The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) recently announced three major trade and economic initiatives that the administration describes as part of a broader strategy to address large and persistent U.S. trade deficits, concerns about reciprocity in bilateral trade relationships, and other unfair trade practices, while deepening economic and national security cooperation and reinforcing Western Hemisphere supply chains. On January 29, a U.S.-El Salvador Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade was announced, which includes commitments to improve market access, regulatory alignment, and supply chain resilience. The next day, the USTR announced a U.S.-Guatemala Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, aimed at reducing nontariff barriers and rolling back reciprocal tariffs for qualifying Guatemalan exports. On February 4, the U.S. announced a U.S.-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals, focused on coordinated trade policies and exploring potential border‑adjusted price floors, further advancing U.S. efforts to enhance resilience and coordination in critical minerals supply chains with key allies.
US-Mexico Critical Minerals Action Plan
The newly announced U.S.-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals is a framework under which the U.S. and Mexico will address critical mineral supply chain vulnerabilities and nonmarket distortions. The two governments will identify specific critical minerals of interest and develop coordinated trade policies and mechanisms, including possible border‑adjusted price floors on imports of those minerals. They will also consider how such measures could be incorporated into a future plurilateral trade agreement on critical minerals with other like‑minded countries. The framework includes regulatory, technical, and investment cooperation, such as information sharing between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Mexican Geological Survey, identification of priority mining, processing, and manufacturing projects in both countries (and potentially in third countries), and support for projects that follow internationally recognized responsible business conduct and environmental, social and governance standards. Depending on how it is implemented, this initiative could affect long‑term contracts, sourcing strategies, and risk management across critical minerals supply chains, including for sectors such as electric vehicles, batteries, electronics, and defense.
US-Guatemala Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade
The U.S.-Guatemala Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (the Guatemala Framework) builds on the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and is intended to expand U.S. access to the Guatemalan market while advancing stated U.S. economic and security objectives. In return for Guatemala’s commitments under the Guatemala Framework, the U.S. will remove reciprocal tariffs on certain qualifying Guatemalan exports, including products that cannot be grown, mined, or produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S., as well as specified textile and apparel goods qualifying under the CAFTA‑DR.
A core element of the Guatemala Framework is reduction of nontariff barriers to U.S. industrial and agricultural exports. Guatemala has agreed to streamline regulatory requirements and approvals by accepting vehicles and parts built to U.S. motor vehicle safety and emissions standards; recognizing U.S. Food and Drug Administration certificates and prior marketing authorizations for medical devices and pharmaceuticals; accepting remanufactured goods from the U.S.; using electronic certificates; simplifying certificate‑of‑free‑sale requirements; removing apostille and similar formalities; and expediting product registration.
For agriculture, Guatemala will base measures on science and risk, rely on U.S. regulatory oversight, and accept agreed U.S. certificates for imports. Guatemala has further committed that use of common cheese and meat terms (e.g., parmesan, gruyere, mozzarella, feta, asiago, salami, and prosciutto) will not, by itself, be used to restrict market access for U.S. exporters.
The Guatemala Framework also covers services, digital trade, and intellectual property. Guatemala will work to avoid barriers to services and digital trade with the U.S. and will refrain from imposing discriminatory digital services taxes. Guatemala supports a permanent World Trade Organization (WTO) moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. On IP, Guatemala will strengthen protection and enforcement by moving toward key international intellectual property (IP) treaties and addressing issues identified in the 2025 Special 301 Report, including more effective enforcement cooperation, increased criminal prosecutions, and clearer rules and procedures for geographical indications (GIs).
On regulatory governance, Guatemala has committed to “good regulatory practices,” including publication of proposed measures and draft text, public consultations, and publication of regulatory priorities under development, amendment, or repeal.
The Guatemala Framework also includes labor, environmental, and security‑related provisions. Guatemala has committed to protect internationally recognized labor rights and to prohibit imports of goods made with forced or compulsory labor, supported by improved labor inspections and enforcement. Environmentally, Guatemala will maintain and enforce its environmental laws and take measures to improve forest governance and combat illegal logging, strengthen fisheries enforcement, address illegal wildlife trade and illegal mining, and fully implement the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies.
From an economic security perspective, the U.S. and Guatemala will cooperate to enhance supply chain resilience, address nonmarket policies of other countries, combat duty evasion, and coordinate on investment security and export controls. Guatemala will also take steps to limit access to central‑government procurement covered by its FTA commitments for suppliers from non‑FTA partners, in a manner similar to U.S. procurement restrictions, and will address potentially distortive conduct by state‑owned enterprises and industrial subsidies.
US-El Salvador Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade
The U.S.-El Salvador Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (El Salvador Framework) incorporates many of the same elements as the Guatemala Framework and also builds on the CAFTA‑DR. It is intended to expand U.S. access to the Salvadoran market and support identified U.S. economic and national security policies. In light of El Salvador’s announced commitments, the U.S. will remove reciprocal tariffs on certain qualifying Salvadoran exports that cannot be grown, mined, or produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. and will provide preferential treatment for specified textiles and apparel originating under the CAFTA‑DR.
El Salvador has agreed to reduce nontariff barriers affecting U.S. exports by streamlining regulatory requirements and approvals, including for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; accepting vehicles and parts built to U.S. motor vehicle safety and emissions standards; removing import restrictions on remanufactured goods; accepting electronic certificates and simplified certificate‑of‑free‑sale procedures; eliminating apostille requirements; and expediting product registration for U.S. exports.
In agriculture, El Salvador will address and prevent barriers related to fumigation, facility registration, and product registration, and will rely on U.S. regulatory oversight and certificates. As with Guatemala, El Salvador has committed that market access for U.S. agricultural exporters will not be restricted solely due to the use of common cheese and meat terms (e.g., parmesan, gruyere, mozzarella, feta, asiago, salami, and prosciutto) and will apply transparent and fair processes to GIs.
