“Secondary tariffs” strike again, with India now squarely in the crosshairs of the latest U.S. trade action. On August 6, President Trump issued an executive order “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation” (the Order), invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and other legal authorities to impose an additional 25% ad valorem duty on certain imports from India due to its direct or indirect importation of Russian Federation oil. The new additional tariff rate on imports of Indian origin will effectively double to 50%, as the U.S. had already imposed a 25% reciprocal tariff under the July 31 executive order. The Order expands the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14024 and Executive Order 14066, which address Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Key Provisions of the Order
The Order imposes an additional 25% tariff on certain Indian imports into the U.S., bringing the total additional tariff rate to 50% when combined with a previously imposed 25% reciprocal tariff under Executive Order 14257, as amended. This measure targets India’s importation of Russian oil, which the U.S. views as supporting Russia’s economy and its war in Ukraine.
-
Scope of the Tariff: The 25% ad valorem duty under the Order applies to good of Indian origin entering the U.S., except for (i) those subject to actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; (ii) articles subject to 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b), such as postal communications, donations for humanitarian relief, accompanied baggage for personal use, and informational materials; and (iii) specific goods listed in Annex II of Executive Order 14257. Except for items that qualify as “domestic status” under 19 CFR 146.32, any goods subject to this 25% tariff that are brought into a foreign-trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2025, must be treated as “privileged foreign status” under 19 CFR 146.41, which means that duty must be paid even if the goods are later changed, used in manufacturing, or exported.
-
Effective Date: This tariff will take effect with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2025, except for goods that (1) were loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit prior to entry into the United States before 12:01 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2025; and (2) are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, before 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 17, 2025.
-
Definition of Russian Oil: The Order defines “Russian Federation oil” as crude oil or petroleum products extracted, refined, or exported from Russia, regardless of the nationality of the entity involved. “Indirectly importing” includes purchases through intermediaries where the oil’s origin can “reasonably” be traced to Russia.
-
Monitoring and Expansion: The U.S. Secretary of Commerce is tasked with identifying other countries importing Russian oil, whether directly or indirectly, potentially leading to similar tariffs. The U.S. Secretary of State is authorized to recommend additional actions if the measures fail to address the national emergency or if Russia or affected countries retaliate.
Conclusion
The resurgence of “secondary tariffs” imposed on goods of Indian origin represents a significant escalation in U.S. efforts to counter Russia’s actions in Ukraine by targeting India’s oil imports, while also reflecting the failure of the U.S. and India to establish a trade deal by the August 1 deadline. President Trump has announced that more “secondary tariffs” are expected, specifically on China.
Businesses must act swiftly to assess their exposure, strengthen compliance, and adapt supply chain strategies to mitigate the impact of these tariffs. As the geopolitical and trade landscape evolves, staying proactive and informed will be critical to navigating this complex environment.
This article was republished in the October 2025 issue of Insights: The Corporate and Securities Law Advisor.
On August 1, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the formation of a new task force dedicated to harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance innovation and efficiency across the agency. This initiative, led by Valerie Szczepanik, SEC’s newly appointed Chief AI Officer, marks a significant step in the agency’s commitment to integrating this technology into its operations.
Purpose
The AI Task Force is designed to accelerate the integration of AI within the SEC, centralizing efforts to foster cross-agency and cross-disciplinary collaboration. The task force aims to navigate the AI lifecycle effectively, remove barriers to progress, and focus on AI applications that maximize benefits while maintaining governance. By supporting innovation from the SEC’s various divisions and offices, the task force will facilitate responsible AI integration across the agency. This task force should allow the SEC to optimize the use of AI for internal use as well as to more quickly identify issues for potential rulemaking and enforcement investigations.
Leadership
Valerie Szczepanik will lead this initiative. Her previous roles include Director of the SEC’s Strategic Hub for Innovation and Financial Technology and Senior Advisor for Digital Assets and Innovation.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins emphasized the importance of this initiative, stating, “The AI Task Force will empower staff across the SEC with AI-enabled tools and systems to responsibly augment the staff’s capacity, accelerate innovation, and enhance efficiency and accuracy.” He highlighted the agency’s mission to protect investors, maintain fair markets, and facilitate capital formation, all of which will be furthered by ingraining innovation agency wide.
Our Take
The establishment of the AI Task Force is indeed a forward-thinking step that aligns with the broader trends of digital transformation across various industries. By leveraging AI, the SEC aims to enhance its operational efficiency and accuracy, potentially leading to more timely and effective enforcement actions. This initiative could significantly benefit investors and contribute to maintaining fair markets.
However, several questions arise regarding the implementation of AI within the SEC. What measures will be in place to ensure the ethical use of AI? Addressing potential biases and ensuring transparency in AI-driven decisions are crucial for maintaining trust and integrity. The task force will need to establish robust frameworks to tackle these issues.
Facilitating cross-agency and cross-disciplinary collaboration is another key aspect of this initiative. The task force must navigate the challenges of integrating AI across different divisions and offices, ensuring seamless cooperation and communication.
The success of the AI Task Force could set a precedent for other regulatory bodies, potentially reshaping the landscape of financial regulation and oversight. As the SEC embarks on this journey, it will be interesting to observe how these challenges are addressed and what impact this initiative will have on the agency’s ability to respond to emerging challenges in financial markets.
The frenetic pace of anti-renewable actions from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has continued into this week with the issuance of a new memorandum from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff for policy, directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ratchet up enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) against wind energy projects, and to scrutinize the eagle permit program that the FWS adopted in 2024 after many years of development.
Last week saw a raft of agency actions targeting wind and solar projects as part of DOI’s (and other agencies’) implementation of Executive Order 14315, “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources.” This latest memo telegraphs that there will be no letup anytime soon.
