Are the products you’re buying BPA-free? Nut-free? How about GMO-free? If the European Union (E.U.) has its way, we’ll soon be adding a new label to our shopping list vocabulary: “deforestation-free.”
Far from being another joke at the expense of Europe and its regulatory self-sabotage, this is precisely the aim of the E.U.’s 2023 Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which began applying to large companies last December, and will extend to small and medium-sized firms in June.
As with many regulations out of Brussels, the intention sounds noble: To stop the cutting down of forests elsewhere in the world, the new rule forces companies selling products in E.U. member states to certify that they didn’t source materials from lands classified as forests before 2020.
In practice, this means everything from paper products to furniture and even beef will be more expensive for consumers. More hurdles and fewer options for manufacturers necessitate higher prices. Take IKEA’s best-selling KALLAX shelf unit—a particleboard bookcase made from wood-derived materials covered by the EUDR, which currently retails for around $80. With only 15 percent of what IKEA sells in the U.S. actually made domestically, this means that many IKEA products imported from Europe (including the KALLAX) must comply with expensive E.U. sourcing rules. Stack deforestation paperwork on top of tariffs, and the affordable furniture Americans count on starts looking a lot less affordable.
Compliance isn’t limited to European producers, but American ones too. Companies exporting to Europe must prove through a granular process of geolocation tracking and paperwork that their products weren’t sourced from deforested land. If European consumers want to buy or access any product, they need legal assurances that no forests were touched in the process.
For a trading partner like the U.S., which exported nearly $400 billion in goods to Europe in 2024, the burden will be significant. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson L. Greer flagged EUDR as asignificant foreign trade barrier in April 2025, giving President Donald Trump’s trade negotiation team yet another bone to pick with Europe.
The E.U. acknowledged in last year’s U.S.-E.U. trade framework that it would have to “address the concerns of U.S. producers and exporters” to avoid “undue impact on U.S.-EU trade.” But nothing has yet changed.
Yet American producers are still facing a regulatory regime that treats responsibly managed U.S. forests the same as high-risk tropical supply chains in developing nations. The geolocation and data-sharing requirements—which demand latitude and longitude coordinates to six decimal places for every single plot—are completely disconnected from how U.S. forest product value chains actually operate.
For harvests larger than four hectares, or about 10 acres, the mandate to provide precise digital polygons essentially forces foresters to act as amateur cartographers before a single log can move.
Consumers from IKEA weekend shoppers to Costco bargain hunters will pay more for the added labor required to document each log that goes into a TV stand or the legs of a chair.
The absurdity of the rule becomes clearer when looking at some of Europe’s own energy choices. Since ridding its territory of emission-free nuclear energy, Germany now relies on burning mostly wood-based biomass for nearly eight percent of its total electricity production. Wood accounts for nearly 55 percent of Germany’s “renewable” energy generation, and U.S. exports are one of the key providers.
So while European nations continue to use wood to heat their homes and industries, they plan to coerce American timber producers into complex track-and-trace programs and sustainability paperwork. Critics argue they are doing this for the same reason social media firms are being shaken down for billions in fees and penalties: to have Americans subsidize their lifestyles and strained government budgets.
If the goal is truly to reduce risk rather than punish low-risk producers, a compromise must be found that works for both sides of the Atlantic.
The E.U. could allow low-risk countries like the U.S. to designate a single government agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service, to produce forest data and issue a single due diligence statement that complies with European regulations—simple, practical, and honest about where the actual risks lie.
It would place less burden on consumers whose main concern is affordability. American families are already facing high prices on everyday goods thanks to a global trend toward protectionism.
Free trade is the foundation of prosperity for consumers everywhere. Congress, the administration, and U.S. trade negotiators should be pushing back—hard—before this becomes the new normal.
Are the products you’re buying BPA-free? Nut-free? How about GMO-free? If the European Union (E.U.) has its way, we’ll soon be adding a new label to our shopping list vocabulary: “deforestation-free.”
