Tariffs may not be the only tool at the federal government’s disposal to promote U.S. manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. As the new administration continues to push for the onshore manufacturing of these products, the Bayh-Dole Act (the “Act”) could be another enforcement mechanism to bring life sciences manufacturing operations to the U.S., particularly for those products that relied on federal funding during research and development.
Read the full article on ABA Health Law Today.
On July 24, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held the second of three listening sessions focused on competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace as part of the agency’s implementation of the president’s Executive Order No. 14273, titled “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First.”
At the beginning of the listening session, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson noted the agency’s aggressive approach to combating anticompetitive practices related to pharmaceuticals. Specifically, he pointed to FTC warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies disputing the propriety of more than 200 patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book. He also made clear that the agency plans to complete its 6(b) study of pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), which should inform potential legislative and future enforcement actions aimed at combating anticompetitive conduct in the prescription drug markets. Finally, Ferguson stated that incumbent PBMs and manufacturers appear to use government laws and regulations, designed to promote competition and reduce costs, to shield themselves from competition, resulting in higher costs for consumers.
As described below, the two panels then discussed various structural issues affecting competition, including increased consolidation, lack of transparency, and overlapping regulatory structures.
“Benefit and Formulary Practices and Regulations that Harm Drug Competition”
The first panel discussed business relationships among pharmaceutical manufacturers, PBMs, group purchasing organizations (GPOs), and health care payors.
Many panelists voiced concerns about the lack of transparency in PBM pricing and negotiations, noting how PBMs may be incentivized to favor products with higher list prices and higher rebates. One panelist discussed PBMs’ use of offshore GPOs, contending that the GPOs do not comply with industry standards. Another panelist suggested that pharmacy reimbursements should be tied to acquisition costs. The panelists generally encouraged increased transparency at all levels of the supply chain, especially at the PBM level, and favored pass-through pricing models.
The session also addressed growing vertical consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain, with a focus on the vertical integration of PBMs with insurers, administrative services organizations, and GPOs. In recent years, all three of the largest PBMs have integrated with major health care insurers, administrative services providers, and pharmacies. Some panelists expressed concern that vertically integrated healthcare entities may disadvantage industry rivals by steering business to their integrated PBMs and pharmacies through exclusive contracting. They suggested that such steering should subject vertically integrated entities to antitrust scrutiny. Further, panelists expressed concerns that GPOs “engage in predatory practices” by overcharging and underpaying generic manufacturers.
“Improper Orange Book Listings and Other Regulatory Abuse by Pharmaceutical Companies to Impede Competition”
The second panel focused on the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme and how pharmaceutical manufacturers may exploit a complex regulatory system to delay or deter competition. One panelist focused on improper Orange Book listings, a hot topic in recent litigation and a focus of the FTC. She explained how improperly listed patents can harm competition by subjecting generic companies to an automatic 30-month stay of regulatory approval.
The panelists also discussed so-called “patent thickets” — dense groups of overlapping patents used to cover a single product — especially in the biologic space. While one panelist argued that patents are no more prevalent in life sciences than in other industries, another highlighted that those other industries are distinguishable because of cross-licensing, and focused on the expense and delay that arise when a brand enforces multiple nearly identical patents for the same product. That panelist highlighted current legislation that would allow brands to assert only one patent per terminally disclaimed group.
Some panelists also asserted that branded drug manufacturers improperly use Citizen Petitions to the FDA to attempt to delay or deter generic competition. They expressed that, while Citizen Petitions can constitute constitutionally protected speech, and may be appropriate to raise legitimate safety concerns, sham petitioning can delay generic competition and usurp FDA time that would otherwise be devoted to helping generic products reach the market.
Throughout the session, panelists reflected on the many overlapping regulatory schemes and responsible agencies that govern pharmaceutical patenting, approval, and competition, and how manufacturers may be able to exploit areas of overlap due to knowledge gaps among agencies. They noted that, given the wealth of specialized agency knowledge in this field, overlapping regulatory schemes may be a strength — so long as the various agencies understand each other’s work and form strong inter-agency lines of communication.
Focus on Biologics
Participants across both panels were generally united on one issue: the need to reform the regulatory process and educate patients and providers to promote the use of biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars as alternatives to expensive brand biologics. The panelists generally opined that the distinction between biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars is unnecessary or counterintuitive. They called for a single regulatory pathway for biosimilars that would allow approved biosimilars to be automatically substituted by pharmacies, without prescriber intervention. Further, panelists emphasized the need to educate patients and prescribers about the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.
The third and final joint session will take place on August 4. The final session is expected to highlight the most impactful takeaways from the previous two sessions and discuss other potential strategies to reduce drug pricing.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court held that district courts are not bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. §227. See McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025). As noted in our recent advisory, “district courts are now free to apply traditional statutory interpretation principles to re-examine prior FCC orders that have driven litigation against sellers and telemarketers.”
The re-examination of FCC orders has begun. On the same day, two federal district courts reached opposite conclusions on whether a text message is a “call” for purposes of the TCPA. Compare Jones, et al. v. Blackstone Medical Svcs., LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01074-JEH-RLH, 2025 WL 2042764 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2025) with Wilson v. Skopos Fin., LLC, No. 6:25-CV-00376-MC, 2025 WL 2029274 (D. Or. July 21, 2025). The plaintiffs in each case argued that the defendants had violated §227(c) of the TCPA by sending text messages that allegedly violated the do-not-call list regulations issued by the FCC.
Background
In In Re Rules & Reguls. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014 (2003) (2003 Order), the FCC for the first time stated that the TCPA restrictions on placing calls to wireless telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system in §227(b) “encompasses both voice calls and text calls to wireless numbers.” 18 F.C.C. Rcd. at 14115. The 2003 Order did not analyze why the TCPA applies to text messages, a technology that did not exist in 1991 when the TCPA was passed. The FCC simply asserted that “call” includes texting for purposes of calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. In 2024, the FCC “codifie[d] that the National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry’s protections extend to text messages.” See Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 89 FR 5098-01 (Jan. 26, 2024).