On digital trade and services, El Salvador has committed to avoid barriers to services and digital trade with the U.S. and to refrain from imposing discriminatory digital services taxes. The U.S. and El Salvador support a permanent WTO moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. El Salvador will also enhance IP protection and enforcement, including progress on key international IP treaties and clearer standards for GI protection, and will continue to implement good regulatory practices through publication of proposed measures, consultations, and transparency regarding future regulatory plans.
The El Salvador Framework includes commitments on labor and the environment. El Salvador has committed to protect internationally recognized labor rights and to prohibit imports produced by forced or compulsory labor. Environmentally, it will maintain and enforce environmental laws, improve forest governance and combat illegal logging, strengthen fisheries enforcement, address illegal wildlife trade and illegal mining, and work toward accepting and implementing the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies.
From a security standpoint, the U.S. and El Salvador will cooperate on supply chain resilience, responses to nonmarket policies of other countries, enforcement against duty evasion, and coordination on government procurement, investment screening, and export controls. El Salvador will address potentially distortive actions by state‑owned enterprises and industrial subsidies. The U.S. may take El Salvador’s implementation of the El Salvador Framework into account when considering national security‑based trade actions (e.g., under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962).
Cross‑Cutting Themes and Next Steps
Across these recent economic and trade initiatives, several common elements are relevant to companies:
- Reciprocal trade and tariffs: Guatemala and El Salvador will receive relief from new reciprocal tariffs and expanded preferential treatment (especially for textiles and apparel) in exchange for commitments on regulation, labor, environment, and security.
- Nontariff barrier reduction: Each of these arrangements emphasizes reliance on U.S. standards and decisions, reduced duplicative testing and approvals, and greater use of electronic documentation, including for automotive products, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, agricultural goods, and remanufactured products.
- Geographical indications and IP: The Guatemala Framework and El Salvador Framework address GI‑related concerns and protect the use of commonly used cheese and meat terms, while strengthening IP enforcement and treaty alignment.
- Labor, environment, and forced labor: Each agreement includes labor‑rights and environmental obligations, including express prohibitions on imports made with forced or compulsory labor and commitments on forestry, fisheries, mining, and wildlife.
- National security and supply chains: The initiatives link trade cooperation to supply chain resilience and national security, including coordination on export controls, investment screening, government procurement, and enforcement against duty evasion and nonmarket practices.
For U.S. exporters to Guatemala and El Salvador, companies should identify which of their products may qualify for tariff relief or streamlined procedures, verify that those products satisfy CAFTA‑DR’s rules of origin, update compliance processes to use electronic certificates and reduced apostille/registration requirements, and monitor (and where useful, comment on) implementing regulations. For companies involved in critical minerals and advanced manufacturing supply chains, the U.S.-Mexico Action Plan indicates movement toward more coordinated critical minerals policies, including possible price‑based measures. These companies should review their exposure to covered minerals, assess how border‑adjusted pricing or similar tools could affect their contracts and sourcing, and consider whether existing or planned projects are positioned to receive policy or financing support.
David Stauss, Shelby Dolen, TK Lively, and Marlaina Pinto were published in the February 1, 2026 Law.com Cybersecurity Law & Strategy newsletter for their article, “Analyzing the CCPA’s New Risk Assessment Requirement.” This article was republished in Law.com on February 17, 2026.
Our team published new content and podcasts to the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor throughout the month of January. To catch up on posts and podcasts you may have missed, click on the links below:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
CFPB and DOJ Formally Withdraw 2023 Immigration-Status Fair Lending Guidance
CFPB Complies with Court’s Funding Order in NTEU v. Vought
Health Care
First Circuit Denies Stay of 340B Rebate Pilot Injunction; DOJ Signals Likely Dismissal of Appeal
Maine Court Enjoins HRSA’s 340B Rebate Pilot
Mortgage Lending and Servicing
HUD Proposes to Rescind Fair Housing Act Disparate Impact Regulations
New York Extends CRA Obligations to Nonbank Mortgage Lenders
Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance
Credit Reporting Litigation to Rise Further Given State Laws
SEC – CFTC Harmonization Event Rescheduled to Jan. 29
California DFPI Considers New Consumer Reporting Registration
NCUA Issues Updated AI Resource Hub
New York Expands Consumer Protection Law Giving the AG Broader Powers
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
FCC Further Extends Effective Date for TCPA “Revoke-All” Rule
Podcasts
The Consumer Finance Podcast – Redlining Enforcement: Past and Future
FCRA Focus – Resellers in the Middle: Duties, Data, and Defenses Under the FCRA
Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast – From Showroom to Server Room: AI in Auto Finance
Payments Pros: The Payments Law Podcast – Point-of-Sale Finance Series: Health Care Financing Compliance, Regulatory, and Privacy Pitfalls
Newsletters
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of January 26, 2026
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of January 19, 2026
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of January 12, 2026
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of January 5, 2026
In 2025, the U.S. digital asset landscape evolved more dramatically than in any year since the industry’s inception. A pro‑innovation White House, an active Congress, and key regulators — including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (the Fed), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) — began to move away from a purely “regulation by enforcement” model toward a more defined framework for crypto markets. This shift has been anchored by stablecoin legislation, evolving custody and market structure expectations, and emerging guidance on token classification.
At the same time, financial crimes enforcement remained vigorous, privacy and cybersecurity requirements grew more complex, and state regulators continued to expand their role as frontline consumer protection and licensing authorities. For digital asset industry participants, the result is a market that offers meaningful opportunities for innovation and growth, even as regulatory uncertainty persists while much‑needed market structure legislation works its way through Congress. In the interim, industry stakeholders must continue to navigate overlapping federal and state regimes with care.