Far from being another joke at the expense of Europe and its regulatory self-sabotage, this is precisely the aim of the E.U.’s 2023 Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which began applying to large companies last December, and will extend to small and medium-sized firms in June.
As with many regulations out of Brussels, the intention sounds noble: To stop the cutting down of forests elsewhere in the world, the new rule forces companies selling products in E.U. member states to certify that they didn’t source materials from lands classified as forests before 2020.
In practice, this means everything from paper products to furniture and even beef will be more expensive for consumers. More hurdles and fewer options for manufacturers necessitate higher prices. Take IKEA’s best-selling KALLAX shelf unit—a particleboard bookcase made from wood-derived materials covered by the EUDR, which currently retails for around $80. With only 15 percent of what IKEA sells in the U.S. actually made domestically, this means that many IKEA products imported from Europe (including the KALLAX) must comply with expensive E.U. sourcing rules. Stack deforestation paperwork on top of tariffs, and the affordable furniture Americans count on starts looking a lot less affordable.
Compliance isn’t limited to European producers, but American ones too. Companies exporting to Europe must prove through a granular process of geolocation tracking and paperwork that their products weren’t sourced from deforested land. If European consumers want to buy or access any product, they need legal assurances that no forests were touched in the process.
For a trading partner like the U.S., which exported nearly $400 billion in goods to Europe in 2024, the burden will be significant. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson L. Greer flagged EUDR as asignificant foreign trade barrier in April 2025, giving President Donald Trump’s trade negotiation team yet another bone to pick with Europe.
The E.U. acknowledged in last year’s U.S.-E.U. trade framework that it would have to “address the concerns of U.S. producers and exporters” to avoid “undue impact on U.S.-EU trade.” But nothing has yet changed.
Yet American producers are still facing a regulatory regime that treats responsibly managed U.S. forests the same as high-risk tropical supply chains in developing nations. The geolocation and data-sharing requirements—which demand latitude and longitude coordinates to six decimal places for every single plot—are completely disconnected from how U.S. forest product value chains actually operate.
For harvests larger than four hectares, or about 10 acres, the mandate to provide precise digital polygons essentially forces foresters to act as amateur cartographers before a single log can move.
Consumers from IKEA weekend shoppers to Costco bargain hunters will pay more for the added labor required to document each log that goes into a TV stand or the legs of a chair.
The absurdity of the rule becomes clearer when looking at some of Europe’s own energy choices. Since ridding its territory of emission-free nuclear energy, Germany now relies on burning mostly wood-based biomass for nearly eight percent of its total electricity production. Wood accounts for nearly 55 percent of Germany’s “renewable” energy generation, and U.S. exports are one of the key providers.
So while European nations continue to use wood to heat their homes and industries, they plan to coerce American timber producers into complex track-and-trace programs and sustainability paperwork. Critics argue they are doing this for the same reason social media firms are being shaken down for billions in fees and penalties: to have Americans subsidize their lifestyles and strained government budgets.
If the goal is truly to reduce risk rather than punish low-risk producers, a compromise must be found that works for both sides of the Atlantic.
The E.U. could allow low-risk countries like the U.S. to designate a single government agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service, to produce forest data and issue a single due diligence statement that complies with European regulations—simple, practical, and honest about where the actual risks lie.
It would place less burden on consumers whose main concern is affordability. American families are already facing high prices on everyday goods thanks to a global trend toward protectionism.
Free trade is the foundation of prosperity for consumers everywhere. Congress, the administration, and U.S. trade negotiators should be pushing back—hard—before this becomes the new normal.
A passage from one of counsel’s filings, particularly noted by the court.
Some excerpts from the long discussion in Parker v. Costco Wholesale Corp., decided in November by Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan (W.D. Wash.), but only recently posted on Westlaw:
The Court identified material misstatements and misrepresentations in those filings, which contained hallucinated case and record citations and legal errors consistent with unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) use and ordered Counsel to show cause as to why sanctions should not issue. The Court outlines its observations before turning to Counsel’s explanations….