Text Messages Are Not Telephone Solicitations
In Jones, the court followed the directives in McLaughlin and Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 402 (2024), took a fresh look at the FCC’s prior order expanding “calls” to text messages, and rejected the FCC’s interpretation. The court held “that based on a plain reading of the TCPA and its implementing regulations, Section 227(c)(5) does not apply to text messages.” Jones, 2025 WL 2042764, at *3.
The Jones court noted that undefined words in a statute take on their normal, “contemporaneous” meaning, and found the term “telephone call” could not include text messages because “text messaging was not an available technology in 1991 [when the TCPA was enacted], and thus ‘telephone call’ would not have included text messages or SMS messages.” 2025 WL 2042764, at *4. The court also noted that “in today’s American parlance, ‘telephone call’ means something entirely different from ‘text message.'” Id.
Text Messages Are Telephone Solicitations
Two times zones away, the District of Oregon came to a different conclusion. In Wilson, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that only Congress has the authority to dictate who has a cause of action under the TCPA and that there is no basis for the FCC’s conclusion that Congress meant the term ‘call’ to mean ‘text call.’ Wilson, 2025 WL 2029274, at *4.
The Wilson court explicitly noted that the FCC’s regulations “expanded the TCPA to apply to text messages,” but found the defendant’s argument that the FCC lacked authority to do so “undermined by the statutory structure of the TCPA, which explicitly delegates such authority, as well as the vast applicable case law which abides by the FCC’s regulations and guidance.” Id. The court added that the FCC’s expansion of the TCPA to include text messages was “congruent with Congress’s overarching goals for the TCPA.” Id.
While the Jones court noted that current American parlance distinguishes a “text message” from a “call,” the Wilson court stated that “it cannot be argued in good faith that text messages are so categorically different from phone calls that the former cannot be considered an invasion of consumer privacy when directed at numbers on the DNC Registry,” and noted that “as technology has developed over the years, so too has our understanding of the TCPA’s protections.” Id.
Takeaways
The simultaneous and contradictory rulings by these two district courts highlight the “chaos” predicted in our previous advisory. Clients should be prepared to challenge FCC interpretations of the TCPA and do-not-call regulations where appropriate, particularly where the agency’s action expands liability beyond that envisioned by the statutory text. However, sellers and telemarketers should consider delaying changes to their compliance programs until the appellate courts around the U.S. have a chance to weigh in on whether FCC orders and regulations are entitled to continued deference.
Authors:
Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team
Introduction
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.
During the first half of 2025, state AGs actively adapted to the evolving regulatory landscape. Almost across the board, state AGs have increased their activity in areas such as environmental regulations, consumer protection, antitrust, health care, AI, and privacy. By engaging in these areas of law, state AGs are significantly impacting both businesses and consumers, ensuring that enforcement strategies are attuned to current challenges they are focused on in ways that have resulted in increased adaptability, agility, and rapid changes to the regulatory landscape.
Troutman Pepper Locke’s State AG team is pleased to present this mid-year review, which aims to provide a high-level overview of increasing state AG activity, including insights into regulatory priorities and theories by summarizing the activities in this regulatory space over the past six months. While we do not have a crystal ball, we can tell where regulators are headed by looking at their recent actions. Our insights aim to keep you informed of the latest developments and trends affecting the regulatory landscape to help position your business to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Update on 2025 State AG Elections
While only two states are primed to experience a change in their top law enforcement officials in 2025, these changes will be amplified by a significant number of elections in 2026. The AGs who are sitting in office after the 2026 election may bring further changes to the office, catalyzing the powers of state AGs and their priorities for years to come.
In Virginia, the 2025 AG election features incumbent Jason Miyares representing the Republican Party, facing Democratic candidate Jerrauld “Jay” Jones. The general election is set for November 4, 2025.
In New Jersey, the AG will be appointed following the 2025 gubernatorial election. The state’s AG is appointed by the governor with Senate approval, and the winner of the gubernatorial race will make this appointment upon taking office in January 2026.
These developments highlight the potential for new leadership in key law enforcement positions, which could lead to shifts in regulatory priorities and a changing landscape for companies.
Antitrust
Antitrust enforcement continues to remain a focus for both state AGs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who continue to collaborate on enforcement efforts despite the change in the federal administration. In the last few days of the Biden administration, the FTC released the “Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers,” which identified certain business activities that may violate antitrust laws and replaced the 2016 antitrust guidance. Of note, the guidelines remained consistent with the 2016 guidelines in several instances, such as wage-fixing and no-poach agreements. State AGs have also pursued their own state-level enforcement.
A coalition of 50 state AGs filed a memorandum requesting that a federal judge in Connecticut approve a $39.1 million settlement with Apotex Corp., the largest manufacturer of generic drugs in Canada. The state AGs alleged that Apotex Corp. was engaged in widespread, long-running conspiracy to artificially inflate and manipulate prices for numerous generic prescription drugs, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade. If the court approves the settlement (anticipated to occur in the third or fourth quarter 2025), it will include injunctive components as well as payment to the states and individual consumers.
The FTC, Minnesota, and Illinois have filed a joint lawsuit against Deere & Company for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive business practices involving the ability of owners, independent repair shops, and other third parties, to modify and repair their farm equipment, including electronic components, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona have also joined the lawsuit.
The New York AG obtained a judgment against Intermountain Management Inc. for alleged antitrust violations when a court held that the company’s acquisition and subsequent closure of Toggenburg Mountain Ski Resort constituted a per se violation of state antitrust law because it stifled competition. In addition, the court found that the company’s use of a noncompete agreement, which prohibited employees from working for a competitor within 30 miles, also violated antitrust principles. The court has yet to determine the remedy.
Artificial Intelligence
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly proliferates, state AGs continue to warn industry of potential legal violations that could arise if companies fail to deploy AI in a responsible manner. As of mid-2025, only Colorado, Utah, California, and Texas had passed AI-specific legislation. However, the relative absence of federal and state AI legislation and/or regulation has not prevented states from advising and taking AI-related enforcement action under existing law, a trend that began in early 2024. Indeed, state AGs have signaled that they will utilize existing laws such as privacy, consumer protection, and anti-discrimination, to regulate AI. These efforts will likely continue for the foreseeable future, particularly as the Trump administration continues to press Congress to pass the AI regulatory moratorium.
