The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) April 7, 2026, press release on its fiscal year (FY) 2025 enforcement results is less about numbers and more about a philosophical reset. Under Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda, who served as acting chair prior to the chairman’s confirmation, the SEC is expressly stepping back from what it characterizes as “regulation by enforcement” and volume‑driven metrics, and recentering on what it has described as fraud, investor harm, and congressional intent. For registrants and other market participants, this shift has direct consequences for how enforcement risk is likely to be assessed going forward.

This article was originally published in Reuters on April 8, 2026 and republished here with permission.

State attorneys general are some of the most active regulators in the country, particularly in consumer protection, antitrust, privacy, and emerging technology. For many companies, the first sign of contact is a civil investigative demand (CID) or subpoena from a single state. For others, the first contact is a call from outside counsel alerting them that a coalition of AGs is already coordinating a multistate investigation.

A federal court in Michigan significantly narrowed Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel’s privacy and consumer protection case against Roku, Inc. (Roku) dismissing all non-Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) claims for lack of standing while allowing the state’s privacy claims under COPPA to proceed. The decision highlights COPPA’s utility as a vehicle for state AGs to bring enforcement actions in federal court, while also underscoring the jurisdictional limits on bringing companion state privacy and consumer protection claims in the same forum.

On March 26, 2026, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta filed a complaint in state court against six individuals and three organizations for allegedly creating and operating sham charities. According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations to raise approximately $3.8 million, which they used for personal expenses. The complaint alleges that these actions resulted in violations of various state laws, including California’s Charitable Supervision Act.

Connecticut Attorney General (AG) William Tong announced on March 20, 2026, that Connecticut has joined with other states and the federal government to reach a settlement with CVR Management, LLC, the entity that manages the Center for Vein Restoration (CVR), resolving allegations that the company billed government health programs for medically unnecessary procedures. The settlement requires CVR Management to pay $4 million, which will be distributed among the Medicaid programs of eight states, the District of Columbia, the federal government, and the relators of the original lawsuits.

In this episode of Payments Pros, host Carlin McCrory teams up with Hiring to Firing hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter to explore the emerging world of earned wage access (EWA), or on-demand pay, through the lens of the reality TV show Shark Tank. They examine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s evolving approach, rapidly developing (and sometimes conflicting) state laws, and the wage-and-hour and payroll challenges that can arise when employees access their pay early. The discussion also covers how EWA can serve as a powerful recruitment and retention tool, the risk that a well-intentioned benefit can be viewed as a “loan in sheep’s clothing,” and practical steps HR and in-house counsel can take when vetting vendors or considering in-house EWA programs. Tune in to decide whether EWA is the kind of pitch your HR “sharks” should back — or one that should prompt, “And for that reason, I’m out.”

On March 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an effort to preliminarily enjoin Florida’s ban on lab‑grown meat. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) does not preempt the state law because the outright ban on lab-grown meat does not regulate poultry facilities, operations, or ingredients.

On March 11, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on negative option marketing. The ANPRM restarts the agency’s effort to regulate subscriptions and automatic renewals after the Eighth Circuit vacated the prior “Click to Cancel” rule, from the Biden administration era, on procedural grounds. Comments are due 30 days after Federal Register publication.

On March 12, 2026, Vermont Attorney General (AG) Charity Clark announced a settlement with United Counseling Service of Bennington County, Inc. (UCS), an organization contracted with Vermont’s Medicaid program to provide services to vulnerable adults in Vermont. The settlement agreement resolves Vermont’s allegations related to service failures that resulted in alleged safety risks to Medicaid recipients and the public, and requires UCS to pay the state $483,464 and implement various “dramatic organizational reforms” to improve oversight and monitoring.

The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump upended the legal basis for billions of dollars in tariffs on imports imposed by the Trump administration. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the sweeping tariff regime, but it did not address how past collections should be refunded, leaving refund mechanics and timing to be worked out through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in coordination with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). While the ruling opened the door for importers to seek substantial refunds from the federal government, including through developing CBP refund procedures and related CIT orders, it also created a new front of litigation risk for companies that passed tariff costs through to consumers.