Troutman Pepper Locke’s Digital Assets team closely tracks these developments across agencies and jurisdictions and advises clients on the full spectrum of digital asset issues, including transactions, product development, litigation, enforcement, compliance, and strategic engagement with key stakeholders. Our 2025 Digital Assets Year in Review provides a comprehensive overview of the most consequential developments of the past year and highlights the themes that matter most to market participants, including stablecoins and payments, custody and market structure, token classification, financial crimes and sanctions, privacy and cybersecurity, and state‑level licensing and consumer protection. We hope this report serves as a practical tool to support those efforts.
To access the report, please click here.
Regulatory Oversight Blog
Make sure to visit Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Oversight blog to receive the most up-to-date information on regulatory actions and subscribe to our mailing list to receive a monthly digest.
Regulatory Oversight will provide in-depth analysis into regulatory actions by various state and federal authorities, including state attorneys general and other state administrative agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Contributors to the blog will include attorneys with multiple specialties, including regulatory enforcement, litigation, and compliance.
In This Issue:
2025 State AG Year in Review
2025 State AG Year in Review
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
State attorneys general (AGs) are among the most active and influential regulators in the U.S., using broad statutory authority, political visibility, and growing technical knowledge to shape policy and enforcement across sectors. In 2025, they asserted their authority to shape the legal and regulatory environment across the U.S. through aggressive and coordinated action. Despite changing regulatory and political priorities, AGs continued to respond quickly to constituent concerns, tested new legal theories, and coordinated across state lines — often stepping in where federal oversight has receded or taken a different course. Their ability to act nimbly at the intersection of law, politics, and public policy ensures that state AGs will remain central players in the regulatory landscape in 2026 and beyond.
Troutman Pepper Locke Spotlight
2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
By Chris Carlson
Register Here
Friday, February 6 • 10:15–11:15 a.m. ET
San Antonio, Texas
Chris Carlson, co-chair of the ABA Committee on State Attorneys General and Department of Justice Issues, Section of State and Local Government Law, will moderate the CLE panel “SLTG CLE: Age-Verification of Internet Websites, Including Implications on ‘Social Media’ Laws” on Friday, February 6, at 10:15 a.m., during the 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting.
Pub K’s Government Contracts Annual Review Conference
By Hilary Cairnie
Register Here
Wednesday, February 11 • 11:20 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. ET
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20004
Troutman Pepper Locke is proud to sponsor Pub K’s Government Contracts Annual Review Conference in Washington, D.C. Hilary Cairnie will be a panelist on the “Investigations & Audits” session, being held on Wednesday, February 11, at 11:20 a.m.
Three Troutman Attorneys to Serve on FDLI Committees for 2026
By Bryan Haynes, Agustin Rodriguez, and Michael Jordan
Troutman Pepper Locke is once again well represented on the Food and Drug Law Institute’s (FDLI) committees for 2026, underscoring the firm’s continued leadership on issues affecting FDA‑regulated industries, including tobacco and nicotine.
Economic Development: Maximize Your Growth Investment
By Troutman Pepper Locke
Your growing business deserves a law firm that delivers more than just legal advice. You deserve a strategic partner invested in your success. Troutman Pepper Locke’s nationally integrated economic development team leverages experience across public finance, tax incentives, environmental compliance, and regulatory matters to maximize your investment and minimize your costs. With collaborative resources spanning multiple jurisdictions and practice areas, we craft comprehensive solutions that create lasting positive impact for your business.
Podcast Updates
Regulatory Oversight
New Jersey’s Big Bet on Disparate Impact: What the AG’s New Rules Mean for Lenders and AI
By Chris Willis, Lori Sommerfield, and Matthew Berns
In this special crossover episode of Regulatory Oversight and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Matthew Berns to discuss New Jersey’s sweeping new disparate impact regulations under the Law Against Discrimination. They break down one of the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact rules in the U.S., the contrasts with traditional federal standards, and implications for enforcement in financial services. The discussion dives into credit scores, underwriting models, AI and automated decision-making tools, and the difference between New Jersey’s approach and the Trump administration’s effort to scale back disparate impact at the federal level, offering practical takeaways for lenders and other covered entities navigating this shifting landscape.
State AGs in the Driver’s Seat: Auto Finance Enforcement in the Trump 2.0 Era
By Brooke Conkle, Chris Capurso, Chris Carlson, and Namrata Kang
In this episode of Moving the Metal, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso are joined by Troutman colleagues Chris Carlson and Nam Kang from the firm’s RISE Practice Group to unpack what “Trump 2.0” really means for dealers and auto finance companies. With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and other federal regulators pulling back, the group explains how state attorneys general (AGs) and state financial regulators are rapidly filling the void — often led by former CFPB staff now embedded in state offices — and why that creates a complex patchwork of unfair or deceptive acts or practices standards and enforcement approaches across 50 states. They discuss hot-button themes like affordability, junk fees, mini-CFPBs, and the growing role of state working groups, as well as how state AGs are leveraging prior CFPB theories, the California CARS rule, and copy‑and‑paste complaints.
From Vegas to Venezuela: High-Stakes Predictive Markets
By Stephen C. Piepgrass and Lu Reyes
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Stephen Piepgrass, who leads Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigation Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, is joined by partner Lu Reyes for a deep dive into the national security and enforcement implications of predictive markets. The discussion centers on a headline‑grabbing Polymarket trade that appeared to anticipate former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s capture and yielded roughly $400,000 in profit, raising questions about insider trading and classified information leaks.
AI, Algorithms, and Accountability: Unpacking the Colorado AI Act with Senator Rodriguez
By Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. and David Stauss
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Ashley Taylor is joined by Colorado Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez and Troutman Pepper Locke Privacy + Cyber partner David Stauss for an in‑depth discussion of the Colorado AI Act — widely viewed as the nation’s first comprehensive legislative framework focused on high‑risk AI systems and algorithmic discrimination. Senator Rodriguez explains how Colorado’s work on consumer privacy laid the groundwork for AI regulation and walks through the origins, goals, and core provisions of the Act, including its emphasis on transparency, risk assessments, and protecting consumers in sectors such as employment, housing, health care, education, finance, and government services.