At the end of 2024, former Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum issued AI guidance emphasizing that companies must continue to comply with existing consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws in the deployment of AI and any AI output that results in discriminatory action will still be prosecuted. Specifically, the guidance imposed on companies to: (1) deploy tools that provide accurate information; (2) guarantee consumers’ rights to control their data; (3) place safeguards on the possession of personal information; and (4) prohibit discrimination based on protected classes.
Similarly, in January, New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin announced a “Civil Rights and Technology Initiative,” which addresses the risks of discrimination and bias-based harassment resulting from the use of AI and other advanced technologies. The initiative focuses on preventing algorithmic bias under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. It also creates the “Civil Rights Innovation Lab,” which is intended to find and develop technology to bolster enforcement, outreach, and public education efforts with respect to AI.
Missouri AG Andrew Bailey also issued a regulation focusing on the novel AI issue of algorithmic choice in content moderation. It leverages the AG’s authority under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to “clarify that it is an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice” to “operate a social media platform unless the platform permits users the opportunity to select a third-party content moderator of their choice, rather than rely on the content moderation provided directly by the social media platform.”
Finally, earlier this year the Trump administration introduced its “Big Beautiful Bill” that, among other things, sought to impose a 10-year moratorium on state laws that limit, restrict, or regulate AI systems. In response, a bipartisan coalition of 40 state AGs sent a letter to Congress expressing strong opposition and arguing the provision violates state sovereignty. The Senate ultimately stripped the AI moratorium from the Big Beautiful Bill before its enactment, but the Trump administration continues to pressure congress to pass such legislation. Regardless, any new moratorium on the state-level regulation of AI will not preclude states from regulating AI through existing privacy, consumer protection, and anti-discrimination laws, as noted above. The state AGs have made clear that a company’s use of AI will not insulate the company from consumer protection laws.
Consumer Financial Services
With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) significantly curtailing its examination and enforcement activities under the Trump administration, state AGs are increasing their enforcement efforts over the financial services industry. This rise in state AG activity is made possible in part by new state legislation, increased funding, recruiting of former federal regulators, and other related initiatives that will create broader enforcement capabilities to regulate the consumer financial services industry at the state level.
For example, in early May, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation aimed at enhancing consumer protections, including by simplifying the cancellation process for online subscriptions, requiring online retailers to clearly post return and refund policies, and establishing a regulatory framework for buy-now-pay-later loans. Also in early May, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed legislation creating new requirements and prohibitions under the state’s consumer protection act focusing on disclosure of mandatory fees and surcharges in consumer transactions. Pennsylvania also took steps to increase consumer protections by launching new consumer protection tools, including a hotline, website, and email address, to facilitate the reporting of scams and predatory practices.
In addition to general consumer protection laws, states are increasingly regulating earned wage access (EWA) services. Several states have passed legislation to regulate EWA products just this year, including Arkansas, Indiana, and Maryland, which are on top of numerous other state EWA laws that have been enacted over the past several years. While differing from state to state, most EWA laws generally aim to create new licensing and disclosure requirements for EWA providers while also imposing fee limitations and providing various exemptions.
State AGs continue to focus on fair lending issues. For example, in March, the New Jersey AG and New Jersey Division on Civil Rights announced the issuance of a finding of probable cause against a cash advance and consumer loan provider alleging that, among other things, it had discriminated against consumers by refusing to lend to certain individuals based on race, national origin, and nationality.
States are also increasing their oversight of the crypto industry — an industry that is likely to remain in the spotlight due to the federal government’s recent embrace of digital currency. For example, in March, the New York AG entered into an agreement with a crypto investment firm to resolve allegations that it had engaged in misrepresentations when promoting an algorithmic cryptocurrency that ultimately failed and caused significant losses. In April, the Iowa AG initiated enforcement actions against two of the state’s largest bitcoin automatic transaction machine (ATM) operators based on allegations that they engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by intentionally failing to implement fraud-prevention safeguards, allowing scam transactions that caused significant financial harm (especially to senior citizens), and failing to clearly disclose prices and transaction fees.
The above actions by both state AGs and state legislatures demonstrate that states are not only continuing to focus on the consumer financial services industry but are also increasing that focus and expanding means and methods by which they regulate the industry. We expect the states to be the vanguard when it comes to this industry for the foreseeable future and in the absence of an active CFPB.
Gaming
The first half of 2025 has brought a wave of notable state-level enforcement and regulatory activity in the gaming space, with AGs and gaming regulators taking action on issues ranging from unlicensed devices to sweepstakes casinos and online gaming operators and intermediaries.
In March, Indiana AG Todd Rokita, together with the Indiana Gaming Commission, issued a joint consumer alert warning residents about deceptive online advertisements for illegal gambling websites. The alert clarified that while online sports wagering is legal in Indiana, online casino-style gaming remains prohibited, and residents were urged to verify licensing status before engaging with online operators.
In April, the Texas Lottery Commission voted to prohibit third-party courier services from facilitating lottery ticket purchases in the state following investigations into two unusually high-value prize claims. Although the ban was initiated by the Commission, the move came amid broader scrutiny by state authorities — including the Texas AG’s office — into whether these services were operating in violation of Texas law. The action prompted swift legal challenges from affected courier companies resulting in a temporary restraining order and raises ongoing questions about the role of intermediaries in state lottery systems.
Shortly thereafter, in May, Pennsylvania’s AG announced a coordinated statewide enforcement action that led to the seizure of hundreds of unlicensed gaming machines from retail locations across a dozen counties in the state. The AG’s office filed felony charges against two companies alleged to be distributing skill-based devices that functioned as illegal slot machines, emphasizing the state’s commitment to preserving the integrity of its licensed gaming framework.
Most recently, in June, New York AG Letitia James sent cease-and-desist orders to more than two dozen online sweepstakes casinos offering casino-style games to New York consumers. While these platforms operate under dual-currency models that purport to comply with sweepstakes laws, New York regulators and lawmakers increasingly view them as unauthorized gambling enterprises.
These developments reflect a continued commitment by state regulators to supporting state-licensed operators as well as a growing willingness among AGs and regulatory bodies to test the boundaries of existing law, particularly as new gaming models and platforms continue to blur the lines between regulated and unregulated activity.
Marketing and Advertising
The first half of 2025 saw significant regulatory advancements related to junk fees and deceptive advertising practices.
