Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton has launched another challenge to the electronic health record (EHR) industry, filing suit against Epic Systems Corporation. At its core, the lawsuit accuses Epic of transforming patient medical records into a private gatekeeping tool — one that allegedly blocks competition, restricts lawful access to data, and undermines parental rights under Texas law. 

We recently covered this case here, in which a small manufacturer and retailer sued the Virginia attorney general (AG) and tax commissioner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the vapor product directory law. See Nova Distro, Inc., et al. v. Miyares et al., No. 3:25-cv-857 (E.D.V.A.). There, we also noted another ongoing case challenging a similar law in North Carolina, for which oral argument is scheduled before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 29, 2026. See Vapor Technology Association, et al. v. Wooten et al., No. 25-1745 (4th Cir.).

Washington Attorney General (AG) Nick Brown announced a settlement with Central Washington Health Services Association, doing business as Confluence Health, over its handling of charity care refunds. The AG alleges that since 2021, thousands of low-income patients at Confluence’s two hospitals made payments toward their hospital bills and were later approved for charity care under Washington’s Charity Care Act, but did not receive refunds of those payments. The act, which was expanded in 2022, requires most Washington hospitals to provide free or discounted care to patients with household incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level.

On December 17, New Jersey announced its adoption of what its Attorney General is calling the “most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country.” Effective December 15, 2025, the Division on Civil Rights’ (DCR) new rules under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) codify guidance on disparate impact discrimination across housing, lending, employment, places of public accommodation, and contracting.

Popular prediction markets platforms recently announced that they have formed the Coalition for Prediction Markets. According to the coalition’s website, it aims to unite exchanges, brokers, and advocates to expand consumer access to safe, transparent, and integrity-driven prediction markets in the U.S. The coalition contends that prediction markets currently operate under a federal framework, but that framework is being threatened by state regulators “seeking to block consumer access and extend their own authority.” This messaging signals that prediction market operators are prepared to vigorously oppose state regulation in an effort to preserve exclusive federal oversight.

In the final episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Regulatory Oversight co-host Stephen Piepgrass sits down with Partner Ghillaine Reid — co-leader of the firm’s securities investigations and enforcement team and a former SEC New York Regional Office branch chief and staff attorney — to assess how shifts in SEC leadership and composition are reshaping rulemaking and enforcement.

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, RISE Partner Clay Friedman is joined by colleague Christy Matelis — a member of the firm’s antitrust practice and former Utah assistant attorney general — to unpack what a newly reactivated FTC means for the year ahead.

After a four-day trial, Iowa Attorney General (AG) Brenna Bird obtained a ruling and judgment against Omaha-based stem cell businesses and its owner/CEO for deceptively marketing “regenerative medicine” stem cell injections to Iowans. The court ordered more than $800,000 in restitution, $180,000 in civil penalties, including enhanced civil penalties for targeting elderly persons, and permanently enjoined the company from committing acts or practices that the court deemed in violation of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.

On December 11, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) that establishes a national artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory framework and attempts to preempt enforcement of state AI laws. Titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” the EO states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” This latest effort follows bipartisan opposition in Congress and among state attorneys general (AGs) to previous legislative attempts this year to supersede state AI laws. While the order seeks to minimize a burdensome AI regulatory patchwork, compliance will remain complex given various state enforcement tools.