The memo, announced on X on August 4, but not yet published on DOI’s website, outlines a series of actions to “ensure compliance” with regulations protecting bald and golden eagles in the context of wind energy projects. Specifically, the memo directs FWS to:
-
Refer any violations of BGEPA to the Solicitor’s Office, with the potential for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice to seek criminal or civil penalties;
-
Evaluate whether the FWS regulations allowing for specific or general permits for the incidental take of eagles by wind energy projects are “compatible with the requirements and intent of the Act”;
-
Request records of all permitted activities of wind energy projects within seven days (i.e., by August 11);
-
Determine whether permitted wind projects have “complied with all reporting requirements” within 14 days (i.e., by August 18); and
-
Review all pending eagle permit applications for wind energy projects within 30 days (i.e., by September 4).
This directive points strongly toward three potential (and non-exclusive) outcomes: (1) enforcement actions against any wind farm operators that they believe have not complied with the letter of their eagle permits; (2) a continued moratorium on the issuance of new eagle permits (a freeze on new eagle general permits has been in place since January 20); and (3) a rulemaking to revoke the provisions of the 2024 eagle permit rule applicable to wind energy. While the wind industry waits for additional directives and determines how to respond to these recent actions, developers holding active eagle permits may wish to evaluate the status of their activities and seek counsel to prepare for potential information requests or subpoenas that may be forthcoming.
For questions or to discuss these latest developments, contact Troutman Pepper Locke’s environment and natural resource attorneys.
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.
Troutman Pepper Locke Spotlight
Navigating Multistate AG Investigations: Tools and Tactics
By
Register Here
Wednesday, August 20 • 1:00 – 3:10 p.m. ET
Members of Troutman Pepper Locke’s State Attorneys General (AG) team, Ashley Taylor, Clayton Friedman, and Namrata Kang, will participate in an upcoming CLE with myLawCLE for an in-depth exploration of AG investigations. This presentation will focus on multistate actions, recent trends, and emerging regulatory challenges. With decades of experience in both single and multistate AG investigations, the panelists will provide essential tools to help you effectively manage these complex processes.
Justices’ Age Verification Ruling May Lead To More State Laws
By Laura Hamady, Jeff Johnson, Chris Carlson, and Jessica Birdsong
The digital age presents a complex challenge: protecting children online while also allowing free speech to continue to be a thriving marketplace of ideas.
Recent legal battles highlight this tension, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court‘s June 27 decision in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton, which permits more content-neutral regulation over internet activities by states.
2025 Mid-Year Review: State AGs in a New Era
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
The United States is navigating a new era of regulatory oversight and the balance of power between federal and state regulators following the 2024 election cycle. As federal agencies retreat from and/or realign their regulatory enforcement priorities, state attorneys general (AGs) are increasingly taking the lead in policing companies — especially those that are consumer-facing — bridging perceived gaps left by shifting federal priorities, and in some cases, emboldened to expand regulatory enforcement into relatively new arenas.
Regulatory Oversight Podcast Updates
Understanding BBB Ratings: Building Trust and Mitigating Risks
By
In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, we kick off a two-part series on the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Stephen Piepgrass, Michael Yaghi, and Dan Waltz explore the significance of the BBB for businesses, particularly in relation to regulatory scrutiny and consumer trust. The conversation begins with an overview of the BBB as a quasi-governmental agency, emphasizing its role in consumer complaints and how these are perceived by regulators, including state attorneys general.
Solicitor General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons
By
In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, Jeff Johnson is joined by District of Columbia Solicitor General Caroline Van Zile and Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell to discuss their respective offices, and the distinct challenges and focuses of each. Noah shares insights into the Washington Solicitor General’s Office, and Caroline discusses the multifaceted nature of the District of Columbia Solicitor General’s Office, as they balance a diverse array of appellate work and providing legal advice on novel issues.
Privacy Updates
Healthline Proposed Settlement Informs Businesses of What Not to Do
By
On July 1, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta announced a significant proposed settlement with Healthline Media LLC (Healthline) — a prominent website publisher of health information and wellness articles. The proposed settlement follows allegations that Healthline’s use of online tracking technology violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This is the third action under the CCPA announced by Bonta this year.
Marketing and Advertising Updates
Rising Junk Fee Enforcement Means Businesses Should Be Proactive
By Clayton Friedman, Namrata Kang, and Kyara Rivera Rivera
Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys examine the recent wave of laws and regulations targeting junk fees at both the state and federal level.
Given rising federal and state enforcement on “junk fees,” businesses should confirm their advertising reflects total prices and review consumer feedback to ensure compliance.
Washington AG Secures $8.2M Against Company for Sending Knock-Off Official Government Correspondence
By
Labor Law Poster Service, formerly Mandatory Poster Agency, was recently ordered to pay more than $8.2 million in penalties and restitution following a lawsuit brought by the Washington state attorney general’s (AG) office. The lawsuit is the third enforcement action taken against this Michigan company in connection with its efforts to mail solicitations to Washington small businesses that look like or mimic official government communications.
Consumer Financial Services Updates
California’s DFPI Brings First Enforcement Action Under California’s Digital Financial Assets Law
By Stefanie Jackman, Stephen Piepgrass, Chris Willis, and Trey Smith
On June 25, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) entered a consent order with Coinme, Inc., a cryptocurrency “ATM” operator, for noncompliance with the California’s Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) and Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL). The consent order marks a significant milestone in California’s regulatory efforts because it represents the conclusion of the agency’s first enforcement action under the DFAL.
NYC Comptroller Requested Stronger Protections for New Yorkers Amidst Attenuated CFPB Authority
By
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander released a report titled “Standing Up for New York Consumers – How New York State and New York City can Strengthen Consumer Financial Protection in the Trump Era,” which called for the strengthening of local consumer financial protections in response to the Trump administration’s recent actions to reduce the regulatory footprint of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau).