Payments Pros
Payments Year in Review 2025: Federal and State Developments – Part 1
By Keith J. Barnett, Jason Cover, and Carlin McCrory
In the first installment of a two-part Payments Year in Review series, hosts Keith Barnett, Carlin McCrory, and Jason Cover highlight the key federal developments that shaped the payments industry in 2025 and preview what’s ahead for 2026.
FTC Updates
FTC Sues JustAnswer Over Allegedly Deceptive Subscription Practices
By Michael Yaghi and Namrata Kang
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued JustAnswer LLC and its founder and CEO, Andrew Kurtzig, alleging that the online Q&A platform deceives consumers into costly recurring subscriptions without their informed consent, in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
FTC Warns Companies Over Deceptive Online Review Practices
By Michael Yaghi and Zoe Schloss
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sent warning letters to 10 unnamed companies for practices that may allegedly violate its new Consumer Review Rule. The letters flag potential use of fake or misleading reviews, undisclosed insider endorsements, and suppression of negative feedback. The FTC cautions that violations could trigger enforcement actions and civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation.
FTC Announces Settlement With Crypto Firm Over Exploited Security Vulnerability
By Clayton Friedman, Trey Smith, and Daniel Waltz
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed consent order with Illusory Systems Inc. (Illusory), a Utah-based blockchain infrastructure company that operates the Nomad Token Bridge. The settlement resolves the FTC’s allegations that Illusory failed to live up to its stated data security commitments, leading to a 2022 cyberattack in which hackers stole approximately $186 million in crypto assets from platform users. Under the proposed order, Illusory must return to consumers any recovered funds and implement enhanced information security measures.
Financial Services Updates
Arizona AG Enters Consent Judgment With Medical Imaging Service Provider Over Failure to Provide Customers Refunds and Payment Options
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes recently announced a consent judgment with SimonMed Imaging MSO, LLC (SimonMed), alleging that the medical imaging service provider violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act through billing practices the AG claimed were unfair and misleading. SimonMed provides management services, including billing, collections, information technology, and other business administrative services, to SMI Imaging, LLC (SMI), a wholly owned subsidiary of SimonMed Imaging LLC. According to its website, SimonMed Imaging LLC is the largest outpatient physician radiology group in the U.S., and its subsidiary SMI is the provider entity in connection with outpatient imaging clinics in Arizona. SimonMed expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing, and the consent judgment is not to be construed as an admission of wrongdoing or a violation of the law.
New York AG Targets Monterey Finance Over Allegedly Deceptive Lease-to-Own Financing
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On December 23, 2025, the New York Attorney General (AG) announced a settlement with Monterey Finance (Monterey) of approximately $2.4 million in debt relief for 835 New York consumers and $175,000 in penalties. The AG alleged that Monterey disguised high-cost lease agreements as traditional consumer financing, causing consumers to pay more than the sticker price for goods and services they believed they were purchasing.
Texas AG Settlement With Hyatt Reinforces Pricing Transparency Commitment
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Sydney Goldberg
On December 30, 2025, Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton announced a $1.25 million settlement with Hyatt Corporation (Hyatt). The settlement resolves a 2023 lawsuit alleging that Hyatt violated Texas consumer protection laws by requiring consumers to pay mandatory fees on top of advertised room rates. Under the agreement, Hyatt must clearly disclose any required fees added to a hotel room’s price, reinforcing Texas’s push for transparent online hotel pricing.
Payments Updates
How Payments Law Landscape Will Evolve In 2026
By Ethan G. Ostroff, Jason Cover, and Carlin McCrory
This article was originally published on Law360 and is republished here with permission as it originally appeared on January 22, 2026.
Since the change in administration last year, much has changed in the payments law landscape. Federal regulators have been busy rescinding agency guidance, advisory opinions, interpretive rules and policy statements.
FINRA Updates
FINRA’s Proposed Outside Activities Rule 3290
By Jay Dubow and Ghillaine Reid
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has proposed a sweeping update to how broker‑dealers handle outside business activities and private securities transactions. FINRA seeks to consolidate and replace Rules 3270 (Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons) and 3280 (Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person) with a single new rule: Rule 3290 (Outside Activities Requirements). The proposal preserves the core investor protection concepts of the existing rules but refocuses them on investment‑related activities.
Marketing + Advertising Updates
Florida AG Sues Retailers for Alleged Violations of Nicotine Product and Consumer Protection Laws
By Agustin Rodriguez and Nick Ramos
The Florida attorney general (AG) recently initiated legal proceedings against several Florida smoke shops, alleging violations of state law related to the sale and marketing of illegal nicotine products, particularly vapor products, to minors. The action targets multiple businesses, including 27 Smoke Shop Inc., A&A Smoke Shop LLC, Alami 9 LLC, Alami 10 LLC, Epic Novelty LLC, and Fuego Smoke Shop LLC. The complaint, filed in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, accuses these retailers of selling, shipping, or failing to remove from their inventory nicotine products that are classified as illegal contraband under Florida law, with a particular focus on products marketed to children.
Florida Court Stays TCPA Discovery While Weighing Whether Texts Are ‘Calls’
By Clayton Friedman and Zoe Schloss
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida stayed discovery in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action while the court considers whether text messages qualify as “calls” under the statute’s do-not-call (DNC) provisions. In McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., the court granted the defendant’s motion to stay, finding that the key issues can be resolved as questions of law without discovery. 2026 WL 111338 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026).