With regard to junk fees, the FTC enacted a rule, effective May 12, 2025, that targets deceptive pricing in the hotel, short-term lodging, and live-event ticket industries, requiring full disclosure of mandatory fees in advertised prices, excluding taxes, government fees, optional fees, and shipping costs. California pioneered state-level “junk fee” legislation in 2024, setting a benchmark that inspired other states to enact similar measures.
States like Maryland, North Carolina, New York, and Tennessee implemented focused laws targeting specific sectors such as live-event ticket sales and hospitality, while others broaden their scope akin to California. Notably, legislation in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Oregon, and regulation in Massachusetts mandates the disclosure of all mandatory fees or surcharges in consumer goods and services advertising.
These laws exhibit certain nuances; some jurisdictions require the prominent display of total prices inclusive of mandatory fees, while shipping charges might be excluded unless deemed calculable upfront. Several areas allow separate listing of mandatory fees and automatic gratuities with clear pre-purchase disclosure, particularly for service-based fees or restaurant industry charges. Industry-specific requirements sometimes align with federal standards. Exemptions apply to companies already adhering to similar federal or state disclosure requirements, such as financial entities and broadband providers compliant with specific labeling standards.
As it relates to regulating advertising practices, state AGs have been particularly focused on the veracity of claims companies are making to consumers. When companies are unable to substantiate information they are conveying to consumers, AGs promptly take action.
For example, Arizona AG Kris Mayes brought a lawsuit alleging that one of the nation’s largest cord blood banking companies promoted misleading health claims. According to the complaint, the company made unsupported claims regarding the efficacy of stem cells and failed to adequately disclose experimental uses. Nevada AG Aaron D. Ford has also taken action against companies who have allegedly made unsubstantiated claims. In May, AG Ford announced that Nevada and the FTC filed suit against a multilevel marketing (MLM) company for allegedly making false earnings claims.
Companies have had to pay substantial amounts of money to resolve allegations that their advertisements were deceptive. For example, Puppyland, known for selling purebred puppies, settled with Washington for $3.75 million. The consent decree mandated that Puppyland stop making false statements regarding breeding standards and health guarantees. Similarly, Alaska’s Department of Law’s Consumer Protection Unit obtained a six-figure civil penalty against B. Merry Studio which sold products with false labels stating such products were “made in Alaska” when the products were assembled in the Philippines.
Privacy
State AGs took action in the first six months of 2025, which illustrated increasing specialization, expertise, and sophistication in the area of data privacy. Many states that have enacted comprehensive data privacy laws in previous years are now putting the legislation into practice, relying on increasingly experienced and resourced regulators. States are focusing on topics such as the use of specific data, including but not limited to geolocation data, the data of minors, health care data, biometric data, financial data, and how all this data may be used to train AI in a way that regulators are concerned will have a detrimental impact when it comes to consumer privacy.
Almost a year ago, Texas committed to developing its own bench of subject matter experts in the area of data privacy. The Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) came into effect on July 1, 2024, making Texas the second state, after California, to establish a specialized regulatory unit primarily aimed at enforcing state privacy law. Texas AG Ken Paxton marked the new year by filing a groundbreaking lawsuit against an insurance company, alleging that it violated Texas state law by collecting, using, and selling the precise geolocation data of Texans through covert tracking software in mobile apps. This case is notable as the first to be brought under a comprehensive state privacy statute.
California, a perennial leader in state privacy regulation, also took steps demonstrating its subject matter expertise by focusing on the privacy of consumers’ geolocation data. In March, California AG Rob Bonta announced his investigation into the location data industry for potential violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Similarly to the Texas action, California is investigating whether mobile application providers that collect location data to sell or share the information with third parties are respecting consumer rights requests under the CCPA.
State AGs are increasingly working together to share information and resources to regulate how companies use consumer data. The partnerships allow states to increase their proficiency in this space more rapidly through collaboration. One such partnership came about in April when eight state AGs announced the formation of a collaborative privacy enforcement group. The “Consortium of Privacy Regulators” is meant to encourage collaboration and information between state AGs from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, New Jersey, and Oregon. The consortium’s members took this step, at least in part, due to existing and anticipated gaps in federal privacy enforcement.
Genetic data has been another area of increased regulatory focus. In March, state AGs intervened in the high-profile class action lawsuit against Clearview AI (Clearview), a company offering facial recognition software to private entities and governments. AGs from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed amici briefs in the Northern District of Illinois to oppose a proposed settlement. Clearview negotiated a settlement in which the class members received a future equity stake in the company worth $51.75 million at the time of settlement. The state AGs objected to the fact that the payout to consumers is not guaranteed. Further, the settlement places state AGs in a challenging position. Suppose the state AGs were to obtain an injunction against Clearview, which would cripple the company. In that case, the class members’ compensation may dramatically decrease if the state AGs bring regulatory enforcement actions in their own right. In contrast, the class members’ compensation depends on Clearview’s ability to continue the same allegedly illegal conduct under which class members initially sued. State AGs also expressed concern over whether Clearview’s business model is compatible with constitutional privacy rights.
In 2025, state-level privacy frameworks have evolved significantly, enhancing the tools available to state AGs for consumer data protection. New enforcement actions and regulatory configurations have reshaped how data privacy is approached by consumers, corporations, and regulators. With businesses holding vast amounts of personal information, AGs are actively regulating privacy. As privacy regulations grow more complex, investing in robust data privacy compliance measures and monitoring the rapidly changing landscape can mitigate risks and prevent exposure to enforcement actions.
Pharmaceuticals and Health Sciences
Updates on Public Nuisance Theory of Liability
Over the last decade, state AGs and localities have increasingly brought public nuisance law claims — which traditionally required a property-based tort — to lawsuits asserting violations of consumer protection laws. In no small part, state and local governments have leveraged these novel public nuisance law claims to reach nationwide settlements with certain companies involved in the sale and distribution of opioids to the tune of more than $50 billion.
As many settlements have been finalized, the viability of a public nuisance theory of liability in actions brought by state AG and municipalities continues to receive attention in state courts and state legislatures.
For instance, late last year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio law does not provide for a public nuisance theory of liability for the sale of opioids. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is now set to decide whether West Virginia allows for public nuisance claims against distributors of prescription opioids after the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to answer the question (despite the Fourth Circuit’s request that it do so).