Review of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ Response”) indicated the filing relied on inapplicable law, misrepresented and misquoted the law and the record, and included a wide array of idiosyncratic citation errors. For brevity, the Court summarizes the most egregious examples….
[Among other things,] Counsel included hallucinated and inaccurate quotes to the record. This was particularly egregious given that he sought to demonstrate a question of material fact precluded summary judgment and attempted to do so by relying on mischaracterized evidence….
Viewed collectively, these legal, citation, and factual errors bore the hallmarks of unreviewed AI-generated work product or exceedingly negligent drafting….
The quality of Counsel’s filings further deteriorated….
Plaintiff’s Reply was otherwise notable in two respects. First, the text appeared to have been copy-pasted from a generative AI program without any quality control. Straight, as opposed to curly, apostrophes and quotation marks remained throughout, indicating the content was likely not typed into a word processor. At some point, the program apparently experienced, and documented, an “[ ]artificial error[.]”
Second, Defendant twice put Counsel on notice that his position relied on demonstrably inaccurate characterizations of the Local Rules and Defendant’s filings. Yet Counsel opted to file a Reply that doubled down on his position instead of withdrawing his frivolous motion. Together, the legal, factual, “artificial,” and typographical errors indicated to the Court that the Reply was generated without any meaningful attorney oversight and filed despite Counsel knowing, or having reason to know, the positions taken were indefensible….
[When ordered to explain himself,] Counsel admitted that Callidus AI, “a specialized legal ‘AI'” tool, was used to draft the MSJ Response. He explained that he hired a contract attorney with more federal court experience to draft the document and was not aware that attorney had used AI until he received the Order to Show Cause. He took responsibility for the program’s use, “for not checking some quotes,” and for “submitting some improper case citations.” He also emphasized that he did not intend to submit a filing with false information and did not plan to use AI to prepare any future filings. He did not disclose what level of review, if any, he performed on the contract attorney’s work product….
Finally, Counsel provides explanations regarding the factual errors in the MSJ Response. Those explanations contain additional quotation errors….
The Court appreciates that Counsel took full responsibility for his filings and apologized to the Court and opposing counsel. However, despite his remorse, sanctions are warranted….
Rule 11 was undoubtedly violated by Counsel’s submission of the MSJ Response. That is, Counsel certified his arguments’ legal and factual contentions were warranted, knowing he had not verified the authority in his brief and that some of his brief relied on inapposite law.
While Counsel says “some” citations were not checked, the Court cannot credit his inference that the brief was subjected to any meaningful scrutiny. The Court’s review indicates that a significant proportion of authority cited was misquoted, miscited, misrepresented, or inapplicable. Many of the errors were obvious on the face of the document. A competent attorney would have, upon review of the arguments and authority cited, flagged that something was wrong….
The treatment of exhibits and factual representations further establish that Counsel either did not conduct an adequate examination of the evidence or misrepresented it. Altering quotes without indication and placing paraphrased content in quotation marks is unacceptable…. Counsel’s [Order to Show Cause] Response contained similar sloppiness which rendered his argument and sources indecipherable….
The Court finds Counsel’s failure to verify the legal and factual support for his MSJ Response, especially in view of the obviousness of the errors, his insinuation that he only failed to verify “some” citations, and his implicit admission that he knew the brief relied on inapposite sources of law “outrageously improper, unprofessional and unethical” and tantamount to bad faith. That conduct also calls into serious question Counsel’s adherence to his broader ethical duties as a member of this bar….
Finally, the importance of the MSJ Response for Plaintiff merits consideration. Defendant moved to dismiss Ms. Parker’s case with prejudice. The MSJ Response was mission-critical for Ms. Parker. Counsel submitted it without any discernible scrutiny.
That is outrageous, in addition to the reasons detailed above, because Counsel discarded a critical opportunity to advocate for his client. But what is even more outrageous is that the entire situation need not have happened. Defendant clearly stated in its Notice of Removal that it was never served. See Dkt. 1 at 2 (“Costco was not served with a copy of the Complaint or the Summons initiating the State Court Action.”). When Counsel received that notice, there was still time to remedy the service issue and set Ms. Parker’s suit on the right course. But Counsel failed to act. And when Defendant moved to dismiss the case on that same ground, Counsel still did not step up for his client. Instead, he submitted the unverified MSJ Response that turned out to be replete with bogus citations and legal errors.