Federal Enforcement News
Supreme Court Limits Universal Injunctions: Implications for Federal Courts
By
At the end of a blockbuster term, the Supreme Court sharply limited the power of federal courts to issue so-called universal injunctions against government actors. The decision in Trump v. CASA (and related cases) did not foreclose federal courts’ power to enjoin federal policies that are likely unconstitutional but curtailed the reach of those injunctions to the parties (or potentially the plaintiff class) in a suit. The result will require affected parties to litigate rather than wait on potential widespread relief from courts in distant corners of the U.S.
Gaming Updates
The Right to Regulate: Kalshi, Federal Preemption, and the Fight for State Gaming Authority
By
A lawsuit between KalshiEx LLC (Kalshi) and New Jersey state gaming regulators in the Third Circuit is testing the balance between federal commodities regulation and state authority regarding sports betting.
New AG On The Block
Newly Appointed Wyoming AG, Keith Kautz
By
Keith Kautz will serve as the new attorney general (AG) of the state of Wyoming following his appointment by Governor Mark Gordon last week, effective July 7, 2025. Kautz has a long history of civil service in the state, having served as a district court judge for the Eighth Judicial District — covering Converse, Goshen, Niobrara, and Platte counties — for 22 years. His hometown of Torrington falls within this district. In 2015, Governor Matt Mead appointed Kautz as a justice to the Wyoming Supreme Court, where he served until his retirement in March 2024.
Additional Single State Updates
New York AG Intensifies Investigation and Enforcement Against Alleged Medicaid Fraud
By
On June 30, 2025, New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James announced new lawsuits, criminal charges, and settlements with 25 New York transportation companies related to alleged schemes to defraud Medicaid of millions.
Nevada’s Price-Fixing Bill Veto Sparks Debate
By
In a recent political development in Nevada, Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed Assembly Bill 44, a legislative effort aimed at curbing alleged price-fixing practices on essential goods and services championed by Nevada Attorney General (AG) Aaron D. Ford.
California AG Faces Legal Challenge Over Hiring Outside Counsel in Climate Lawsuit
By
California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta faces a legal challenge from a union representing state-employed attorneys over his decision to hire an outside law firm for a high-profile climate lawsuit against major oil companies. The California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) argue that this decision violates Article VII of the California Constitution, which implicitly mandates that state work traditionally performed by civil service employees should not be outsourced to private entities.
Tobacco and Nicotine Updates
Are State ENDS Directories Preempted? Federal Courts Are Split
By
Over the past two years, at least 14 states have enacted laws requiring manufacturers of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to certify the status of their federal premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) in order to be sold in the state. This year, several of these laws have been challenged, and a clear split is beginning to emerge among state courts regarding whether the state laws are enforceable.
Indian Tribe Fights With ATF Over Applicability of PACT Act to Its Cigarette Sales
By
In 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) placed Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms), a federally recognized Indian tribe that sells cigarettes on sovereign reservations in California, on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s (PACT Act’s) noncompliant list (NCL). The PACT Act generally prohibits common carriers from shipping products to or from companies on the NCL. After ATF placed Twenty-Nine Palms on the NCL, the tribe sued ATF and its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in federal court. This case is worth following because it involves key issues related to ATF’s authority to enforce the PACT Act against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act.
Sam’s Club Eyeing Appeal of Hefty Local Tobacco Tax Assessment
By
In June, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld an assessment of over $314 million against Sam’s Club for unpaid county cigarette excise taxes, including a 10% late fee, a 25% penalty, and accrued interest. The assessment arose from Sam’s Club’s alleged failure to pay taxes on cigarettes that it sold to out-of-county retailers from 2009 to 2016. Following the June ruling, the company now appears poised to bring its arguments to the state’s highest court in a case illustrating the ambiguities of state and local excise taxation laws.
Supreme Court Says Affected Retailers May Challenge ENDS Manufacturer’s Marketing Denial Orders
By
On June 20, the Supreme Court concluded that marketing denial orders (MDOs) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can be challenged not only by the applicants (typically, the manufacturer or importer of the products), but also by retailers who would sell such products. As a result, more challenges to MDOs are likely to be brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where litigants have generally had greater success to date in challenging MDOs relative to other appellate courts.
Cannabis Regulatory Updates
Congressional Briefing Highlights Growing Bipartisan Consensus on the Need for Federal Clarity in Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Regulation
By
On July 17, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture hosted a closed-door roundtable briefing focused on the regulatory gray areas surrounding hemp-derived cannabinoid products. The session, convened in response to ongoing concerns over consumer safety, regulatory ambiguity, and market disruption, featured expert insights from four panelists: Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable; Pamela Epstein, chief legal and regulatory officer at Terpene Belt Farms; Cole White, attorney at Troutman Pepper Locke, in his capacity as special counsel for the Attorney General Alliance; and Dr. Gillian Schauer, executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association. The discussion reflected mounting congressional interest in addressing the unintended consequences of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018’s (2018 Farm Bill) legalization of hemp and its derivatives.
Closing the Loophole: Updates on Federal and State Attempts to Regulate Intoxicating Hemp-Derived Products
By
Intoxicating hemp-derived products have proliferated across the U.S. under the guise of the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of “hemp.” Although these products produce psychoactive effects akin to state-regulated cannabis products, they are often manufactured and sold with little oversight or regulatory controls.
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.
Ashley Taylor, Clayton Friedman, Michael Yaghi, Natalia Jacobo, and Jay Myers of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP discuss stepped up enforcement efforts among state attorneys general in the face of the Trump administration’s broad deregulatory agenda and as federal agencies appear to shift litigation priorities.
Read the full article at Reuters and Westlaw Today.
An employer’s bankruptcy filing can significantly impact an employee’s agreements with the debtor. While a reorganizing debtor may agree to continue honoring its obligations under employment agreements, the Bankruptcy Code gives a debtor broad powers that may allow significant changes to an employee’s bargained-for rights.
This article discusses how employment contracts and noncompete agreements may be affected during a bankruptcy case. To access this article and read other insights from our Creditor’s Rights Toolkit, please click here.