More recently, the city of Baltimore’s 2024 verdict against two distributors was substantially curtailed at the abatement phase of trial, demonstrating that even if a public nuisance violation exists and is shown, governmental regulators still must prove damages. There, the court denied Baltimore’s request for $5.6 billion in abatement, awarding only $226 million (3% of Baltimore’s request, plus costs/fees), concluding that that Baltimore did not present any evidence of any unreasonable conduct by either defendant after about 2019 and the city did not seek any forward-looking injunctive relief. Thereafter, following post-judgment briefing, the court issued an order granting the distributors’ motion for a new trial and presenting Baltimore a remittitur alternative of accepting $52 million (another 80% reduction) to resolve the litigation with both distributors. Baltimore now has until August 8, to decide whether it will accept the reduced amount or proceed with a new trial.
With the goal of constraining state public nuisance law claims, Montana codified what constitutes a public nuisance and expressly excluded product-based claims. Specifically, the state law, which had broadly defined “nuisance,” now requires (1) “a condition arising out of the use of real property that unlawfully interferes with a public right by endangering communal safety, being indecent to the community, or being offensive to the community” or (2) “a condition that unlawfully interferes with the public right to free passage or use . . . of a navigable [waterway] or a public park, square, street, road, or highway.” The Montana law takes a step further and includes a nonexclusive list of situations that do not constitute a public nuisance, such as “an action or condition that is lawful” or “that is authorized, approved, licensed, or mandated” by law or “approved by a government entity.” The law also instructs that “the design, manufacturing, distributing, selling, labeling, or marketing of a product” may “not be considered a public nuisance,” and “the aggregation of individual injuries or private rights” does not transform them into a public nuisance.
Most Favored Nations Clauses Under the Microscope
State AGs are increasingly using most favored nations clauses to guarantee that a settling state or states (State A) will receive a favorable adjustment of its settlement terms if it later turns out that the company subsequently settles with another state (State X) on more favorable terms.
While this trend began in Florida over a decade ago, there is a growing trend of states that are part of multistate investigations or litigation to agree to reach a separate resolution on what other state AGs perceive as a “lowball” settlement. Reaching an expedited settlement that includes a most favored nations clause allows a state to ensure parity with states that continue to litigate without having to continue to expend the resources necessary to prosecute a complicated litigation.
New Pre-Merger Regulations With Significant Scrutiny of Private Equity Investments
The year began with heightened regulatory oversight for private equity investments in health care.
New legislation in Massachusetts provided AG Andrea Campbell with expanded authority to scrutinize health care investments with civil investigative demands (CIDs) to private equity funds, other significant investors, health care real estate investment trusts, and management services organizations. Providers are also required to submit information about their relationships with private equity funds and other investors. This legislation introduces new layers of scrutiny and risk, emphasizing the importance of compliance across both operational and financial activities. For private equity firms, the heightened reporting obligations and expanded False Claims Act (FCA) liability underscore the need for rigorous due diligence and strategic planning to navigate these regulatory changes effectively.
Several other states have put forward legislative proposals aimed at significantly broadening the scope of existing health care transaction review laws. For instance, Illinois lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 1998 in February 2025. If enacted, this bill would amend the Illinois Antitrust Act by introducing additional scrutiny for transactions involving financing from private equity firms or hedge funds, necessitating prior written approval from the Illinois AG. California also passed new regulations affecting private equity. AB 1415, passed by the Assembly and under Senate review, mandates a 90-day notice to the Office of Health Care Affordability before private equity groups and other entities engage in transactions with health care entities.
In Rhode Island, the AG announced a proposed rule that would require Rhode Island-based medical practice groups to notify the Rhode Island AG’s office of any merger, consolidation, or acquisition that would result in (1) ownership or control by a private equity investor; (2) a group of eight or more physicians, physician assistants, and/or nurse practitioners; or (3) the establishment of a management services organization or similar contracting entity responsible for administering a medical group’s contracts with health insurance carriers or third-party administrators. A public hearing for this regulation was held on July 8. Additionally, all parties are invited to submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed adoption until July 23.
Settlements and Judgments
Significant settlements were announced in the first half of the year.
The West Virginia AG reached a $17 million settlement with Pfizer and Ranbaxy of an antitrust and consumer protection lawsuit alleging “pay-for-delay” antitrust violations related to the cholesterol drug, Lipitor. Two years after private actions were filed against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, West Virginia’s AG asserted claims like those asserted in the private actions. The settlement of West Virginia AG’s suit was finalized after Pfizer announced a global $93 million settlement of the private actions. The AG’s suit and settlement highlight state AGs’ strategy of monitoring private litigation and filing their own actions in favorable forums.
The Connecticut AG announced a nearly $500,000 settlement with a dental provider and its owners. The settlement resolved allegations that the dentists violated state and federal FCA statutes by receiving reimbursements from the government for services provided to participants in the Connecticut Medical Assistance Program and received kickbacks from a third-party patient recruiting company. The settlement serves as a cautionary tale for businesses participating in government reimbursement programs, and a reminder that owners may incur individual liability for FCA violations.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 18 state AGs reached a $47 million settlement with QOL Medical, LLC and its CEO that resolved allegations that QOL provided unlawful kickbacks to health care providers for prescribing a drug called Sucraid. The regulators claimed QOL asked providers to administer tests to their patients to rule out a rare genetic disorder, Congenital Sucrase-Isomaltase Deficiency (CSID), and then marketed the drug to providers with patients that tested positive for CSID and generated sales of Sucraid. The DOJ and AGs asserted providers submitted false claims government health care programs for reimbursement on the Sucraid sales, and that those false claims were caused by QOL. This case is a reminder to companies that even companies that do not directly submit claims to the government face potential FCA liability. Companies marketing to health care providers must exercise caution, as creative marketing techniques may be viewed as unlawful conduct by regulators.
This article was republished in AIPLA Chemical Practice Chronicles Fall 2025.
Prosecution history estoppel typically arises when a claim is rejected during prosecution and is then amended (narrowed) to overcome the rejection. However, in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, No. 2023-2153 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that prosecution history estoppel can be triggered by simply canceling a claim — even when the canceled claim is a standalone independent claim that was not itself amended during prosecution. This decision broadens the reach of the prosecution estoppel doctrine by rejecting the notion that for estoppel to apply, the patentee must have amended the particular claim that ultimately issued.
