In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Gene Fishel, a member of the firm’s RISE Practice Group and State AG team, is joined by Partner Dave Navetta of the Privacy + Cyber Practice Group, to discuss the biggest privacy and cyber enforcement themes of 2025 and preview what’s ahead for 2026.

The Texas attorney general (AG) announced a $41.5 million settlement with Pfizer and Tris Pharma related to allegations that the companies provided adulterated pharmaceutical products to children and manipulated testing to secure Medicaid reimbursement in violation of the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (THFPA).

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, RISE Practice Group Partners Lauren Fincher and Brian O’Reilly look at practical, recent developments and trends in open records laws for 2025. They explore the diverse — and often competing — perspectives in the public records space: protecting sensitive business information submitted to government versus fulfilling disclosure obligations as a governmental body.

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Stephen Piepgrass sits down with partner Mike Yaghi of the RISE practice group and State Attorneys General (AG) team to explore how businesses can strategically engage with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) to build consumer trust, bolster reputations, and reduce regulatory risk.

Many prediction market firms have sought to avoid state regulation by emphasizing how their services differ from traditional sports betting. They characterize their offerings as “event contracts” or “swaps,” which are only subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight and note that they operate peer‑to‑peer exchanges, earning revenue from transaction fees rather than customer losses. Many state regulators have disagreed with this argument, however, asserting that event contracts cannot be distinguished from state-regulated gaming. Federal courts in various states have reached different conclusions on this issue. A Nevada federal court has now weighed in, ruling that some of these services fall under state gaming law.

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Chris Carlson, a partner in our RISE practice group and member of the State Attorney General (AG) team, is joined by colleagues Lauren Fincher, also a partner in our RISE practice and State AG team, and Barry Boise, a partner in our Health Care + Life Sciences Litigation practice, to examine how state AGs approached the health care sector in 2025, and what’s coming next in 2026.

In the first episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Ashley Taylor, co-leader of the firm’s State Attorneys General (AG) team, is joined by his colleague Stephanie Kozol, senior government relations manager for the State AG team. Together, they unpack how the latest state AG outcomes shape business risk and strategy — and what’s ahead in the 2026 election cycle.

Earlier this fall, a small manufacturer and retailer (the plaintiffs) sued Virginia Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares and Tax Commissioner James Alex (the defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin their enforcement of Virginia’s vapor product directory regime, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-293.14 to .21, which the General Assembly passed in 2024.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has abruptly reversed a recently approved rule change that would have permitted college athletes and athletic department staff to bet on professional sports. Under a rarely used override process, more than two-thirds of Division I member schools voted within a 30-day window last month to rescind the proposal. The threshold was reached on November 21, nullifying the rule change before it could take effect. As a result, the longstanding ban on sports wagering by NCAA student-athletes and staff remains in place across all three NCAA divisions. However, even if the rule had been implemented, college athletes and athletic department staff would still have been barred from betting on any NCAA contests, as the rescinded change only concerned wagering on professional sports. The vote to revoke the new rule underscores the NCAA membership’s cautious stance amid an evolving sports betting landscape.