Menards Settles Multistate Investigation Involving Well-Known Rebate Program
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
Last month, Ohio and nine other state attorneys general (collectively, the AGs) entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance (AV) with Menard Inc. d/b/a Menards, a Wisconsin-based home improvement retailer. The settlement resolved the AGs’ allegations concerning deceptive rebate advertising and price gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Menards will pay $4.25 million to the multistate group, in addition to making several changes primarily related to the company’s rebate and advertising business practices.
Artificial Intelligence Updates
Texas Investigating Global Retail Over Labor Practices, Product Safety, and Privacy Practices
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On December 1, Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton issued a press release announcing an investigation into Shein US Services LLC Corporate and its affiliates (Shein).
New Jersey Governor-Elect Sherrill Nominates Jennifer Davenport as New Jersey AG
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On Monday, New Jersey Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill announced that she will nominate Jennifer Davenport to serve as the next attorney general (AG) of New Jersey. Davenport, a lifelong New Jersey resident, is currently employed at PSEG, where she serves as deputy general counsel and chief litigation counsel and previously served as senior director – compliance. Her nomination signals a continuation of strong enforcement and regulatory focus, informed by both extensive public-sector experience and recent private-sector roles.
New York Enacts Laws Requiring Advertising Disclosures and NIL Consent for Artificial Intelligence
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On December 11, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law two bills governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in advertising. The governor’s office described the bills as “first-in-the-nation legislation to protect consumers and boost AI transparency in the film industry.” Both bills unanimously passed through the New York Legislature.
Cannabis Updates
Colorado AG Fines Cannabis Company for Violating Prior Settlement
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team, Agustin Rodriguez, and Nick Ramos
On January 5, 2026, Colorado Attorney General (AG) Phil Weiser announced that MC Global Holdings and affiliated persons and entities (collectively, MC) had been fined for allegedly violating the terms of a May 2025 assurance of discontinuance. The defendants, who are engaged in manufacturing, packaging, labeling, distributing, and/or selling industrial hemp products under the brand Vivimu, agreed to a fine of $575,000, of which $500,000 will be suspended as long as they comply with the terms of the new agreement.
Legislative Updates
South Dakota AG Proposes Legislation to Authorize Seizure of Digital Currency
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On January 6, South Dakota Attorney General (AG) Marty Jackley announced a package of proposed legislation to modernize various aspects of the state’s criminal statutes. Among the proposals is a bill that would expressly authorize law enforcement to seize cryptocurrency as part of a criminal investigation. The measure reflects a growing concern that digital currency occupies a central role in much criminal activity and that legislation may be necessary in some jurisdictions to address those concerns.
New York Expands Consumer Protection Law Giving the AG Broader Powers
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team, Joseph DeFazio, William D. Foley, Jr., Stefanie Jackman, Lori Sommerfield, Chris Willis, and Shawn Brenhouse
On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act. The FAIR Act, which was proposed by Attorney General (AG) Tish James, represents the first major update to the state’s primary consumer protection law in 45 years and significantly broadens the statute’s reach.
Supreme Court Updates
Supreme Court to Decide Key Question on SEC Disgorgement
By Jay Dubow and Ghillaine Reid
On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ongkaruck Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The case arises out of an SEC civil enforcement action in the Ninth Circuit and squarely presents an important remedial question that the Court left open in Liu v. SEC, i.e., what counts as a “victim” for purposes of SEC disgorgement, and does the SEC have to show that investors actually lost money before it can obtain that relief?
Justices’ Separation-Of-Powers Revamp May Hit States Next
By Matthew Berns, Ryan J. Strasser, and Troy Homesley
Trump v. Slaughter, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in December, likely will put an end to the era of independent federal regulatory agencies.
Other Single State AG Updates
Kim Kardashian’s Clothing Company Settles With New Jersey AG After Collecting Sales Tax on Tax-Exempt Items
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On his last day in office, New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matt Platkin announced a consent order resolving a consumer fraud investigation into Skims Body, Inc. for charging consumers in New Jersey sales tax on items that are exempt under state law. Founded by Kim Kardashian, Skims is primarily an online retailer of apparel. The company agreed to pay $200,000 in civil penalties and to comply with the consent order’s injunctive terms.
Texas AG Settles Lawsuit That Cracked Down on COVID-Era Egg Prices
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On January 15, Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton announced that the state had settled its long-running lawsuit against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. over the prices that the company charged for eggs in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, Cal-Maine avoided making any monetary payment as part of the settlement, instead agreeing to donate more than two million eggs to Texas food banks.
Minnesota Attorney General Sues Nonprofit and President for Alleged Governance Violations
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
On January 6, Minnesota Attorney General (AG) Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota nonprofit corporation Act for Cause (AFC) and its president, Rajesh Mehta. While the stated mission of AFC was to help needy individuals with securing employment and housing, the lawsuit alleges that Mehta used the charity for various self-dealing purposes.
Stephanie Kozol, Senior Government Relations Manager – State Attorneys General, also contributed to this newsletter.
Our Cannabis Practice provides advice on issues related to applicable federal and state law. Marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law.
Executive Summary
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has significantly intensified its enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) since the law took effect in June 2022. CBP’s public dashboard and related reporting indicate that, through early 2026, the agency has reviewed more than 18,000 shipments with an aggregate value of approximately $3.81 billion. Enforcement now targets complex, component‑heavy supply chains rather than only legacy “priority” sectors. Volume peaked in fiscal year (FY) 2025, when CBP stopped roughly 7,325 shipments for UFLPA review (more than 50% above FY 2024), while only about 6.5% of those shipments were ultimately released into U.S. commerce. Although the dashboard does not distinguish between releases based on applicability determinations and those based on rebuttal of the statutory presumption, the low release rate is consistent with stringent UFLPA enforcement, including in cases involving Chinese‑origin supply chains. Early FY 2026 data suggest a shift toward high‑volume, lower‑value items, such as automotive castings and components, with the total number of detained shipments remaining elevated even as total detained value declines.