U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, owned by Colibri Heart Valve LLC (Colibri), claims a method for implanting a replacement heart valve. At the outset of prosecution, two independent claims were presented for examination: one that claimed “pushing” the valve from an outer sheath of a delivery apparatus, and the other that claimed “retracting” the outer sheath to expose the valve. The examiner rejected the “retracting” claim for lack of written description support under 35 U.S.C. §112, and Colibri canceled it without any amendment.
Colibri sued Medtronic CoreValve LLC (Medtronic), a manufacturer of replacement heart valves, in district court for infringement of the granted “pushing” claim, alleging that, under the doctrine of equivalents, Medtronic was inducing surgeons to perform the claimed method by using Medtronic’s heart valve product. Medtronic argued that its product involves “retracting,” not “pushing,” the valve, and sought judgment as a matter of law that prosecution history estoppel as to the canceled “retracting” claim precluded Colibri’s use of the doctrine of equivalents. The district court disagreed with Medtronic, on grounds that the canceled claim was “an independent claim separate from” the retained claim, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found that Medtronic had induced infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and awarded more than $106 million in damages to Colibri.
In reversing the jury verdict, the Federal Circuit concluded that prosecution history estoppel, based on the canceled “retracting” claim, bars application of the doctrine of equivalents. In arriving at its decision, the Federal Circuit determined that prosecution history estoppel goes beyond narrowing a particular claim’s terms; it can be triggered by canceling “closely related” claims and/or claims involving “intertwined terminology” when such cancellation would communicate to a person of skill in the art that the scope of the retained claims has also been narrowed. Here, it was determined that a skilled person would consider the canceled “retracting” claim to be closely related substantively to the retained “pushing” claim based on the similar language used in claims as well as Colibri’s own affirmative theory of equivalence that pushing necessarily accompanies retracting. Thus, the court concluded that canceling the “retracting” claim conveyed a message that the scope of the “pushing” claim had been narrowed. It was further noted that if Colibri wished to capture subject matter involving “retracting” that was outside of the scope of the retained “pushing” claim, it could have filed a continuation application and there sought to show written description support.
This decision makes clear that prosecution history estoppel not only applies to claims that are amended but may also arise from claims that are canceled. Practitioners should be strategic in their claim cancellation decisions and further consider pursuing canceled claims in a continuing application to avoid creating a presumption of prosecution history estoppel as to the canceled subject matter. This decision further underscores the importance of presenting narrowly tailored claims at the outset of prosecution that anticipate possible grounds for future rejection and are drafted to avoid them.
A recent article by Bloomberg Law highlighted a significant shift in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approach to whistleblower claims. The article, “Whistleblower Awards Slow to Trickle as SEC Raises Bar on Claims,” reveals that the SEC has denied awards in 31 consecutive orders between April 21 and July 15, marking the longest drought in the history of the program established by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.
Bloomberg Law’s Findings
Bloomberg Law’s review of 65 final orders issued this year shows that the SEC has approved only about 13% of claims, a stark contrast to last year’s 37% approval rate by the end of July. According to Bloomberg Law, this decline has raised concerns among attorneys and whistleblower advocates about the commission’s current practices, with both groups agreeing that the SEC is scrutinizing cases more closely.
The article also discusses the SEC’s recent rebuke of a $14 million award given to Carson Block, CEO of Muddy Waters Capital, in 2022. Block’s award, initially granted despite not following formal tip submission procedures, has become entangled in lawsuits and allegations of inconsistent rule application. The SEC’s May 5 order disavowed the previous commission’s approach, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements.
Perspectives on the Program’s Future
The SEC has previously touted its Whistleblower program as a key component of its enforcement efforts. In the past, the SEC also has widely publicized its whistleblower monetary awards to encourage others to become whistleblowers. The findings published by Bloomberg Law suggest that the current SEC may be trying to tamp down on the program.
Troutman Pepper Locke’s Securities Investigations + Enforcement Practice
Our Securities Investigations + Enforcement practice has expanded significantly due to our recent merger, enhancing our capabilities nationwide, including in our San Francisco, Dallas, and New York offices. We counsel and defend clients throughout all stages of securities enforcement proceedings, representing a diverse range of clients, including major financial institutions, senior corporate executives, boards of directors, and various entities in the financial services industry. Our team handles investigations by regulatory bodies such as the SEC, FINRA, and the Department of Justice. Leveraging decades of experience and including former key government officials, we develop informed and effective strategies tailored to each client’s unique needs. To read more about our capabilities, please click here.
In the Spotlight
Team Member Spotlight
Casselle Smith, a partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Raleigh office, effectively navigates the complexities of SEC investigations. She represents public companies and senior executives in matters involving cybersecurity breaches, SPAC mergers, initial public offerings, and off-channel communications. Casselle’s practice involves providing strategic guidance to help clients navigate federal securities laws, reduce regulatory exposure, and strengthen compliance programs.
Casselle takes on matters at every organizational level, from allegations involving frontline employees to high-stakes cases concerning corporate officers and directors. Casselle also has extensive experience representing major broker-dealers and investment advisers during regulatory investigations, addressing both routine exams and targeted inquiries due to significant customer harm concerns.
For more information, please see Casselle’s bio.
In the News
Our team frequently comments on emerging trends and developments in the legal industry. Below are several media quotes from one of our esteemed team members, offering insights and perspectives on current issues.
Jay Dubow was recently quoted in:
- “SEC Chair Atkins Shakes Up Pre-Enforcement Action Process,” FundFire, July 14, 2025.
- “Will SEC Examiner Departures Mean Less Retail Alts Scrutiny?,” FundFire, May 15, 2025.
Webinars
- Jay Dubow recently participated in a webinar hosted by the American Bar Association’s Business Law Section, which focused on the latest developments in jurisprudence related to derivative suits.
Title: Review of Derivative Suits and Demands on Boards of Directors: What Is Demand Futility?