Published in Law360 on August 4, 2025. © Copyright 2025, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.
The use of transactional representations and warranties insurance is now well established, but that was not the case only a dozen years ago, when RWI in corporate mergers and acquisitions transactions was a growing, but still nascent, trend.[1]
Insurance industry and commercial real estate legal trends indicate that the use of RWI in commercial real estate transactions currently is at approximately the same point of advancement and maturation as the use of RWI in corporate M&A deals was in 2013, which could indicate substantial future growth in the next several years.
Based on discussions with insurance industry representatives, we believe the number of CRE RWI policies issued has nearly quadrupled in recent years.
Seller representations and warranties, along with related issues such as postclosing survival and escrows, often are among the most intensely negotiated provisions in CRE purchase and sale agreements, or PSAs. CRE RWI provides a number of solutions that can be beneficial to both sellers and buyers, making it an increasingly popular tool in CRE transactions.
CRE RWI is a specialized insurance product suitable for deployment in all CRE transactions. It can be used in straight asset sales and acquisitions, i.e., fee conveyance transactions; entity stock sales and acquisitions; and real estate investment trust sales and acquisitions.
CRE RWI is useful in bridging gaps between the scope and extent of representations and warranties CRE sellers are willing to provide and those CRE buyers require. It reduces the length and complexity of negotiations, accelerates the closing process, minimizes or eliminates seller liabilities, and enhances buyer remedies postclosing.
CRE sellers and buyers share a common ultimate objective: to document transactions in binding PSAs and close them as smoothly and efficiently as possible. However, even after agreeing to key deal points — purchase price, inspection period, diligence deposit, closing date, etc. — in a term sheet, conflicting concepts often surface during the PSA negotiation process.
These conflicting positions frequently include the nature and extent of seller representations and warranties, the monetary ceiling on seller liability attached to surviving representations and warranties, the postclosing survival period applicable to seller representations and warranties, and the terms and duration of any escrow to be funded by the seller at closing to secure surviving seller representations and warranties. CRE RWI can help resolve these issues satisfactorily for both parties.
CRE RWI policies cover standard seller representations and warranties in PSAs relating to the organization and good standing of the seller, the seller’s power and authority, affiliate transactions, compliance with laws, Office of Foreign Assets Control matters, tax matters, and other general and fundamental seller representations and warranties.
Fundamental representations and warranties typically encompass the seller’s organization and good standing, the seller’s power and authority, etc.
Additionally, in cases where sellers are unwilling to give certain representations and warranties, or are willing to give them only in a limited fashion, a CRE RWI policy can provide synthetic coverage for certain representations and warranties, subject to appropriate diligence efforts and determinations.
For the purpose of the CRE RWI policy, synthetic representations and warranties are set forth in the policy and are treated as if they had been included in the PSA by the parties.
Synthetic CRE RWI coverage is most commonly deployed where sellers are unwilling to give representations and warranties relating to the condition of the property, environmental matters, and the rent roll, if the property has tenants. CRE RWI is increasingly used to address specific deal dynamics present in CRE transactions that are less common in corporate M&A transactions.
If a CRE transaction is structured and negotiated from the offering and term sheet stage to include CRE RWI, friction between the seller and buyer regarding seller representations and warranties can be reduced significantly.
This often results in a more expeditious PSA negotiation process and a smoother, more streamlined progression to closing. Upon closing, the seller can freely deploy or distribute all the net closing proceeds without holdbacks or escrows, and without concerns about trailing postclosing contingent liabilities.
From the buyer’s perspective, postclosing assurance is provided by the insurance company, up to the CRE RWI policy limit, covering any losses arising from any breaches in the seller’s representations and warranties in the PSA.
This avoids concerns about the sufficiency of a postclosing escrow or financial backing for surviving seller indemnities, and with the added benefit of synthetic representations and warranties negotiated between the buyer and the insurance company.
CRE RWI policy premiums are fully paid at closing, with no recurring payments. A business issue associated with CRE RWI that must be addressed between sellers and buyers is which party will pay the policy premium. This topic is negotiated on a transaction-by-transaction basis, but it is common for sellers and buyers to share the premium cost in some manner.
While CRE RWI premiums vary depending on specific risks being underwritten, the premiums typically are less than those for traditional M&A RWI. The amount of the insured limit is a portion of the total purchase price agreed upon by the buyer and the insurance company.
Buyers might consider, as an appropriate insured limit, the aggregate amount of postclosing seller liability they could reasonably have expected to negotiate without CRE RWI coverage, although many buyers elect a higher insured amount than what sellers might have agreed to provide in the form of a postclosing escrow or indemnity.
Excluded from coverage under CRE RWI policies are issues known to the buyer and forward-looking representations and warranties.
The standard policy period for claims made by the buyer under a CRE RWI policy is three years for general representations and warranties, and six years for fundamental representations and warranties from the binding date of the CRE RWI policy, which frequently is the same date as the date the PSA is executed.
In most cases, the coverage period under CRE RWI policies is substantially longer than any postclosing liability and indemnity period sellers would have granted without CRE RWI.
The retention, or deductible, under CRE RWI policies is usually 0.25% of the purchase price, decreasing to 0.10% on the first anniversary of the closing. Additionally, CRE RWI policies cover consequential damages incurred by insureds for breaches of insured representations and warranties, a concept rarely agreed to by sellers in postclosing indemnity or escrow arrangements.
For CRE transactions involving the transfer of REIT interests, subject to appropriate diligence efforts and determinations and a will-level REIT opinion, CRE RWI policies offer coverage for seller REIT-related representations and warranties in the PSA, in addition to coverage for the other typical seller representations and warranties.
CRE RWI policies should not be considered an alternative to title insurance policies, which buyers should always obtain in addition to any CRE RWI policies.
The diligence efforts and documentation required by insurance companies to underwrite CRE RWI policies generally are not more extensive than those buyers would pursue routinely without CRE RWI.