Against this backdrop, the August 19, 2025 Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) UFLPA Strategy update designated lithium as a high‑priority sector alongside caustic soda, copper, jujubes/red dates, and steel. The designation reflects the growing lithium reserves in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’s (XUAR), substantial state-backed investment in mining and processing, and allegations of state-sponsored labor transfers in lithium-related industries. While the Strategy does not isolate finished lithium-ion batteries as a stand‑alone category, lithium’s central role in batteries, electric vehicles (EVs), grid‑scale energy storage, and advanced electronics has translated into heightened scrutiny of these supply chains at U.S. ports.
Electronics, including battery-related components, now account for the largest cumulative share of UFLPA detentions, and automotive and aerospace parts are among the fastest-growing categories. The UFLPA Entity List remains at 144 entities following a major expansion on January 14, 2025, that added 37 parties, many tied to critical minerals mining and processing. For importers of lithium-ion batteries, energy storage systems, and electronics, UFLPA compliance is now a core trade and supply chain risk.
Policy Drivers: 2025 FLETF Strategy and ILAB Findings
The 2025 FLETF Strategy update reflects a deliberate policy decision to prioritize upstream raw materials and critical minerals rather than focusing solely on finished goods. In that update, FLETF formally designated lithium as a high‑priority sector, aligning it with other industrial inputs such as caustic soda, copper, and steel. The Strategy highlights XUAR’s expanding role in China’s lithium reserves and government-backed plans to develop what has been described as the “world’s largest lithium mining and extraction hub” in Hotan Prefecture, as set forth in the XUAR Mineral Resources Master Plan (2021–2025), which identifies lithium as an “advantageous” resource closely tied to battery manufacturing.
The Strategy also emphasizes forced‑labor risk indicators in the lithium value chain, relying in part on reports such as Sheffield Hallam University’s “Driving Force,” which links multiple XUAR-based lithium companies to state‑sponsored labor transfer programs. Lithium’s importance to EVs, grid‑scale storage, and advanced electronics makes it a natural focal point at the intersection of human rights, supply chain security, and industrial policy. Although finished lithium‑ion batteries are not separately listed as a high‑priority sector, FLETF’s criteria (supply chain opacity, documented forced labor risks, and strategic significance) are all present in battery and energy storage ecosystems.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) further underscores these concerns. In the 2025 Strategy update, ILAB reported that it “has reason to believe that lithium-ion batteries manufactured in China are produced with an input produced with child labor,” specifically cobalt ore mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). ILAB notes that cobalt is used in nearly all lithium‑ion batteries, that the DRC produces the majority of the world’s cobalt, and that most cobalt‑producing mines in the DRC are owned or financed by Chinese companies. This linkage between Chinese lithium‑ion battery manufacturing, DRC cobalt, and child labor risk reinforces the U.S. government’s view of lithium and battery supply chains as a top‑tier enforcement priority.
Port-Level Enforcement Realities
CBP’s public guidance and on‑the‑ground experience indicate increased focus on what occurs below Tier 1 suppliers. Consistent with the FLETF Strategy, CBP is scrutinizing gaps in sub‑tier supplier data, incomplete chain‑of‑custody or ownership documentation, and the sourcing of critical minerals such as lithium, graphite, cobalt, and nickel. The agency looks not only at where raw materials are mined, but also at where they are refined, processed, and converted into battery‑grade inputs, particularly when those activities occur in the People’s Republic of China or involve entities with known or suspected ties to forced labor.
Exposure to the UFLPA Entity List is a key concern, and CBP considers both direct and indirect relationships, including historic sourcing. The agency has made clear that generic supplier certifications, form letters, and basic invoices are inadequate in high‑risk sectors. Instead, it expects transaction‑specific and product‑specific documentation, such as detailed bills of materials, processing flowcharts, technical specifications, and supplier‑ and location‑level evidence tracing inputs back to origin. Battery and battery material supply chains are especially susceptible to this level of scrutiny because they are heavily documented and regulated for safety and performance, often driving CBP to demand granular data.
The UFLPA Rebuttable Presumption: A High Evidentiary Burden
The UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the XUAR, or by entities on the UFLPA Entity List, are made with forced labor and therefore inadmissible. Once CBP determines that a product falls within that scope, the burden shifts to the importer, who must rebut the presumption with “clear and convincing” evidence — one of the highest evidentiary standards in U.S. trade law.
It is important to distinguish between (1) a generalized concern that a component might be linked to XUAR and (2) a specific CBP determination that the UFLPA applies because the goods are mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in XUAR or by a listed entity. Once CBP determines that the UFLPA applies, the statutory rebuttable presumption that such goods are made with forced labor is triggered. Overcoming that presumption is extremely difficult and typically requires comprehensive supply chain mapping down to the raw material level, robust due diligence and auditing, and affirmative evidence demonstrating the absence of forced labor at each tier. By contrast, even where CBP has not formally found that the UFLPA applies (but instead raises questions about origin or potential XUAR links) importers still face significant challenges due to supplier opacity, pooled inputs, and reluctance to share commercially sensitive information.
Practical Challenges for Battery, Energy Storage, and Electronics Importers
Lithium‑ion battery and energy storage supply chains are inherently fragmented. Materials may be mined in one country, refined or chemically converted in another, and then incorporated into cells, modules, and packs in a third. Suppliers frequently rely on pooled or fungible inputs, complicating batch‑level traceability and making it difficult to link specific shipments to mine sites or processing facilities. Upstream providers may resist requests for detailed origin, processing, and ownership information, such as requests for commercially confidential information to (1) identify every material input (e.g., lithium salts, cathode and anode materials, binders, and other critical components), (2) describe each significant processing step from mining and refining through conversion, cell manufacturing, and pack assembly, and (3) provide the locations and responsible entities for those activities. Meeting these expectations often requires specific contractual rights (e.g., audit and data‑sharing clauses), internal systems for data collection and retention, and substantial investments in supplier engagement, all of which can affect the timing and outcome of CBP inquiries and detentions.
