companies should submit thorough, well-reasoned comments laying out the rationale for changing course and addressing prior agency statements, contrary evidence, and anticipated counter arguments. The comments should contain a full analysis of any difficult legal questions.
  • Meeting with the Agency: Agencies are often willing to meet with members of the public during the comment period, so long as the meeting is noted on the public record. Industry should consider using those meetings to urge the agency to proceed carefully.
  • Meeting with Interested Policymakers Outside the Agency: Policymakers outside the agency may be encouraging the agency to proceed expeditiously. It is important for these policymakers to understand the need to move forward responsibly as well.

Intervening or Participating as an Amicus to Help Defend Actions Beneficial to the Industry

When industry supports a regulatory change that has occurred, it should consider intervening or participating as an amicus curiae in litigation challenging the agency action at issue. Interested parties frequently intervene in APA challenges brought by others. For example, WilmerHale represented the ethanol industry when it intervened to help defend a decision by the EPA to permit the sale of gasoline with increased volumes of ethanol.21 Intervening in a case provides a greater opportunity to affect the outcome than other means of participation. Intervenors generally receive argument time and are able to work with the government more easily than non-participating parties can. As an alternative, industry groups routinely file amicus curiae briefs in APA cases of interest. Thoughtful industry participation can give courts comfort that the challenged agency action was reasonable.

Bringing Challenges to Adverse Agency Regulations and Decisions

On the other hand, when industry opposes a new agency action, it should be prepared to bring APA litigation when warranted. Even in a period of generally deregulatory agency action, some proposed and finalized agency regulations and orders will adversely affect either an industry or particular members of an industry. Deregulation of competitors, for example, can have significant adverse impacts, and it is well recognized that competitors have standing to challenge such deregulatory efforts. Likewise, in a deregulatory environment, some industries will nevertheless be regulated more stringently. Adversely affected industries should submit thorough and well-reasoned comments and then be prepared to bring suit, often on an expedited basis, to try to enjoin new regulations before they take effect.


During this time of regulatory upheaval and significant APA litigation, it is important to stay abreast of emerging ssues in the area of administrative law. We describe below just a few of the many important issues likely to be addressed in the coming years.

Chevron Deference

It is well settled that where a statutory provision is ambiguous, courts generally must defer to a reasonable interpretation of the provision by the administrative agency charged with implementing the statute, so long as the interpretation is set forth in a regulation or a sufficiently formal agency decision. This deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a foundational part of administrative law. But the contours of the doctrine continue to be refined.

The scope of Chevron deference has been the subject of two recent Supreme Court decisions that cut in opposite directions. In City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a court must defer under Chevron to an agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency's own jurisdiction. In King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015), however, the Supreme Court declined to defer to the IRS's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, reasoning that if Congress had intended to assign the issue to the IRS, it would have done so expressly given the significance of the issue and the IRS's lack of expertise regarding health insurance policy.

More recently, there have been legislative efforts to overturn Chevron. In January of this year, the House passed a bill that includes a provision requiring courts reviewing agency actions to decide all legal questions de novo.22 Whether and how to push for the narrowing or abandonment of Chevron thus presents industry with important strategic and legal questions in APA litigation.

Auer Deference

Another important form of judicial deference is often called "Auer deference." Under Auer, courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous provision in its own regulation.23 Unlike Chevron deference, Auer deference does not require that the agency act with a particular degree of formality—for example, even an interpretation set forth for the first time in a brief may suffice.24 In recent years, however, some members of the Supreme Court have begun to question the appropriateness of Auer deference.25 In Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., 137 S. Ct. 369 (2016), the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether Auer deference should "extend to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought."26 The Court later remanded the case without a decision after the agency guidance at issue was withdrawn.27 The continuing breadth of Auer deference therefore remains in limbo, and industry should consider appropriate opportunities in litigation to preserve challenges to Auer deference for eventual reconsideration by the Supreme Court.

