On January 26, a Massachusetts Superior Court rejected an effort by the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) to vacate an order that cast doubt on the constitutionality of a new Massachusetts liquor law.
Reviewing, analyzing, and navigating compliance, enforcement, investigation, and litigation developments and trends in the state and federal regulatory landscape
On January 26, a Massachusetts Superior Court rejected an effort by the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) to vacate an order that cast doubt on the constitutionality of a new Massachusetts liquor law.
In the latest episode of Regulatory Oversight, Troutman Pepper Partner Judy Jagdmann is joined by Oregon Attorney General (AG) Ellen Rosenblum to discuss her journey from being a federal prosecutor and state trial and appellate judge, to becoming Oregon’s AG.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) most recent regulatory agenda, it plans to finalize a proposed rule that would make significant changes to requirements applicable to educational institutions that enroll students utilizing VA benefits, such as under the extremely popular Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill and Chapter 31 Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) programs, both of which pay tuition and fees directly to schools. The new regulations, which are expected to become final in April and go into effect shortly thereafter, will implement the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act of 2018. As the Congressional Research Service explained, that bill made “a number of changes to educational benefits.”
Over the past decade, at least five states and hundreds of localities have passed, or attempted to pass, laws banning flavored tobacco products. To date, litigants have brought many challenges to these laws, often arguing that such bans are preempted under the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). This argument, however, has largely proven unsuccessful — a trend that continued in January when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s challenge to California’s ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products.
As we previously reported, the Treasury Department released a 2022 report on Competition in the Markets for Beer, Wine, and Spirits (the Competition Report) recommending, in part, that the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) revive or initiate rulemaking to consider labeling requirements that include alcohol and nutritional information per-serving, major food allergens, and/or ingredients. TTB has announced that it will hold two virtual listening sessions on this topic on February 28, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., EST; and February 29, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., EST. The deadline to register to virtually attend either session is February 27, 12 p.m., EST,. Interested parties may register for either session here. These listening sessions present a unique opportunity to provide input to TTB at the early stages of a rulemaking that could potentially affect labels across the industry.
We recently reported that several state legislatures are considering bills to establish vapor product directories this year — namely Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia. Throughout January and early February, similar bills have been introduced in Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Additionally, a bill in Oklahoma would update the state’s existing directory framework to be consistent with the proposals of these recent bills. The directories would allow states to prohibit the sale of vapor products that are not authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) or subject to a pending premarket application. Like the proposals discussed in our previous coverage, these bills are intended to reduce the proliferation of illicit vapor products.
Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Michelle Henry reached a settlement with attorney Erik Helbing and his business, Helbing Law Group, LLC, resolving allegations of deceptive advertising practices and failure to effectively deliver on promised debt settlement services. The law firm advertised that it could facilitate significant reduction in client debts through negotiation or litigation processes using licensed attorneys. According to Henry, these advertisements were false or misleading.
Whether you believe that cannabis legalization has occurred too quickly or too slowly, one thing is certain: recent developments herald a potentially seismic shift in federal cannabis policy in the U.S. Reflecting on our article from September, which discussed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is clear that the landscape continues to evolve rapidly. Since that publication, numerous noteworthy developments have unfolded, along with a growing discourse on the potential unintended consequences of such a reclassification. This article aims to catch readers up on the latest developments in federal cannabis legalization.
In early January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc in Wages & White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, held that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) marketing denial order (MDO) of petitioner’s premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
In an era where privacy, security, and artificial intelligence are at the forefront of many business operations, staying informed about the latest developments is crucial. Our 2023 Privacy Year in Review is an in-depth analysis of the past year’s significant advancements and challenges in these areas.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Global Privacy Notice.