Earlier this month, 20 Democratic state attorneys general (AG) filed an amicus brief supporting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) marketing denial orders (MDOs) of premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) for flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS or e-cigarettes) currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief not only demonstrates which side these states support, but also identifies specific enforcement priorities for these states.
In this episode, Chris Carlson, an associate in the Regulatory, Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, joins Brooke and Chris to discuss how federal and state regulators are collaborating on consumer protection investigations. The team discusses a recent order and action against an Arizona-based auto dealer for multiple Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) violations. While contemplating whether this is a growing trend, the trio meanders into discussions about the CARS Rule and the potential impact of November’s election on the industry.
On August 27, the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) and the Division of Consumer Affairs announced that the state had issued notices of violation and $4,500 civil penalty demands to 19 retailers across New Jersey for allegedly selling banned flavored vapor products. This is New Jersey’s first public enforcement of the state’s 2020 flavor ban, and New Jersey joins a number of other state AGs taking similar action across the U.S.
Concerns over consumer protection are mounting as the sales of intoxicating hemp products continue to rise. In response to a fragmented regulatory landscape that has led to inconsistent enforcement and compliance challenges, state attorneys general are stepping in to fill the void left by the absence of comprehensive federal regulations. These state-level actions aim to
This article was originally published on September 7, 2023 in Reuters and is republished here with permission.
State Attorneys General (AGs) uniquely wield power to enforce the law, direct policy, and effectuate political goals. Exercising their civil prosecutorial authority, State AGs have redefined priorities of paramount concern to CEOs and in-house legal counsel that impact the corporate and commercial landscape.
Published in Law360 on June 27, 2023. © Copyright 2023, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.
On May 11, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc. went on the offensive to keep its new line of nonmenthol cigarettes marketed with language like “crisp,” “smooth” and “mellow” on store shelves in California.[1]
Judy Jagdmann and Chris Carlson, a partner and an associate in Troutman Pepper’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group, were quoted in the June 8, 2023 Corporate Counsel article, “State Attorneys General Flexing Muscles, Posing Growing Risk to Legal Departments.”
On June 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a request for information (RFI) to gain additional insight into how it can optimize joint enforcement with state attorneys general (state AGs) to protect consumers from fraud. The announcement signals a growing trend of cooperation between the FTC and state AGs, which we have also seen between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the state regulators.
On May 11, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, along with two convenience stores and the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, sued the California attorney general and district attorney for Fresno County in their official capacities, seeking declaratory relief that these California officials misinterpreted and misapplied California’s ban on flavored tobacco products and incorrectly concluded that RJ Reynolds’ new products violate this ban.
State authorities increasingly embrace role as consumer watchdogs
A version of this post was published in Corporate Compliance Insights on April 5, 2023. © Copyright 2023, Corporate Compliance Insights. Reprinted here with permission.
State attorneys general are increasingly taking offensive positions, bringing lawsuits against companies and executives they accuse of bad conduct. A team of attorneys from Troutman Pepper, led by Clayton Friedman and Trey Smith, explore recent cases and how executives can strengthen the corporate veil.