Nationwide Injunctions in APA Cases

There is an ongoing debate about whether district courts may enter nationwide injunctions in APA challenges. During the Obama Administration, district courts entered nationwide injunctions blocking, for instance, both the Department of Homeland Security's deferred action immigration policy and the gender identity guidance published by the Departments of Education and Justice.28 The Fifth Circuit upheld the nationwide reach of the injunction in the immigration case.29 More recently, two panels of the Ninth Circuit relied on the Fifth Circuit's decision in declining to narrow nationwide injunctions against President Trump's initial and revised "travel ban" executive orders, noting that nationwide injunctions are more appropriate in the immigration context.30 The Fourth Circuit similarly upheld a nationwide injunction against the revised "travel ban" executive order.31

The Department of Justice, however, has consistently taken the position that nationwide injunctions are generally impermissible and that preliminary injunctions, including under the APA, must be narrowly tailored to address the harm to the plaintiff bringing suit. A number of decisions may provide some support for the government's view in certain circumstances.32

Standing of States to Bring Challenges

The law regarding the standing of states to bring APA challenges is also evolving. In its lawsuit to enjoin the Obama Administration's immigration action, Texas argued that it was harmed because it would have to issue driver's licenses to aliens afforded deferred action. The Fifth Circuit accepted that argument, notwithstanding the contention by the United States that Texas had chosen to inflict this harm on itself.33 In the recent challenges to President Trump's travel ban, states have asserted standing based in part on their role as proprietors of public universities affected by the ban. Two panels of the Ninth Circuit have accepted that argument, again over the objection of the United States.34 The Ninth Circuit panel addressing the challenge to the revised executive order also found that the State of Hawaii had standing in light of its sovereign interest in carrying out its refugee policies.35 These decisions may support continued efforts by states to expand their standing to bring APA challenges.


Affected parties often intervene in APA litigation. Despite the frequency of intervention in APA cases, however, important questions about the law governing intervention remain unresolved. For example, the circuits have long been split on whether would-be-intervenors must demonstrate that they have Article III standing (in addition to a protectable interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)). The Supreme Court's recent decision in Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc. partially resolved this question. The Court held that an intervenor must have Article III standing if it seeks relief that is distinct from that sought by the party it is supporting..36 Whether an intervenor who does not seek different relief must have Article III standing remains an open issue.

There is also some question, at least in the DC Circuit, whether an intervenor can raise an argument not made by the original parties. The DC Circuit has barred intervenors from raising new arguments in certain circumstances.37 There are good reasons for limiting this rule to situations in which intervention is used to raise an issue the intervenor failed to assert in a timely petition for review. But the DC Circuit has yet to clarify the precise scope of its ban on new arguments by intervenors.

Challenging Executive Orders

Recently there have been a number of high-profile challenges to executive orders issued by President Trump. The APA does not provide a cause of action against the President.38 But the Supreme Court has made clear that "the President's actions may still be reviewed for constitutionality."39 Instead of bringing claims against the President under the APA, parties must therefore bring their claims directly under the Constitution. In contrast, APA challenges can be filed against the agencies directed to carry out the executive order, and unlike the executive order itself, implementation by an agency may be challenged on non-constitutional grounds—for example, as arbitrary and capricious or contrary to a federal statute.


Questions of "exhaustion" are often important in APA cases. This is not an emerging issue, but it is a critical one to understand in order to preserve the right to obtain judicial review. There are different kinds of exhaustion requirements as described below.