These efforts and documentation typically include a property condition report; a Phase 1 environmental site assessment; a title examination and commitment; a zoning report; a rent roll report and diligence if the property has tenants; litigation, lien and bankruptcy searches; and similar standard diligence reports and assessments.
CRE RWI policies also insure buyers for representations and warranties fraudulently made by sellers, and insurers issuing CRE RWI policies will waive all subrogation claims against sellers, except for seller fraud.
Some savvy buyers, angling for an advantage over competitors, are choosing to make CRE RWI a component of their offers and bids when pursuing highly sought-after properties.
By offering CRE RWI as part of their offers and bids, buyers are able to demonstrate to sellers that they can avoid many pitfalls and complexities that historically have bogged down negotiations and slowed closings, and can lay the groundwork for a speedy and smooth closing process.
Additionally, in some cases, CRE lenders have started to require CRE RWI when the loan-to-value ratio exceeds 50%. These trends suggest that the use of CRE RWI is likely to become more prevalent in the near term.
Parties in CRE transactions can leverage CRE RWI to more effectively and efficiently achieve their mutual objectives and manage deal risk. It seems probable that the next few years will witness an uptick in the issuance of CRE RWI policies, akin to the increase seen since the early 2010s in the use of transactional RWI in corporate M&A transactions.
[1] Hamed Meski and Brandon Vongsawad, Why You Need M&A Reps and Warranties Insurance, Law360 (July 13, 2013 edition), https://www.law360.com/articles/461255/why-you-need-m-a-reps-and-warranties-insurance.
This article was originally published on August 4, 2025 on Law360 and is republished here with permission.
The digital age presents a complex challenge: protecting children online while also allowing free speech to continue to be a thriving marketplace of ideas.
Recent legal battles highlight this tension, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court‘s June 27 decision in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton, which permits more content-neutral regulation over internet activities by states.
The Shifting Legal Landscape
Background
Historically, the Supreme Court has navigated the delicate balance between safeguarding minors from harmful content and preserving adults’ access to protected speech. Landmark cases like Ginsberg v. New York and Butler v. Michigan illustrate this tension between content that is protected for adults but subject to state regulation for minors.
In its 1968 Ginsberg decision, the court upheld restrictions on minors’ access to obscene materials, recognizing the government’s interest in protecting youth.[1] Conversely, its 1957 decision in Butler struck down a criminal law that restricted adult access to content deemed inappropriate for minors, emphasizing that adults shouldn’t be limited to content suitable only for children.[2]
Congress recognized that the internet complicated this delicate balance when it enacted the Communications Decency Act and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which attempted to balance the interests between free expression for adults, the protection of children, and the safeguarding of innovation in the digital marketplace.[3]
The Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional in its 1997 decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union due to its excessive burden on adult speech.[4] Similarly, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act had a dubious future after the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU suggested that a less restrictive alternative existed in the form of parental filtering software.[5]
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: What Happened
In 2023, Texas enacted H.B. 1181, which requires commercial websites to verify the age of their customers if more than one-third of their content is sexual material harmful to minors.
The plaintiffs — an adult entertainment industry trade association and related companies — argued that the law unconstitutionally restricted adults’ access to protected speech.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, guided by Ashcroft, applied strict scrutiny — the most demanding standard of review — and preliminarily enjoined H.B. 1181. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and applied rational basis review, the most lenient standard of constitutional review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine which standard of review should apply to H.B. 1181.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas found that courts should apply intermediate scrutiny, where a law will pass muster if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.
The court’s analysis concluded that age verification laws fall within a state’s traditional power to prevent minors from viewing obscene material, as evidenced by long-standing in-person verification statutes, and that age verification “is a necessary component of [that] power.” It reflected that laws often require age verification to exercise a fundamental right, such as a firearm license.
Further, the court distinguished prior regulations that applied strict scrutiny as cases in which the restriction operated to burden adults from accessing constitutionally protected material.
The court determined that H.B. 1181 only incidentally burdened speech for adults and advanced the important governmental interest in protecting minors from harmful, and importantly, constitutionally unprotected speech.
No party disputed that the government has an important interest in protecting children from obscene material. And the court explained that H.B. 1181 permitted verification via government identification documents to third-party verification services and transactional data, such as credit cards, which have long been used by the adult entertainment industry.
Because the court found that intermediate scrutiny applied, it rejected the petitioners’ claim that less restrictive means exist, as the standard only requires that H.B. 1181 is adequately tailored.
Impact on Child Online Privacy and Safety
The Free Speech Coalition decision will significantly expand states’ ability to regulate social media access for minors. By applying intermediate scrutiny to regulations that incidentally burden adults’ free speech while targeting minors’ access to adult content, the court has signaled a favorable view of such measures.
Practically speaking, this means that government regulation over the means of compliance — such as requiring commercially reasonable or recognized age verification practices — is also likely to pass judicial review.
This decision will incentivize more states to adopt similar social media, privacy and age-appropriate design regulations, potentially resulting in the adoption of robust age verification systems across many types of online properties.
It’s critical to emphasize what the Free Speech Coalition decision does not change. States still may not create new categories of unprotected speech, as established in the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in U.S. v. Stevens.[6] Outside of existing categories — like obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement or speech integral to criminal conduct — strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal to regulation, will apply.[7]
Indeed, in its 2011 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the court rejected California’s attempt “to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.”[8] While these permissible categories are narrowly limited, they encompass consumer protection and fraud statutes, which courts have declined to limit.
Although the Free Speech Coalition decision applies specifically to regulations governing “sexual material harmful to minors,” privacy advocates express concern that this ruling will serve as a precedent for extending age verification requirements to a much broader range of online content and platforms. Such additional regulation will likely affect access to general audience websites and social media, which may overly chill speech for adults.
The case marks a significant change in the Supreme Court’s view on government regulation of internet-based commerce. In the early days of the internet, the court expressed reservations about legislation for fear of hampering innovation, considering the rapid changes in technology. In the wake of Free Speech Coalition, the court has now greenlit increased regulation, even as technological capabilities increase at an unprecedented pace.