{Unfortunately, perusal of Counsel’s other recent cases in this Court show that the failure to serve in this case is not an aberration. Another one of Counsel’s cases was recently dismissed as time barred by this Court after Counsel twice failed to serve the defendants with process.} ….
The allegations made by Ms. Parker in this case are serious. She alleges racial discrimination that resulted in her constructive discharge after exercising leave rights. Some of her claims have been dismissed as time barred because Defendant was never served. While the Court cannot opine on whether she would have ultimately prevailed on those claims, her attorney’s conduct compromised her efforts to receive closure through our legal system and any remedy she was due.
Signing pleadings is not a meaningless formality. It is the mechanism by which attorneys stake their reputations on the contents of a filing. AI presents opportunities for efficiency gains to be sure, but the costs to clients and public faith in attorneys is steep where ethical duties and judgment are cast aside and a litigation put on autopilot. AI may eventually prove flawless, but “[w]henever that day comes, [a] flawless brief will only have meaning because the signature at the bottom does.” …
The court publicly reprimanded counsel, ordered him to pay $3000 in sanctions, and to “compensate Defendant for expenses incurred composing its Response at Docket No. 41 to his Motion to Strike” (which were later found to be over $3200). District Judge David Estudillo later referred the matter to the Washington state bar for possible discipline.
A passage from one of counsel’s filings, particularly noted by the court.
Some excerpts from the long discussion in Parker v. Costco Wholesale Corp., decided in November by Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan (W.D. Wash.), but only recently posted on Westlaw:
The Court identified material misstatements and misrepresentations in those filings, which contained hallucinated case and record citations and legal errors consistent with unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) use and ordered Counsel to show cause as to why sanctions should not issue. The Court outlines its observations before turning to Counsel’s explanations….
Review of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ Response”) indicated the filing relied on inapplicable law, misrepresented and misquoted the law and the record, and included a wide array of idiosyncratic citation errors. For brevity, the Court summarizes the most egregious examples….
[Among other things,] Counsel included hallucinated and inaccurate quotes to the record. This was particularly egregious given that he sought to demonstrate a question of material fact precluded summary judgment and attempted to do so by relying on mischaracterized evidence….
Viewed collectively, these legal, citation, and factual errors bore the hallmarks of unreviewed AI-generated work product or exceedingly negligent drafting….
The quality of Counsel’s filings further deteriorated….
Plaintiff’s Reply was otherwise notable in two respects. First, the text appeared to have been copy-pasted from a generative AI program without any quality control. Straight, as opposed to curly, apostrophes and quotation marks remained throughout, indicating the content was likely not typed into a word processor. At some point, the program apparently experienced, and documented, an “[ ]artificial error[.]”
Second, Defendant twice put Counsel on notice that his position relied on demonstrably inaccurate characterizations of the Local Rules and Defendant’s filings. Yet Counsel opted to file a Reply that doubled down on his position instead of withdrawing his frivolous motion. Together, the legal, factual, “artificial,” and typographical errors indicated to the Court that the Reply was generated without any meaningful attorney oversight and filed despite Counsel knowing, or having reason to know, the positions taken were indefensible….
[When ordered to explain himself,] Counsel admitted that Callidus AI, “a specialized legal ‘AI'” tool, was used to draft the MSJ Response. He explained that he hired a contract attorney with more federal court experience to draft the document and was not aware that attorney had used AI until he received the Order to Show Cause. He took responsibility for the program’s use, “for not checking some quotes,” and for “submitting some improper case citations.” He also emphasized that he did not intend to submit a filing with false information and did not plan to use AI to prepare any future filings. He did not disclose what level of review, if any, he performed on the contract attorney’s work product….
Finally, Counsel provides explanations regarding the factual errors in the MSJ Response. Those explanations contain additional quotation errors….