Jurisdictional vs. non-jurisdictional

As the DC Circuit has explained, a jurisdictional exhaustion requirement is present when "Congress requires resort to the administrative process as a predicate to judicial review."40 Such a requirement is mandatory. Non-jurisdictional exhaustion is "a judicially created doctrine" that is subject to exceptions41

Issue exhaustion vs. exhaustion of administrative remedies

Courts also distinguish between exhaustion of administrative remedies and "issue" exhaustion.42 Exhausting administrative remedies means availing yourself of the procedures available for relief from the agency—such as filing a petition with the agency asking for review or seeking agency reconsideration. Issue exhaustion means raising before the agency the issue you wish to raise in court. The Supreme Court held in Sims that where issue exhaustion is not mandated by statute, a court must consider whether to require it for prudential reasons.43 Given the uncertainty regarding when issue exhaustion will be required under Sims, as well as certain case law requiring issue exhaustion in challenges to notice-and-comment rulemakings,44 industries that would be affected by proposed agency action should submit comprehensive comments drafted with any eye toward eventual APA litigation.


The changing regulatory environment offers both opportunities and hazards. Industry should give careful consideration to what role it can play at this critical time.


1 See Dialysis Patient Citizens v. Burwell, 2017 WL 365271 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017).

2 See Franciscan All., Inc. v. Burwell, 2016 WL 7638311 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2016).

3 See Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 2016 WL 6879615167 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016).

4 Order, Texas v. United States, No. 14-cv-254 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2017), ECF No. 439.

5 Order, ARIPPA v. EPA, No. 15-1180 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2017).

6 Order, West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15-1363 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017).

7 Order, National Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Defense, No. 16-299 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2017).

8 Exec. Order No. 13,771 (Jan. 30, 2017), § 2, 82 Fed. Reg. 9339.

9 Exec. Order No. 13,772 (Feb. 3, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 9965.

10 Exec. Order No. 19,783 (Mar. 28, 2017), § 1(c), 82 Fed. Reg. 16,093.

11 Id. §§ 4, 7.

12 Exec. Order No. 13,778 (Feb. 28, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 12,497.

13 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reexamine-emission-standards-cars-and-light-duty-trucks-model-years-2022-2025.

14 Presidential Mem. on Fiduciary Duty Rule (Feb. 3, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 9675.

15 See 5 U.S.C. § 553; Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015) (noting that "§ 1 of the APA [mandates] that agencies use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance.").

16 See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).

17 Id.

18 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

19 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 584 F.3d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

20 Id.; see also id. at 1081 ("[O]ur cases finding that a rule was not a logical outgrowth have often involved situations where the proposed rule gave no indication that the agency was considering a different approach, and the final rule revealed that the agency had completely changed its position.").

21 Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (2012).

22 See H.R. 5, 115th Cong. § 202 (as passed by House, Jan. 11, 2017).

23 See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1997).

24 Id. at 462.

25 See, e.g., Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. at 1210-11 (Alito, J., concurring); id. at 1213 (Scalia, J., concurring); id. at 1213-25 (Thomas, J., concurring).

26 Pet'r's Br. i, id. (No. 16-273).

27 See 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017).

28 See Texas v. United States, 2015 WL 1540022, at *6-7 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015); Texas v. United States, 2016 WL 7852331, at *1-3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2016).

29 See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015).

30 See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2017); Hawaii v. Trump, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2529640, *27-*28 (9th Cir. June 12, 2017).

31 See International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017).

32 See, e.g., Los Angeles Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting authority).

33 See Texas, 809 F.3d at 155-60.

34 See Washington, 847 F.3d at 1159-61; Hawaii, 2017 WL 2529640, at *8.

35 Hawaii, 2017 WL 2529640, at *9.

36 See Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, --- S.Ct. ---, 2017 WL 2407473, *5 (U.S. June 5, 2017) ("In sum, an intervenor of right must have Article III standing in order to pursue relief that is different from that which is sought by a party with standing.").

37 E.g., Core Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 592 F.3d 139, 145-46 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

38 See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-801 (1992).

39 Id. (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).

40 Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

41 Id.

42 See, e.g., Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107-08 (2000).

43 See Sims, 530 U.S. at 109-110.

44 See, e.g., Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 429 F.3d 1136, 1148-50 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

David W. Ogden
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.