The Regulatory Patchwork: State Laws Protecting Minors Online
Although age verification tools may help keep minors safe online, they introduce significant privacy risks due to their reliance on sensitive data. These tools often require collecting highly sensitive personal data, such as government-issued identification documents or even biometric data, which is becoming more common to access devices and personal passkeys.
As a result, laws and regulations designed to promote the privacy and safety of minors online will continue to include data handling, retention and other governance requirements. In addition to creating significant data handling and retention burdens for online operators, these burdens also elevate the risk of large-scale data breaches, and the potential for the unauthorized use or sale of improperly exposed data.
Critics point out that the court largely dismissed these privacy concerns in its decision, drawing an analogy to in-person visual identification checks that do not account for the persistent digital footprint created by online age verification. These complex data governance issues will increase the operational costs and complexity for large and small online businesses alike.
Children and Teen Social Media and Online Safety Laws
State legislatures are, and have been, enacting laws that attempt to enhance minors’ safety and privacy online — resulting in a challenging regulatory patchwork.
Many require social media companies to conduct age verification checks, often through third-party vendors.[9] Some states — like Florida and Georgia — mandate express parental consent for minors to have social media accounts.[10] Other states have enacted restrictions on features deemed addictive by the legislature.
California, for example, limits minors’ access to “addictive” feeds and prohibits notifications during specific hours unless parental consent is obtained.[11] Similarly, Utah bans features like autoplay and infinite scrolling to reduce minors’ excessive engagement.[12]
Implementing age verification tools presents significant technological hurdles. The constant evolution of online behavior and technologies, such as the use of artificial intelligence, means that even robust systems may be vulnerable to sophisticated work-arounds by minors, creating an ongoing challenge for platforms and regulators alike to maintain effective controls.
Interplay With Existing Privacy Laws
New state-level online safety laws mandating age verification, parental consent and restrictions on certain platform features interact with existing federal privacy laws and emerging comprehensive state privacy laws.
These overlaps lead to significant challenges. Child safety laws complement comprehensive privacy laws by addressing specific risks faced by minors, such as exposure to harmful content or exploitation through targeted advertising. But businesses must also navigate the complexities of complying with multiple layers of regulation and being able to prove they have complied in the past, ensuring that their practices align with both general privacy standards and specific protections for children.
Defending against state inquiries into their past compliance with age verification laws will be difficult if privacy laws also prevent businesses from collecting or storing information about minors. That is especially salient when businesses must determine what rules apply to which users based on their geolocation data.
Must they determine only that the device accesses the website from a particular jurisdiction, or does the location of their primary residence control? Does a business have to keep such data to show regulators they have complied, and can they share information from one jurisdiction with the regulator in another?
The patchwork definition of “child” also presents complications because at the federal level, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act only covers children under the age of 13, but states have enacted their own data privacy laws, which can vary significantly in terms of age coverage, parental consent requirements and data protection measures.
This will lead to inconsistencies in how businesses determine what data protection requirements apply, and those practices may conflict between jurisdictions, especially as each state determines when its youth become responsible for their actions.
The Age Verification Conundrum: Legal and Practical Challenges
Implementing age verification technologies presents practical and legal hurdles. Self-attestation is largely understood to be unreliable, and regulators reject it as insufficient. Government-issued ID verification offers accuracy but raises privacy concerns.
Biometric analysis presents different challenges, such as accuracy, bias and equity. Ensuring facial identification technologies are trained on diverse datasets is essential for their effective operation. Although advancements have improved accuracy in leading solutions, there remains a risk of misidentification when systems are trained on data lacking demographic diversity. This highlights the importance of inclusive training to prevent errors, particularly in identifying people of color.
Third-party age-estimation services depend on provider reliability, and device-based solutions require ongoing maintenance.
And all of these methods present the continued challenge of protecting against a data breach that may expose personal information, and risk legal and reputational damage.
Even if these concerns were not significant, the solutions present additional financial and practical costs. New technologies may affect user experience by introducing friction to the accessibility of information or commerce, which can potentially increase user drop-off and lower engagement.
These technologies also cause increased financial and operational costs to provide robust age verification systems, which will affect all businesses, but especially smaller organizations and startups.
Moreover, the accuracy and equity of these technologies are under scrutiny, as biases can lead to disparate impacts on different user populations.
How Businesses Should Respond
With the court signaling that age verification requirements may pass constitutional muster under intermediate scrutiny, the legal fight over online speech is likely to shift from if the state can regulate, to how far such authority can take them. Further, trial and intermediate appellate courts are likely to be mindful of this precedent when evaluating age verification requirements outside the context of websites that include adult content.
Given that state legislatures will pass additional age verification statutes outside the context of adult content, companies must choose whether to comply with such laws — particularly mindful of the implementation burdens, data privacy and whether other approaches could achieve compliance, instead of pursuing legal action to enjoin future laws.
Companies should be mindful that state attorneys general are willing to assert violations of state consumer protection laws if the regulators deem a company’s age verification mechanism to be ineffective. In such cases, the states may argue that, by allowing minors to access a platform at all, or without parental consent, companies are misrepresenting the controls they deploy to ensure minors join and navigate their platforms safely. It remains to be seen whether such lawsuits will pass muster.
[1] Ginsberg v. New York
, 390 U. S. 629 (1968).
[2] Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380 (1957).
[3] Communications Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, §§ 501-561, 110 Stat. 56, 133-43 (1996).; Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (1998).
[4] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 885 (1997).
[5] Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 670 (2004).
[6] 559 U.S. 460 (2010).
[7] Id.
[8] Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 794 (2011).
[9] For example, Arkansas mandates the use of third-party vendors to verify users’ ages through government-issued identification, ensuring that minors cannot create accounts without proper age confirmation. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-1401–1404 (West 2025).