SEC Updates
SEC Whistleblower Awards Face Scrutiny as Denials Rise
By Jay A. Dubow and Ghillaine A. Reid
A recent article by Bloomberg Law highlighted a significant shift in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approach to whistleblower claims. The article, “Whistleblower Awards Slow to Trickle as SEC Raises Bar on Claims,” reveals that the SEC has denied awards in 31 consecutive orders between April 21 and July 15, marking the longest drought in the history of the program established by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.
Bloomberg Law’s Findings
Bloomberg Law’s review of 65 final orders issued this year shows that the SEC has approved only about 13% of claims, a stark contrast to last year’s 37% approval rate by the end of July. According to Bloomberg Law, this decline has raised concerns among attorneys and whistleblower advocates about the commission’s current practices, with both groups agreeing that the SEC is scrutinizing cases more closely.
The article also discusses the SEC’s recent rebuke of a $14 million award given to Carson Block, CEO of Muddy Waters Capital, in 2022. Block’s award, initially granted despite not following formal tip submission procedures, has become entangled in lawsuits and allegations of inconsistent rule application. The SEC’s May 5 order disavowed the previous commission’s approach, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements.
Perspectives on the Program’s Future
The SEC has previously touted its Whistleblower program as a key component of its enforcement efforts. In the past, the SEC also has widely publicized its whistleblower monetary awards to encourage others to become whistleblowers. The findings published by Bloomberg Law suggest that the current SEC may be trying to tamp down on the program.
Judicial Scrutiny Intensifies: The Evolving Role of Short-Seller Reports in Securities Claims
By Jay A. Dubow, Mary Weeks, Bianca DiBella, and Chloe Ann C. Lee
Courts have shown a growing skepticism toward plaintiffs’ use of short-seller reports to plead loss causation for securities claims. Recent decisions have increasingly dissected when a short-seller report will fail to survive attacks from a motion to dismiss. This article will address recent case developments across various circuits before addressing the key takeaways from this narrowing trend.
Click here to read the full article in Business Law Today.
Conviction in Insider Trading Case Brings New Attention to 10b5-1 Plans
By Jay A. Dubow, Rob Evans, Stanley Keller, Eugene W. McDermott Jr., David I. Meyers, and Ghillaine A. Reid
On June 23, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Terren Scott Peizer, founder of Ontrak Inc., a Miami-based publicly traded health care company, has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison by a California federal judge. This conviction is notable for its focus on the misuse of 10b5-1 trading plans, which are designed to allow corporate insiders to schedule stock transactions in advance, ensuring that decisions are not influenced by undisclosed material information. Alongside the prison sentence, Peizer has been ordered to pay a $5.25 million fine and forfeit over $12.7 million in gains deemed illicit.
SEC Briefs Disgorgement and Investor Harm in Navellier v. SEC
By Jay A. Dubow and Ghillaine A. Reid
In the recent Supreme Court case, Navellier & Associates, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the petitioners sought a writ of certiorari challenging the decisions of the lower courts regarding the scope of disgorgement and the materiality standard applied in securities fraud cases. On May 5, the SEC filed its brief in opposition to the petition.
Cannabis Updates
Recent SEC AML Enforcement Actions’ Impact on Compliance Efforts in the Cannabis Sector
By Jay Dubow and Jessica McClellan
Investing in the cannabis industry is not without its risks, given the evolving regulatory landscape and the varying state and federal statuses of the product itself. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has shown it will continue to enforce its 2014 Marijuana Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Guidance, despite the rescission of the Cole Memo in 2018, which initially informed this guidance. Additionally, for public companies and other entities subject to oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), recent SEC enforcement cases reinforce the necessity of rigorous due diligence and adherence to anti-money laundering (AML) protocols, especially given that FinCEN maintains that all financial transactions involving marijuana remain federally illegal.
Foreign Private Issuers Updates
Foreign Private Issuers: Have You Assessed Your Status Under US Securities Laws?
By Thomas M. Rose, Nicole A. Edmonds, Shona Smith, Jason L. Langford, and Joseph T. Cataldo
For foreign private issuers registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), there are several filing statuses that affect the content of various disclosures that must be made public. Foreign private issuers filing periodic reports with the SEC must at least annually assess their status to determine which SEC requirements are applicable to them. This alert explores these various SEC statuses as applicable to foreign private issuers.
Time to Assess “Foreign Private Issuer” Status – 2025
By Thomas M. Rose, Shona Smith, Nicole A. Edmonds, Jason L. Langford, and Joseph T. Cataldo
It is time to assess “foreign private issuer” status. Foreign public and private issuers enjoy the benefits of significant exemptions and exclusions from registration under U.S. federal securities laws based on whether they are “foreign private issuers” as defined under the U.S. federal securities laws. The determination of whether issuers satisfy the definition must be run on the last business day in June for issuers with a December 31 fiscal year end.
SEC Considers Changes to Definition of Foreign Private Issuer
By Thomas M. Rose, Nicole A. Edmonds, Shona Smith, Alexander T. Yarbrough, and Joseph T. Cataldo
On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a concept release soliciting public comment on the definition of a foreign private issuer (FPI) and whether changes are needed to reflect the current state of the U.S. markets. Concept releases typically outline a topic of concern, identify different potential approaches, and raise a series of questions for public input.
Supreme Court Updates
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in SEC Disgorgement Case
By Jay A. Dubow and Ghillaine A. Reid
On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in the case of Navellier & Associates, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This decision effectively upholds the lower courts’ rulings, allowing the SEC to continue its practice of disgorging profits obtained through fraudulent activities without needing to prove direct financial harm to investors.
Digital Assets Updates
Navigating Change: First 100 Days Under the Trump Administration
By Alexandra Steinberg Barrage, Ethan G. Ostroff, Akshay N. Belani, Jaremi Chilton, Jay A. Dubow, Seth M. Erickson, Peter E. Jeydel, Heryka R. Knoespel, Deborah Kovsky-Apap, Peter D. Leary, Michael S. Lowe, Joseph “Joe” Reilly, Alex R. Rovira, Chris J. Willis, Carlos Marin, Jesse B. Silverman, Matthew R. Cali, Christopher J. Capurso, Alyssa P. Cavanaugh, Nicole S. Giffin, Charlene C. Goldfield, David Madrazo, Keegan T. McCoy, Matthew Morris, William C. Mullen, Philip D. Nickerson, Isabela P. Herlihy, Julia St. John, and William “Trey” Smith
We are pleased to share with you our latest publication, “Navigating Change: First 100 Days under the Trump Administration,” authored by our Digital Assets + Blockchain team. This retrospective examines the pivotal developments in the digital assets industry during the initial phase of the Trump administration.