Broader Trade and Compliance Implications
UFLPA enforcement frequently intersects with other trade regimes and regulatory initiatives. For lithium‑ion batteries, energy storage products, and electronics, UFLPA issues often arise alongside Section 301 tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301) on Chinese‑origin components and materials, country‑of‑origin determinations for customs and marking purposes, sanctions, and heightened scrutiny of energy transition and critical technology supply chains. Importers may need to revisit origin determinations and tariff classifications, reassess whether duties were correctly paid, and reconsider sourcing and pricing strategies that were built around Section 301 and related measures. As a result, UFLPA compliance now implicates procurement, logistics, legal, and senior management, particularly where key product lines or strategic markets are involved.
Data Transparency: CBP’s 2026 Dashboard Update
In a January 28, 2026, Cargo Systems Messaging Service notice (CSMS #67538179), CBP announced a revamped forced labor website and an updated UFLPA Enforcement Statistics Dashboard. The dashboard is intended to provide more granular visibility into UFLPA enforcement by refining definitions, adding new data elements, and measuring shipments at the individual import transaction level. Users can apply interactive filters by shipment count or value, FY, industry, exam result, country of origin, and Harmonized Tariff Schedule four‑digit heading (HTS‑4), supported by enhanced visualizations such as line graphs, bar charts, and doughnut charts.
CBP emphasizes that the dashboard is limited to UFLPA enforcement and does not include data from other forced labor programs such as withhold release orders, findings, or sanctions-related actions. Data are aggregated to protect sensitive trade and law enforcement information. Taken together with ILAB’s findings, these enhancements signal a coordinated, data‑driven approach to identifying and targeting lithium‑ion batteries and related supply chains.
Outlook and Recommended Actions
The current UFLPA enforcement environment is durable and increasingly focused on upstream materials and components, particularly critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite. Lithium‑dependent products, energy storage systems, and electronics are likely to remain under sustained scrutiny.
Reactive approaches are increasingly untenable given the cost, delay, and uncertainty associated with overcoming detentions and rebutting the UFLPA presumption. Companies in the battery, energy storage, and electronics sectors, and their major customers, should consider:
- Comprehensive supply chain mapping down to the raw material and processing‑stage level;
- Strengthened due diligence frameworks, including enhanced supplier questionnaires, contractual data access and audit rights, and escalation protocols for high‑risk regions and entities;
- Robust documentation capabilities, including transaction‑specific evidence, technical specifications, and traceability records that can be produced quickly in response to CBP inquiries; and
- Continuous monitoring of CBP’s UFLPA Dashboard, FLETF Strategy updates, UFLPA Entity List changes, and related sanctions or trade policy developments.
UFLPA considerations should be integrated into core import compliance programs, not handled as an after‑the‑fact review.
Conclusion
UFLPA enforcement reflects a conscious policy choice by the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and FLETF to focus on strategic, high‑complexity supply chains where forced labor risks are difficult to detect yet economically significant. Lithium‑ion batteries, energy storage systems, and advanced electronics are at the center of this effort. The key question for importers is no longer whether these products will attract UFLPA scrutiny, but whether their supply chains and compliance programs are sufficiently credible, granular, and well documented to withstand it. Organizations that invest now in traceability, documentation, and proactive risk management will be better positioned to avoid costly detentions, preserve market access, and demonstrate leadership in building ethical and resilient global supply chains.
Bribery and corruption are illegal. What does that mean in practice? Various countries have enacted laws to combat corruption, including India’s Prevention of Corruption Act, the UK Bribery Act of 2010, and the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. In the U.S., the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) remains a critical and often challenging compliance requirement for U.S. and many non-U.S. companies that do business abroad. In 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order and subsequent updated guidelines that changed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) historical approach to FCPA enforcement, creating uncertainty for how companies should consider FCPA risk.
Troutman Pepper Locke’s White Collar Litigation + Investigations team has prepared a concise guide, Combating Bribery and Corruption Abroad: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Business, to help you navigate these complex regulations. Learn the FCPA’s two main provisions covering anti-bribery and financial record-keeping and controls, understand which businesses the law applies to and common liability theories, discover current DOJ and SEC enforcement priorities, and implement practical compliance strategies including risk assessments, third-party vetting, and internal controls. Most importantly, know exactly what to do if you suspect a violation.
Effective March 18, 2026, officers and directors of foreign private issuers that have securities listed on a U.S. securities exchange or registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (for purposes of this alert, FPIs) will be subject to insider reporting under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Officers and directors of FPIs will be required to report their holdings of, and transactions in, company securities, beginning March 18, 2026. For further details, please see our prior alert regarding the new law: US Insider Reporting Requirements Coming for Directors and Officers of Foreign Private Issuers.
The SEC has authority to exempt any person, security, or transaction from Section 16(a) insider reporting if the SEC determines that the laws of a foreign jurisdiction apply “substantially similar requirements” to that person, security, or transaction. As of this date, the SEC has not provided any exemptive relief.
Accordingly, FPIs should prepare now to assist their officers and directors with insider reporting, including, but not limited to, coordinating with counsel and administrators to prepare timely Section 16 filings beginning March 18, 2026. We recommend that FPIs confirm or obtain EDGAR Next enrollment, and EDGAR codes, for officers and directors subject to insider reporting as soon as possible, as that process can take up to a few weeks.
In 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) made clear that tariff evasion and customs fraud now sit firmly within the core of False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement. The FCA is not only the government’s primary tool to combat fraud but also the most lucrative — in fiscal year 2025, for example, FCA settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion — the highest annual total in the statute’s history.