The Court appreciates that Counsel took full responsibility for his filings and apologized to the Court and opposing counsel. However, despite his remorse, sanctions are warranted….
Rule 11 was undoubtedly violated by Counsel’s submission of the MSJ Response. That is, Counsel certified his arguments’ legal and factual contentions were warranted, knowing he had not verified the authority in his brief and that some of his brief relied on inapposite law.
While Counsel says “some” citations were not checked, the Court cannot credit his inference that the brief was subjected to any meaningful scrutiny. The Court’s review indicates that a significant proportion of authority cited was misquoted, miscited, misrepresented, or inapplicable. Many of the errors were obvious on the face of the document. A competent attorney would have, upon review of the arguments and authority cited, flagged that something was wrong….
The treatment of exhibits and factual representations further establish that Counsel either did not conduct an adequate examination of the evidence or misrepresented it. Altering quotes without indication and placing paraphrased content in quotation marks is unacceptable…. Counsel’s [Order to Show Cause] Response contained similar sloppiness which rendered his argument and sources indecipherable….
The Court finds Counsel’s failure to verify the legal and factual support for his MSJ Response, especially in view of the obviousness of the errors, his insinuation that he only failed to verify “some” citations, and his implicit admission that he knew the brief relied on inapposite sources of law “outrageously improper, unprofessional and unethical” and tantamount to bad faith. That conduct also calls into serious question Counsel’s adherence to his broader ethical duties as a member of this bar….
Finally, the importance of the MSJ Response for Plaintiff merits consideration. Defendant moved to dismiss Ms. Parker’s case with prejudice. The MSJ Response was mission-critical for Ms. Parker. Counsel submitted it without any discernible scrutiny.
That is outrageous, in addition to the reasons detailed above, because Counsel discarded a critical opportunity to advocate for his client. But what is even more outrageous is that the entire situation need not have happened. Defendant clearly stated in its Notice of Removal that it was never served. See Dkt. 1 at 2 (“Costco was not served with a copy of the Complaint or the Summons initiating the State Court Action.”). When Counsel received that notice, there was still time to remedy the service issue and set Ms. Parker’s suit on the right course. But Counsel failed to act. And when Defendant moved to dismiss the case on that same ground, Counsel still did not step up for his client. Instead, he submitted the unverified MSJ Response that turned out to be replete with bogus citations and legal errors.
{Unfortunately, perusal of Counsel’s other recent cases in this Court show that the failure to serve in this case is not an aberration. Another one of Counsel’s cases was recently dismissed as time barred by this Court after Counsel twice failed to serve the defendants with process.} ….
The allegations made by Ms. Parker in this case are serious. She alleges racial discrimination that resulted in her constructive discharge after exercising leave rights. Some of her claims have been dismissed as time barred because Defendant was never served. While the Court cannot opine on whether she would have ultimately prevailed on those claims, her attorney’s conduct compromised her efforts to receive closure through our legal system and any remedy she was due.
Signing pleadings is not a meaningless formality. It is the mechanism by which attorneys stake their reputations on the contents of a filing. AI presents opportunities for efficiency gains to be sure, but the costs to clients and public faith in attorneys is steep where ethical duties and judgment are cast aside and a litigation put on autopilot. AI may eventually prove flawless, but “[w]henever that day comes, [a] flawless brief will only have meaning because the signature at the bottom does.” …
The court publicly reprimanded counsel, ordered him to pay $3000 in sanctions, and to “compensate Defendant for expenses incurred composing its Response at Docket No. 41 to his Motion to Strike” (which were later found to be over $3200). District Judge David Estudillo later referred the matter to the Washington state bar for possible discipline.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani is barely a month into the job, and he’s already aggressively seeking to follow through on his campaign pledge to crack down on the gig economy. In recent weeks, his administration has launched several high-profile initiatives against gig companies, seeking to portray them as greedy corporations out to fleece earnest workers.
But behind the flashy press releases and dramatic saber rattling, the reality is that New York City’s own past policies are to blame for much of the gig economy drama in the Big Apple. And worse yet, it’s every day New Yorkers who will likely suffer most from this regulatory onslaught.
