What Happened

On January 16, Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares’s last day in office, the Virginia AG reached a settlement with Viatris, Mylan’s corporate successor, over EpiPen pricing and related practices. The settlement was filed and approved by the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond without issuance of a press release by the Virginia AG.

Viatris agreed to pay $6.25 million and undertake consumer‑facing measures, while denying liability, and Virginia granted a broad release tied to a defined set of “Covered Conduct” related to EpiPen pricing, marketing, and contracting through the agreement’s effective date. Notably, Viatris committed to increase its co-pay coupon from $25 to $40 for its generic EpiPen, contingent upon the company reaching resolutions with other states for which settlement discussions are ongoing.

The Details

Because Virginia law provides that its pre-litigation settlements (assurance of voluntary compliance) be accompanied by a lawsuit, Virginia’s complaint provides a good background of the Commonwealth’s allegations — which relate to Mylan’s conduct after acquiring U.S. rights to EpiPen in 2007. The Commonwealth alleged that Mylan raised the list price of a two‑pack from about $100 to more than $600 by 2016 without meaningful product changes, and simultaneously eliminated single‑pen sales in the U.S. while continuing to sell single pens abroad. Virginia contends this effectively forced consumers to buy two devices and that marketing materials did not clearly explain when a second pen was medically necessary.

The complaint also challenges Mylan’s contracting and rebate practices, alleging that Mylan secured preferred or exclusive formulary status through conditional rebate arrangements with PBMs, funded by higher list prices, which disadvantaged competitors and led to “supracompetitive” pricing. Rather than framing these issues solely as competition concerns, Virginia characterizes them as deceptive and misleading practices under state consumer protection law, asserting that Mylan’s statements about pricing, product configuration, and EpiPen’s advantages over alternatives misled consumers and payors.

Under the parties’ assurance of voluntary compliance, Viatris agreed to pay $6.25 million to Virginia, in full satisfaction of the Commonwealth’s allegations.

The settlement also imposes consumer‑facing nonmonetary obligations. Viatris agreed to enhance and promote co‑pay assistance for the authorized generic EpiPen, increase awareness of coupons and patient assistance programs in Virginia, and continue and promote school‑based epinephrine access initiatives. It also committed to donate EpiPen devices to the Commonwealth in an initial year and for additional years thereafter, with details to be negotiated in good faith.

In exchange for the payment and undertakings described above, the Commonwealth releases all civil claims it has, may have, or could have asserted — whether known or unknown — relating to the covered conduct, subject to important carve‑outs (including claims to enforce this assurance, any criminal liability, state false‑claims and Medicaid fraud/abuse or kickback claims, and any state or federal tax or securities violations). Notably, the release language is broad in both scope and time. “Covered Conduct” is defined to encompass the conduct alleged in the complaint — including EpiPen pricing, the shift to two‑pack‑only sales, and rebate and formulary practices with PBMs and payors — as well as additional EpiPen‑related activity, such as donation and school programs, alleged strategies relating to generic entry and patent litigation, and public communications about EpiPen and competing products, through January 16, 2026.

Viatris, for its part, explicitly denies any wrongdoing or violation of law, and the settlement disclaims any admission that could be used as precedent in other proceedings.

Why It Matters

For pharmaceutical manufacturers that regularly face investigations and inquiries from state AGs, the Viatris settlement underscores several trends that are likely to shape future enforcement and settlement strategy.

First, the case shows how AGs are increasingly using consumer protection statutes to challenge pricing and market‑access strategies. Conduct like price hikes, product configuration changes, and PBM rebate arrangements — long familiar in federal and private litigation — is being recast as deceptive or misleading under state consumer‑fraud laws. For manufacturers, that means internal and external communications explaining product configuration, price increases, and rebate structures may be scrutinized not just for competition issues, but for how they appear to consumers, prescribers, and payors.

Second, the settlement underscores that defining “released” conduct can be as important as the dollar amount. The Virginia assurance carefully delineates covered conduct to secure meaningful peace around EpiPen‑related issues within the Commonwealth, while preserving space for other enforcement noted above (such as criminal or false claims matters). For similarly situated companies, the settlement addresses current allegations and foreseeable follow‑on theories.

Third, the structure and presentation of relief reflect what many AGs increasingly want from pharmaceutical settlements. The $6.25 million payment is significant, but much of the public‑facing value lies in the narrative about improved affordability and access — enhanced co‑pay assistance, promotion of patient and school programs, and product donations to the state. For manufacturers, this means that future negotiations are likely to focus heavily on what can be offered that directly benefits patients and communities, and how those commitments will be described in public communications, even in matters that otherwise resolve without a press release.

Fourth and finally, Viatris’ decision to resolve the matter with Miyares on his last day in office positions the company to use the Virginia assurance of voluntary compliance as a strategic benchmark in ongoing negotiations with other state AGs. By securing a settlement that sets both monetary and injunctive markers — without agreeing to a most-favored-nations clause or similar parity provisions — Viatris preserves flexibility to calibrate future resolutions to the specific posture, risk, and demands of other jurisdictions. That combination of an early, contained agreement and the absence of mandatory parity terms provides meaningful strategic value as the company continues to manage parallel regulatory actions and attempts to limit both financial exposure and operational constraints across states.

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies. He has significant experience handling actions with federal agencies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as single plaintiff and class action litigation for clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, health care, pharmaceutical, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile state attorneys general, FTC, and CFPB investigations by advising clients through these complex government inquiries. He assists clients through the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Matthew J. Berns Drawing on his experience in senior leadership roles in the New Jersey Attorney General’s and Governor’s Offices and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matt provides an insider’s perspective when guiding clients through complex government investigations, litigation, and other actions.
	Samuel E. “Gene” Fishel Gene is a former regulator with two decades of experience who has overseen state privacy and cybersecurity regulation enforcement, led national, multistate attorneys general privacy investigations, and prosecuted computer crimes at the state and federal levels. He has served at the forefront of state attorney general and federal enforcement, and utilizes this experience to proficiently represent client interests.
	Jeff Johnson Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Zoe Schloss Zoe represents clients in litigation and government investigations. As former deputy attorney general for the Delaware Department of Justice, she is an experienced litigator who understands the enforcement priorities that impact her clients. Zoe works with individuals and corporate entities in highly regulated industries, including financial services, health care, and energy.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Nick Gouverneur Nick is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as a member of the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	Philip Nickerson Philip represents clients in sectors such as financial, tech, real estate, and energy in a range of litigation matters. He is experienced in matters involving trade secrets, government investigations, commercial contracts, construction and product defect.
	Lane Page Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher is an attorney within the Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice, based in the Richmond office. She joined our firm after working in personal injury and medical malpractice for a Virginia trial law firm. Dascher brings varied legal experience to the firm with strong litigation and regulatory strategy capabilities.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Timothy Shyu Timothy is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Cole White Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.