Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Mike Hilgers is leading multistate coalitions in two lawsuits aimed at challenging the Biden administration and the State of California’s electric vehicle mandates on truck owners and operators nationwide. The lawsuits argue that these mandates exceed the constitutional and statutory authority of the federal government and California regulators.
A new Connecticut law expands the authority of the state’s attorney general to enforce certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act).[1]
A state attorney general (AG) and a major American corporation recently battled over the scope and applicability of the government contractor defense.
The case is about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals. These fluorine-related chemicals are used in a variety of products, including waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, furniture, and food packaging. Opponents of PFAS refer to them as “forever chemicals” because, as they argue, PFAS compounds do not break down naturally and can contaminate the soil and drinking water.
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit), a subsidiary of a company that produces fuselages for Boeing’s 737 jets, has filed a lawsuit against Texas in response to the attorney general’s (AG) recently initiated investigation into the company’s alleged manufacturing issues — which the AG says led to midair emergencies earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed on May 1, asserts that the state’s probe is unconstitutional and violates Spirit’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches.
On May 8, attorneys general (AG) from 14 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to Congressional leadership opposing provisions of the recently proposed federal American Privacy Rights Act (APRA). In addition to the District of Columbia, the signatory states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Their objections primarily center on the APRA’s preemption clause, which would nullify 16 state comprehensive data privacy laws that have been enacted since 2018.
On Wednesday, attorneys general (AG) for the states of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia announced that they are joining Tennessee and Virginia in a multistate coalition challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) “Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)-recruiting ban.” Troutman Pepper previously reported on the lawsuit after the District Court entered a preliminary injunction order in February.
On April 23, Rhode Island Attorney General (AG) Peter Neronha, approved the merger of Rhode Island PBS and The Public’s Radio.
On April 11, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the State of California arguing that policyholders should be able to assert claims under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) independent of a one-year claim filing deadline under the California Insurance Code and their homeowners policy. The AG argues that the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations should apply, not the one-year window mandated.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently announced an Airline Passenger Protection Partnership with state attorneys general (AGs), marking a significant expansion of AGs’ regulatory reach. This partnership, formed in response to growing frustration among AGs over their limited ability to investigate passenger complaints and enforce state consumer protection laws against airlines, empowers AGs to investigate complaints against airlines and grants them access to complaints filed directly by consumers with the DOT.
Washington Attorney General (AG) Bob Ferguson prevailed in his lawsuit against a plastic surgery practice, Allure Esthetic, and its owner, Dr. Javad A. Sajan (collectively, the company), alleging violations of the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), based upon the company’s practice of requiring patients to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that prohibited them from posting negative online reviews. The District Court granted the AG’s motion for summary judgment (in part) and found the company liable for violations of the CRFA. Damages will be decided at a later date.