SEC Clarifies Disclosure Requirements for Crypto Asset Securities
By
On April 10, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance (the Division) issued a statement aimed at providing greater clarity on the application of federal securities laws to crypto assets. These offerings may involve equity or debt securities of issuers whose operations relate to networks, applications, and/or crypto assets. The offerings may also relate to crypto assets offered as part of or subject to an investment contract (such a crypto asset, a “subject crypto asset”). The statement does not modify or amend existing rules, but instead tries to translate the traditional disclosure requirements for the unique realities of the crypto asset universe. Notably, the statement also does not address whether or not crypto assets are deemed securities for purposes of federal securities laws, rather, the statement addresses disclosure requirements for those issuers offering crypto assets as part of or subject to an investment contract.
Our Cannabis Practice provides advice on issues related to applicable federal and state law. Cannabis remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law.
In 2020, Blackbaud, Inc. (Blackbaud) experienced a sophisticated ransomware attack. In its aftermath, the company faced dozens of class action lawsuits nationwide, as well as concurrent investigations by numerous federal and state regulators. These matters unfolded over nearly five years, culminating in favorable resolutions for Blackbaud. In this guest article, Blackbaud’s GC, Jon Olson, and its outside counsel, Ronald Raether, a partner at Troutman Pepper Locke, discuss the firsthand experience of navigating the incident and its aftermath, and offer insights into how organizations can better prepare for and respond to cyberattacks. See “Ransomware Incident Response Checklist” (Apr. 26, 2023).
Read the full article on Cybersecurity Law Report.
State attorneys general increasingly impact businesses in all industries. Our nationally recognized state AG team has been trusted by clients for more than 20 years to navigate their most complicated state AG investigations and enforcement actions.
State Attorneys General Monitor analyzes regulatory actions by state AGs and other state administrative agencies throughout the nation. Contributors to this newsletter and related blog include attorneys experienced in regulatory enforcement, litigation, and compliance. Also visit our State Attorneys General Monitor microsite.
Contact our State AG Team at StateAG@troutman.com.
Troutman Pepper Locke Spotlight
Rising Junk Fee Enforcement Means Businesses Should Be Proactive
By
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.
State AG News
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.
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.
AG of the Week
Liz Murrill, Louisiana
In 2024, Liz Murrill became Louisiana’s first female AG. An eighth-generation Louisianan, she was born in New Orleans and raised in Lafayette. She graduated from Louisiana State University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and earned her law degree from LSU’s Paul M. Hebert Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the Louisiana Law Review. She also holds a Master of Laws from Pepperdine University and was a U.S. Supreme Court fellow.
Murrill began her legal career clerking for federal judges and held key roles in state government, including executive counsel to the governor. As Louisiana’s first solicitor general, she represented the state in significant legal matters, arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and leading numerous federal cases. Her work has earned her respect among judges and peers nationwide.
Beyond her professional achievements, Murrill is dedicated to community service. She has been married for 30 years and raised four sons. Her volunteer efforts include leadership roles in Cub Scouts, crisis-line support for domestic abuse victims, and disaster recovery legal services following Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana AG in the News:
-
Murrill addressed recent allegations against the New Orleans mayor for abuse of emergency powers in the cancellation of a sanitation contract.
-
Murrill joined 48 other AGs in securing more than $200 million to address allegations of an illegal kickback scheme.
-
Murrill alerted the public to the growing presence of illegal online casino gambling websites and mobile applications.
Upcoming AG Events
-
August: AGA | Chair’s Initiative | Alaska
-
September: RAGA | Fall National Meeting | Miami, FL
-
September: DAGA | Denver Policy Conference | Denver, CO
For more on upcoming AG Events, click here.
State attorneys general increasingly impact businesses in all industries. Our nationally recognized state AG team has been trusted by clients for more than 20 years to navigate their most complicated state AG investigations and enforcement actions.
State Attorneys General Monitor analyzes regulatory actions by state AGs and other state administrative agencies throughout the nation. Contributors to this newsletter and related blog include attorneys experienced in regulatory enforcement, litigation, and compliance. Also visit our State Attorneys General Monitor microsite.
Contact our State AG Team at StateAG@troutman.com.
Troutman Pepper Locke Spotlight
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.
State AG News
Washington AG Secures $8.2M Against Company for Sending Knock-Off Official Government Correspondence
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Sydney Goldberg
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.
Supreme Court Limits Universal Injunctions: Implications for Federal Courts
By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team, Jeff Johnson, and Blake Christopher
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.
AG of the Week
Liz Murrill, Louisiana
In 2024, Liz Murrill became Louisiana’s first female AG. An eighth-generation Louisianan, she was born in New Orleans and raised in Lafayette. She graduated from Louisiana State University with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and earned her law degree from LSU’s Paul M. Hebert Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the Louisiana Law Review. She also holds a Master of Laws from Pepperdine University and was a U.S. Supreme Court fellow.
Murrill began her legal career clerking for federal judges and held key roles in state government, including executive counsel to the governor. As Louisiana’s first solicitor general, she represented the state in significant legal matters, arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and leading numerous federal cases. Her work has earned her respect among judges and peers nationwide.
Beyond her professional achievements, Murrill is dedicated to community service. She has been married for 30 years and raised four sons. Her volunteer efforts include leadership roles in Cub Scouts, crisis-line support for domestic abuse victims, and disaster recovery legal services following Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana AG in the News:
- Murrill addressed recent allegations against the New Orleans mayor for abuse of emergency powers in the cancellation of a sanitation contract.
- Murrill joined 48 other AGs in securing more than $200 million to address allegations of an illegal kickback scheme.
- Murrill alerted the public to the growing presence of illegal online casino gambling websites and mobile applications.
Upcoming AG Events
- August: AGA | Chair’s Initiative | Alaska
- September: RAGA | Fall National Meeting | Miami, FL
- September: DAGA | Denver Policy Conference | Denver, CO
For more on upcoming AG Events, click here.