From day one on the job, the Mamdani administration has made its anti-gig bent clear. On inauguration day, Mamdani’s pick to head the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), Samuel Levine, was already signaling to the press the coming gig economy crackdown. Even prior to Mamdani’s official inauguration, Levine’s appointment to head DCWP was accompanied by language accusing gig companies of misclassifying workers as independent contractors instead of full-scale employees.
Before serving in the Mamdani administration, Levine worked at the Federal Trade Commission during the Biden administration, where he was known as a key acolyte to Lina Khan during her notorious anti-business reign at the agency. Now, Levine is running point for Mamdani’s anti-gig agenda across New York City.
Two weeks into Mamdani’s tenure, the mayor, joined by Levine and Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su—another former Biden official, who served as the acting secretary of labor during the 46th president’s term—issued a statement declaring a “New Era of Accountability” for gig companies.
The declaration coincided with a DCWP report alleging that gig companies like Uber and DoorDash had “engineered design tricks” in their in-app platforms to reduce worker tips by $550 million. These “design tricks” included moving in-app tipping prompts for food delivery, presenting the option for tipping after an order was complete, rather than before.
This in-app tip reshuffling came in reaction to NYC’s prior 2023 decision to impose a minimum wage for food delivery drivers in the city, which sent food delivery costs soaring. The companies appear to have changed the timing of the tip option as a way to reduce the sticker shock for consumers when placing orders.
The New York City Council responded last year by passing a law mandating that gig companies place their tipping prompts before an order was placed, rather than after. Last month, after news arrived that several lawsuits by gig companies seeking to enjoin these (and other) gig-related rules were rejected by federal judges, Levine’s DCWP issued a statement reiterating its plan to “vigorously enforce” the city’s minimum wage and tipping rules for gig workers.
The city also launched its own lawsuit against the gig company Motoclick, which it argues “blatantly ignored” the minimum wage law and “stole directly from workers’ paychecks.” While it’s impossible to evaluate the claims against Motoclick at this early juncture in the legal proceedings, Mamdani’s team also recently announced a $5 million settlement with gig platforms UberEats, Fantuan, and Hungry Panda for violating the minimum wage law.
The UberEats settlement received the most attention since it involved the highest amount of settlement money. But while the top-line numbers received all the press, little attention has been paid to the fine print: Even the city noted that UberEats was “mostly compliant” with the minimum wage law and “incurred the wage debt only in weeks where workers had a delivery canceled” (and therefore the workers involved failed to receive the appropriate compensation from Uber).
Uber clarified that DCWP had originally flagged this pay shortfall to the company in August 2024, one and a half years before Mamdani took office, and Uber immediately agreed at the time to take corrective action to fix the issue and pledged “to pay more than the amount owed” in response.
This nuance didn’t stop Levine from triumphantly declaring: “The era of giant corporations juicing profits by underpaying workers is over.”
Also being lost in all the media fanfare over Mamdani’s gig war is the likely cost to every day New Yorkers. Evidence has repeatedly shown that anti-gig regulations always end up resulting in higher costs for consumers. Just recently Instacart instituted a $5.99 regulatory response fee due to a recent extension of NYC’s minimum wage law to grocery deliverers.
It’s also unclear how much the regulatory onslaught even helps gig workers. Tips plummeted by nearly 50 percent in the wake of the minimum wage law’s passage in NYC, and delivery drivers in Seattle, which implemented its own minimum wage for gig-based delivery, failed to see any sustained higher take-home pay from the city’s minimum wage law.
These anti-gig policies have also resulted in more gig companies resorting to “arranged scheduling” models, in which the number of delivery drivers that can be active on the platform at any one time is restricted in order to control labor costs. This locks would-be drivers out of the market altogether and takes away a potential money-earning opportunity that these workers are depending on.
Mamdani’s war on gig is getting a lot of press. But beyond the flashy headlines, it’s clear that both workers and consumers are likely to suffer.