Recently, the DOJ has clearly positioned “improper avoidance of tariffs and customs duties” as a priority enforcement area under the FCA. As settlements in the summer of 2025 demonstrated, international trade compliance is now an even more significant risk for importers and companies with global supply chains. The DOJ’s actions in 2025 have solidified a clear pattern of using the FCA to police customs compliance. Below we discuss the DOJ’s FCA enforcement of tariff evasion and customs fraud in 2025, and what companies should be considering as they evaluate their trade compliance programs in 2026.
The False Claims Act
The FCA serves as the primary mechanism for the government to recover losses associated with false or fraudulent claims for payment. The FCA, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., imposes civil liability on individuals or entities that knowingly submit, or cause to be submitted, false claims for payment to the federal government. The statute authorizes recovery of treble damages and per-claim penalties, and it allows whistleblowers (through its qui tam provisions) to bring cases on the government’s behalf and share in any recovery.
DOJ Ramps Up FCA Enforcement on Tariff Evasion and Customs Fraud in 2025
In May 2025, the DOJ signaled that it would prioritize enforcement of international trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion, in its memorandum titled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White‑Collar Crime.” In line with its enforcement priorities, the DOJ announced a series of FCA actions in July 2025 targeting customs fraud:
- On July 16, 2025, the DOJ filed an FCA complaint against Global Office Furniture LLC, based in South Carolina, alleging that the company coordinated with a Chinese manufacturer to underpay customs duties owed on office chairs imported from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
- On July 23, 2025, the DOJ announced a $6.8 million settlement with subsidiaries of MGI International LLC — Global Plastics LLC and Marco Polo International LLC — to resolve civil liability under the FCA for knowingly failing to pay customs duties on plastic resin imported from the PRC.
- The next day, on July 24, 2025, the DOJ announced a $4.9 million FCA settlement with Grosfillex Inc., a patio furniture company. The DOJ alleged that Grosfillex evaded antidumping/countervailing (AD/CVD) duties on extruded aluminum from the PRC by submitting false customs forms that mischaracterized certain aluminum furniture components as not subject to AD/CVD.
Shortly thereafter, the DOJ announced the creation of a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force in partnership with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Through the Trade Fraud Task Force, the DOJ made clear its aggressive pursuit of tariff evasion and customs underpayments as fraud on the U.S. and its plan to use every available tool — civil, criminal, and whistleblower incentives — to pursue it.
As a result of coordination through the Trade Fraud Task Force, the DOJ announced on December 18, 2025, that it resolved a criminal trade fraud investigation into MGI International LLC and its subsidiaries related to the same conduct that resulted in the civil FCA settlement in July. The DOJ declined to prosecute MGI under the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Policy and credited the earlier $6.8 million FCA payment, citing MGI’s timely self‑disclosure, full cooperation, and extensive remediation. At the same time, MGI’s former chief operating officer, David Guimond, agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to smuggle goods based on his 2021 instructions to subordinates to misrepresent manufacturer and country of origin in customs filings to avoid Section 301 tariffs.
That same day, the DOJ announced a $54.4 million FCA settlement with Ceratizit USA LLC, a distributor of tungsten carbide products, to resolve a qui tam complaint alleging that Ceratizit routed Chinese‑origin products through Taiwan and falsely declared Taiwan as the country of origin to avoid Section 301 tariffs. The DOJ also alleged that, from June 2015 through March 2024, the company knowingly misclassified products under incorrect tariff codes and failed to pay marking duties on unmarked goods.
Both the MGI International and Ceratizit settlements were coordinated through the Trade Fraud Task Force and illustrate the DOJ’s active pursuit of tariff evasion and customs fraud via cross-agency cooperation. Additionally, the Grosfillex and Ceratizit settlements highlight the increasing role and importance of whistleblowers, who are entitled to a portion of the government’s recoveries, in successful international trade enforcement efforts.
What This Means for Importers and Multinational Companies
With the federal government’s implementation of new tariffs and the DOJ’s focus on pursuing customs enforcement, it is imperative that companies that import goods, particularly from China and other countries facing increased tariffs, implement effective compliance programs. Below are some trends to expect in 2026:
- Expect trade compliance to be treated as a civil fraud risk. Historically, trade fraud has been enforced by CBP through administrative penalties or by the DOJ via criminal import/export statutes. The DOJ now treats misclassification, undervaluation, origin masking, and AD/CVD or Section 301 evasion as potential FCA conduct, with treble damages and penalties on the table.
- Expect a rise in qui tam FCA complaints. Employees, competitors, and industry insiders are bringing qui tam FCA complaints and receiving substantial awards. Weak internal reporting channels can increase the risk that concerns go straight to the DOJ.
- Assume civil and criminal teams are working together. The Trade Fraud Task Force coordinates the DOJ’s Civil and Criminal Divisions with CBP and HSI, increasing the likelihood that a customs issue will trigger parallel FCA and criminal exposure.
Against that backdrop, companies should focus on a few practical steps to manage this evolving FCA and trade‑fraud risk:
- Revisit trade compliance programs. Companies that rely on complex supply chains, especially involving Chinese-origin goods or AD/CVD exposure, should prioritize customs audits, strengthen internal reporting channels, and review country-of-origin certifications, especially for goods sourced from high-risk jurisdictions.
- Leverage self‑disclosure and remediation where appropriate. If you have credible evidence of a potential tariff or customs violation, consider whether self-disclosure to the DOJ is appropriate. The MGI settlement shows that the DOJ is open to rewarding prompt disclosure, cooperation, and concrete compliance enhancements, including through reduced penalties and, in some cases, declinations.
Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation continued to increase last year as the industry saw several significant judicial developments.
As the credit reporting industry evolves in 2026, we anticipate an increased focus on state-level regulatory frameworks—and various challenges to those rules.
Litigation in the industry will likely keep rising at the federal level. However, federal regulatory activity will likely remain dormant, as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has paused or cut back enforcement actions.
Here are some significant developments in 2025, along with predictions for what 2026 may hold.