February 2024

One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana law and policy in the U.S. is its tendency to strike at our most foundational democratic principles. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich,[1] that Congress has the power to regulate the purely intrastate cultivation, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana under the commerce clause, even if the marijuana never crosses state lines, because marijuana-related activity has a “substantial affect” on interstate commerce. Several challenges have been made to this conclusion since Gonzales was decided, none of which have been successful to date.

This article was originally published on February 14, 2024 in Reuters and Westlaw Today. It is republished here with permission.

As we discussed in part three of this series, “Navigating the Complexities of Regulatory Data Incident Investigations,” when an organization is the subject of regulatory data incident investigations, it must navigate a tangled regulatory web. Extricating itself from that web is the ultimate goal. But what form does that take?

On January 31, Tennessee Attorney General (AG) Jonathan Skrmetti, joined by Virginia AG Jason Miyares, filed suit against the NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act over the association’s restrictions on the ability of current and future student-athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). The lawsuit was filed just one day after the announcement that the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is investigating the University of Tennessee for NIL violations.

On February 6, a bipartisan group of 51 attorney general (AG) sent a warning letter to Life Corporation (Life Corp.) for allegedly engaging in an illegal robocall campaign that they claim was intended to deter New Hampshire voters from participating in the primary on January 23. The calls purportedly used artificial intelligence (AI) to impersonate the voice of President Biden, telling recipients to refrain from voting in the presidential primary.

On February 7, a coalition of 19 state attorneys general (AG) filed a comment letter supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (Rule). The state AGs echoed the sentiment that the proposed rule would provide much-needed safeguards for consumers against unfair or deceptive fees that are a “prevalent problem in many different types of industries.”

On February 8, New York attorney general (AG) Letisha James announced a $77 million judgment with three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies, Richmond Capital Group, Ram Capital Funding, and Viceroy Capital Funding, and their principals. AG James sued the companies in 2020, alleging they engaged in exploitive lending practices with small businesses, such as charging high interest rates, undisclosed fees, debiting excess amounts, and fraudulently securing judgments against them.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) most recent regulatory agenda, it plans to finalize a proposed rule that would make significant changes to requirements applicable to educational institutions that enroll students utilizing VA benefits, such as under the extremely popular Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill and Chapter 31 Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) programs, both of which pay tuition and fees directly to schools. The new regulations, which are expected to become final in April and go into effect shortly thereafter, will implement the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act of 2018. As the Congressional Research Service explained, that bill made “a number of changes to educational benefits.”

Over the past decade, at least five states and hundreds of localities have passed, or attempted to pass, laws banning flavored tobacco products. To date, litigants have brought many challenges to these laws, often arguing that such bans are preempted under the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). This argument, however, has largely proven unsuccessful — a trend that continued in January when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s challenge to California’s ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products.