[10] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.1736 (West 2025); Ga. Code Ann. § 39-6-2 (West 2025) (effective July 1, 2025).
[11] Cal. Civil Code §§ 1798.99.28–1798.99.40 (West 2025).
[12] Utah Code Ann. § 13-71 (West 2025).
During the week of July 28, the Trump administration unleashed a new burst of actions aimed squarely at blocking wind and solar energy with the announcement of two new secretarial orders (SO) and three new policies by the Department of the Interior (DOI), plus one from the Department of Transportation (DOT). These latest measures follow on the heels of the recent internal directive from DOI Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Gregory Wischer implementing three new levels of political review for a comprehensive list of approvals, consultations, and interim steps in the permitting processes for wind and solar projects with a nexus to DOI’s regulatory authority. Although couched in terms of curbing “preferential treatment” for wind energy, the measures go well beyond any leveling of the playing field, instead significantly disadvantaging wind and solar — which the DOI refers to as “foreign-controlled energy sources” — compared to other sources of energy or uses of public lands.
DOI Announcements
On July 29, the DOI announced a flurry of new policy measures that Secretary Doug Burgum characterized as representing “a commonsense approach to energy that puts Americans’ interests first,” “leveling the playing field in permitting support” in pursuit of “responsible energy growth that works for every American.” These policy measures include the following:
- Restoring Congress’s Mandate to Consider All Uses of Our Public Lands and Waters Equally. DOI announced it would “consider withdrawing onshore areas with high potential for wind energy development to ensure compliance with legal requirements for multiple use and sustained yield of public lands,” although it is currently unclear what mechanism DOI would use and whether it would affect issued wind energy rights-of-way. It also indicated that it would terminate previously designated offshore Wind Energy Areas, which are areas that have been pre-approved for offshore wind lease auctions following an extensive public input and deconfliction process. The following day, on July 30, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) did just that, formally rescinding all designated Wind Energy Areas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
- Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement for Offshore Wind Development. DOI will strengthen its guidance “to ensure more meaningful consultation regarding offshore wind development, especially with tribes, the fishing industry, and coastal towns,” to support “greater collaboration, transparency, and respect for community and regional priorities.”
- Reviewing the Consequences of Developing Wind Turbines on Migratory Birds. DOI intends to conduct “a careful review of avian mortality rates” at wind projects to determine whether such impacts qualify as “incidental” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Earlier this year, the DOI solicitor issued an M-Opinion reinstating the previous Trump administration’s interpretation that the MBTA does not apply to incidental take, an interpretation that actually eliminated a significant regulatory concern for the wind industry. There is ample data establishing that wind farms present minimal risk to migratory birds, so an unbiased review of avian mortality data from wind farms should identify no widespread concern. However, the DOI seems to be telegraphing a legal strategy to use the MBTA to block wind energy, while avoiding a conflict with the M-Opinion by classifying avian mortality at wind farms as intentional take. Because the MBTA is a strict liability criminal statute, this could result in the criminalization of the operation of wind farms, representing an existential threat to the industry and setting a dangerous precedent that could selectively be applied to other industries in the future.
- SO 3437, Ending Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources in Department Decision Making. The DOI announced the issuance of a new SO that implements the provisions of the recent Executive Order (EO) 14315, Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources (July 7, 2025). That EO directed the DOI to identify the existence of any “preferential treatment” toward wind and solar facilities, in comparison to dispatchable energy sources, in any department regulations, guidance, policies, or practices, and to make the necessary revisions to eliminate such preferences. Importantly, it also touches on key provisions of the January 20, 2025, Wind Presidential Memorandum (PM). SO 3437 calls out the Biden administration’s “arbitrary and preferential treatment towards expensive, unreliable, foreign-controlled intermittent energy sources like wind and solar power.” It provides several examples of such alleged preferential treatment, including reduction in BLM rents and capacity fees by roughly 80% below fair market value for wind and solar projects, and that “[p]ublic outreach, news releases, and website communications prominently featured intermittent sources of energy over much-needed baseload power.”
The specific directives under SO 3437 include:
1. Within 30 days — i.e., by the end of August — each assistant secretary must conduct a review of any regulations, guidance, policies, and practices within their jurisdiction, including but not limited to the following five categories: (i) land use and site authorizations; (ii) environmental and wildlife permits and analyses; (iii) processes related to tribal and native lands; (iv) commercial and financial authorizations; and (v) other actions and authorizations such as the following. The SO provides examples for each of these categories. With respect to environmental and wildlife permits and analyses, they include:
-
- Environmental analyses (EA and EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)).
- Biological assessments and biological opinions (including for marine mammals and fisheries).
- Incidental take permits.
- Programmatic Eagle take permits.
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance consultation.
- Cultural resources consultations.
- Visual resource management analyses.
Raptor nest removal permits are also included among the other actions and authorizations category. Following this review, a report describing the findings and recommendations regarding actions the DOI should take to eliminate preferential treatment toward wind and solar development must be submitted to the secretary. This directive comes on the heels of a recent proposals to rescind the definition of harm under the ESA and request for comments for section 10 permit revisions.
2. Within 45 days of order — i.e., by September 12 — the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, in coordination with other agencies as appropriate, must prepare and submit a report that describes and provides recommendations regarding the following:
-
- Trends in environmental impacts from onshore and offshore wind projects on wildlife, especially birds, marine mammals, and fisheries.
- Economic costs associated with the intermittent generation of electricity.
- Effect of taxpayer-funded subsidies on artificially propping up the wind industry.
- Impacts that the development of offshore wind projects that have received a COP from the DOI may have on military readiness.
