On February 24, the New Jersey State Senate unanimously confirmed the appointment of Jennifer Davenport to serve as New Jersey’s attorney general (AG). Davenport (whose nomination we covered here) has been serving in an acting capacity since Governor Mikie Sherrill took office in January.
In this special crossover episode of Regulatory Oversight and FCRA Focus, Kim Phan is joined by Michael Yaghi, partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement practice group, to unpack the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) latest effort to require registration for the credit reporting industry. They discuss DFPI’s second request for comment, how it fits into California’s broader push to regulate nonbank financial services, and which entities may be swept in beyond the “big three” consumer reporting agencies — such as furnishers, data brokers, specialty credit reporting agencies, resellers, and fintechs. Kim and Michael also explore how narrowly (or broadly) the rules might be drawn, potential overlap and tension with existing FCRA requirements, what registration and reporting could mean in practice for covered entities, and what companies should be doing now as the February 26 comment deadline approaches.
On March 6, 2026, a U.S. district court will consider whether to approve a settlement agreement resolving parallel lawsuits by the Texas attorney general (AG) and the federal government against Houston-area developer Colony Ridge Development, LLC and related companies. The complaints in both suits — which were filed during the Biden administration — claim that Colony Ridge discriminatorily targeted Hispanic consumers with predatory financing to purchase land for residences in areas that were in fact uninhabitable.
This article was originally published on Law360 and is republished here with permission as it originally appeared on February 20, 2026.
When a client receives a civil investigative demand, or CID, or equivalent subpoena from a state attorney general, the first question is always some version of “how can we move to quash this subpoena?”
A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit serves as a stark reminder to companies and individuals in the state-legal cannabis industry that the federal illegality of cannabis can jeopardize their ability to enforce contracts in federal court.
On February 5, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a major change in how the agency will regulate claims about artificial colors in foods.
On February 9, Connecticut Attorney General (AG) William Tong announced an investigation into the owners and managers of the Concierge Apartments in Rocky Hill, CT, for potential violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act after frozen pipes burst and tenants were displaced.
Recent opinions by the Texas attorney general (AG) and the Florida AG assert that their states’ race- and sex-conscious laws and policies are unconstitutional. The opinions align with President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 (collectively, the executive orders), which seek to end gender- and race-based contracting practices and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Like the executive orders, the AG opinions target DEI-related policies affecting state contracting, appointments, and employment; the Texas AG also specifically asserts that private employers’ applicable DEI policies (as described within the opinion) violate Texas and federal law, thereby targeting both the private and public sectors. Although not legally binding on courts, such opinions provide a guide for the likely contours of future enforcement action by these state attorneys general.
California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta recently announced a consent judgment resolving allegations that the Pacific American Fish Company, Inc. (PAFCO), a seafood distributor and processor, had sold frozen seafood products with elevated levels of lead and cadmium in California without the warnings required by state law.
On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.