Regulatory Litigation

Subscribe to Regulatory Litigation via RSS

What Happened

California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta faces a legal challenge from a union representing state-employed attorneys over his decision to hire an outside law firm for a high-profile climate lawsuit against major oil companies. The California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) argue that this decision violates Article VII of the California Constitution, which implicitly mandates that state work traditionally performed by civil service employees should not be outsourced to private entities.

In this episode of the Regulatory Oversight podcast, Stephen Piepgrass welcomes David Navetta, Lauren Geiser, and Dan Waltz to discuss the $51.75 million nationwide class settlement involving Clearview AI and its broader implications. The conversation focuses on Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, which has sparked controversy due to its use of publicly available images to generate biometric data.

Published in Law360 on April 4, 2025. © Copyright 2025, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has emerged as a significant figure in the landscape of consumer protection and corporate accountability. Her actions and initiatives have positioned her as a thought leader among state attorneys general, particularly in the context of national efforts to safeguard consumer rights.

On March 21, Florida Attorney General (AG) James Uthmeier’s Consumer Protection Division announced the resolution of ongoing litigation against a network of moving brokerage companies accused of misleading consumers. These companies, including Gold Standard Moving and Storage, allegedly misrepresented their services by claiming to offer professional, door-to-door moving services when they were operating as brokers, quoting low prices to secure large up-front deposits and then outsourcing the moving tasks to unvetted third-party carriers. According to the AG’s office, this practice frequently led to consumers allegedly facing additional and unexpected costs.

2025 is already shaping up to be an active year for False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. With the recent announcements of executive orders that may expand the FCA as an enforcement tool, as discussed in a recent Troutman Pepper Locke client alert, everyone is keeping a close eye on what is next. In the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten in on the FCA action.

Last week, in Tennessee v. EEOC, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision and reinstated a lawsuit by 17 states (led by the Tennessee and Arkansas attorneys general (AGs)), holding that these states have standing to sue the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its regulations implementing the Pregnant­ Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg. This decision deserves mention because the court seemingly made it easier to demonstrate standing by finding that the “realities facing” regulated parties can demonstrate a concrete injury even without a threat of enforcement.

State attorneys general (AGs) continue to play a pivotal role as innovators, shaping the regulatory environment by leveraging their expertise and resources to influence policy and practice. The public-facing nature of AG offices across the U.S. compels them to respond to constituent concerns on abbreviated timetables. This political sensitivity, combined with the AGs’ authority to address both local and national issues, underscores their significant influence in the current regulatory environment.

West Virginia Attorney General (AG) Patrick Morrisey announced a total $17 million settlement agreement with pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer and Ranbaxy after more than a decade of litigation regarding the companies’ alleged “pay-for-delay” antitrust violations related to the cholesterol drug, Lipitor.

The U.S. Supreme Court closed out 2024 by confirming states’ authority to regulate internet service providers. On December 16, 2024, the Court denied certiorari in New York State Telecommunications Association, Inc., et al. v. Attorney General Letitia James, Case No. 21-1975, allowing New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) to stand.