This requirement tracks closely the “comprehensive assessment and review of Federal wind leasing and permitting practices” President Trump required the DOI and other federal agencies to undertake back in January under its Wind PM (Section 2(a)). The Wind PM put a pause on issuing “new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” pending the completion of such a comprehensive assessment, without putting a timeline for the assessment. We should now expect this assessment by mid-September, although it is not clear if it is going to be made public. Another follow-up requirement from the Wind PM is a review of the Lava Ridge Wind Project record of decision and the submittal of a brief report describing BLM’s recommendation on the need for a new, comprehensive analysis, the details on how to conduct such analysis, including a schedule. The Wind PM had placed a temporary moratorium on that project.
3. Also within 45 days of order — i.e., by September 12 — the solicitor, in coordination with the attorney general and other agencies, must review pending litigation challenging wind or solar project approvals. Where appropriate, the solicitor may recommend remanding approvals for reconsideration to ensure decisions are legally and factually supported and consistent with either the most recent judicial interpretation of the law or the department’s interpretation of the best reading of the applicable law.
Finally, to close out an already busy week, on August 1, DOI released SO 3438, which directed that NEPA analyses for wind and solar projects on federal lands or on the Outer Continental Shelf should consider “a reasonable range of alternatives that includes projects with capacity densities meeting or exceeding that of the proposed project.” The order then states that “the Department shall only permit those energy projects that are the most appropriate land use when compared to” those alternatives. The order makes no secret that this analysis is intended to disadvantage wind and solar projects, stating that “[b]ased on common sense, arithmetic, and physics, wind and solar projects are highly inefficient uses of Federal lands.” By way of example, the order compares the capacity density of an offshore wind farm with the density of an advanced nuclear power plant.
This approach seems to be in contrast with this administration’s efforts to streamline NEPA requirements and its emphasis on NEPA being a purely administrative review. It establishes (1) the types of alternatives that must be considered, including alternative types of energy projects; (2) a requirement that capacity density be assessed as part of the alternatives analysis; and (3) a mandate that the highest capacity density alternative must be selected. This would be an unprecedented approach to NEPA implementation to say the least, and it is likely that DOI’s efforts to implement this SO could face significant legal challenges.
DOT Press Release
Also on July 29, in a press release titled “President Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy: Biden-Buttigieg Ignored the Dangers of Wind Turbines Near Railroads & Highways, Put Climate Religion Ahead of Safety,” the DOT calls on Congress “to investigate why safety recommendations were dropped, the depth of the Biden-Buttigieg scheme.” The release, which has been updated several times since its initial issuance, alleges that the Biden administration “blatantly ignored engineers who warned of the danger of constructing wind turbines near railroads and highways.” The safety concerns at issue relate to potential obstruction of radio communications and signal reception from wind turbines. As evidence of the “scheme,” the release references the DOT’s reversal of initial concerns raised in 2023 regarding a proposed wind farm with turbines to be located within a one to three mile boundary of a rail corridor carrying high speed passenger traffic and freight. In 2024, the DOT withdrew its concerns after internal review did not identify any radio frequency blockage. The release claims that an internal review identified 33 projects where the original safety recommendation was rescinded. Citing that review, and a new DOT-commissioned study that concludes that wind farms “could potentially obstruct radio communication,” the release announces that the DOT will recommend a minimum 1.2-mile setback for turbines built near highways and railroads.
Conclusion
While there was initial uncertainty about whether the Trump administration’s anti-wind sentiments were limited to offshore wind, there can now be no doubt that they were not, and that the animus is not even limited to wind, with solar energy also a target of many of these recent policies. These new pronouncements have profound implications for the wind and solar industries, and portend new and even more consequential policies in the near future. In the meantime, advancing projects through the permitting process will require creative new strategies to overcome what has become an effective federal moratorium on wind and solar energy projects. For questions or to discuss these latest developments, we encourage you to contact Troutman Pepper Locke’s environment and natural resource attorneys.
Our team published new content and podcasts to the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor throughout the month of June. To catch up on posts and podcasts you may have missed, click on the links below:
Banking
New York Court of Appeals to Review FAPA’s Constitutionality and Retroactive Application
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
CFPB Section 1033 Open Banking Rule Stayed as CFPB Initiates New Rulemaking
CFPB Will Not Reissue Medical Debt Advisory Opinion
Insights from the CFPB’s Latest Report on Credit Invisibility
Consumer Financial Services
May 2025 Consumer Litigation Filings: Mostly Up
Cryptocurrency + FinTech
FINRA Continues to Scrutinize Customer Facing Communications on Crypto Offerings
GENIUS Act: A Game-Changer for Crypto Bankruptcy Priorities
Credit Unions Advocate for Digital Asset Custody in Light of GENIUS Act
Federal Agencies Release Guidance on Crypto-Asset Safekeeping for Banks
CSBS Issues Guidance on Virtual Currency and Tangible Net Worth
Debt Buyers + Collectors
NYC DCWP Further Delays Effective Date of Amended Debt Collection Rules
Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance
California Home Improvement and Solar Financing Bill Passed by Senate and Moving Through Assembly
HUD and OMB Effectively Disband the PAVE Task Force
Understanding California Senate Bill 940
Eighth Circuit Vacates FTC’s Negative Option Rule for Procedural Violations
Litigation Heats Up Over Air Ambulance Billing Practices Under the No Surprises Act
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Oregon Passes New Telephone Solicitation Law
Why Does the TCPA Equal Chaos? The US Supreme Court Opens FCC Orders to New Challenges
Podcasts
The Consumer Finance Podcast – Point-of-Sale Finance Series: Unpacking Leases and RTO Models
The Consumer Finance Podcast – Wire Fraud Litigants Beware: Fourth Circuit Ruling Protects the Banks
The Consumer Finance Podcast – From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending
The Consumer Finance Podcast – Point-of-Sale Finance Series: Banking on Lending Models
FCRA Focus Podcast – Suluki Secrets: Behind the Scenes of Reasonable Investigations
Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast – The Current State of the Holder Rule: Friend or Foe?
Payments Pros Podcast – From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending
Newsletters
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of July 28, 2025
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of July 21, 2025
Weekly Consumer Financial Newsletter – Week of July 14, 2025