Photo of 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.

Given the future uncertainty of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) efforts to regulate bank overdraft fees, New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) has stepped in to fill a perceived gap. The DFS announced proposed regulations to tackle what it perceives as unfair overdraft fees. The proposed regulations will “ensure consumers will no longer be burdened with overdraft fees for minor transactions and require banks to provide timely notifications to consumers about overdraft fees to improve transparency.”

The U.S. Supreme Court closed out 2024 by confirming states’ authority to regulate internet service providers. On December 16, 2024, the Court denied certiorari in New York State Telecommunications Association, Inc., et al. v. Attorney General Letitia James, Case No. 21-1975, allowing New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) to stand.

On November 8, Illinois Attorney General (AG) Kwame Raoul and DoorDash, Inc. (DoorDash) reached a settlement to resolve a lawsuit accusing DoorDash of violating Illinois consumer protection law related to alleged misrepresentations regarding tips for delivery drivers. The tipping policy in question was in place between 2017 through 2019.

The federal rescheduling of marijuana has been a topic of conversation within the marijuana industry since President Biden’s statement requesting that the secretary of health and human services (HHS) and the attorney general (AG) “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”[1] However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine adds an additional layer to an already complicated process. While the exact impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[2] on the cannabis industry remains to be seen, this article explores the way in which it may impact the pending rescheduling.

Among the two most widely reported federal changes to cannabis regulation are the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed regulation for the federal rescheduling of marijuana (the Proposed Rescheduling) and amendments to the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (the Farm Bill). The Proposed Rescheduling would result in the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I[1] of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III[2] of the CSA.[3] The proposed amendments to the Farm Bill would change the definition of “hemp” to remedy a loophole currently utilized by hemp manufacturers who manufacture and sell intoxicating cannabis products.

A gambling compact between the state of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which allows for sports betting off tribal lands, will remain in place after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed by Florida casino operators. This decision will have a significant impact on states’ authority to regulate gambling, especially gambling facilitated by Indian Tribes, moving forward.

Recently, the City of Denver’s Department of Public Health and Environment (DDPHE) ordered, among other things, the destruction of Titan Health LLC’s (Titan Health) marijuana plants that it deemed to “hav[e] evidence of spider mite influx.” Titan Health appealed the DDPHE’s Notice of Violation (NOV), not only due to the lack of evidence warranting such an extreme remedy, but also because the NOV exceeded the City of Denver’s authority.[1] In fact, according to Titan Health, Colorado state law specifically preempted the NOV. While the merits of the appeal were not ultimately heard, this case exemplifies the importance of understanding state preemption and the limitations placed on localities’ authority.

On February 22, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), joined by the attorneys general for Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York (States), filed suit against Libre by Nexus, Inc. (Libre). The suit alleges that Libre, an immigration bond services business, engaged in deceptive and abusive acts or practices in connection with its offer of credit to