Regulatory Litigation

Subscribe to Regulatory Litigation via RSS

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell recently filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court against KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi), an online prediction market platform, alleging that the platform runs an illegal sports wagering operation without an appropriate license in Massachusetts. The complaint asserts that Kalshi offers Massachusetts consumers the equivalent of sports betting under the guise of “event contracts,” letting users wager yes-or-no options on sporting outcomes just like traditional bets. In the AG’s view, these contracts closely resemble sports wagers offered by licensed sportsbooks, and Kalshi actively promoted its sports products via TV and social media in the Commonwealth while allowing trades through third-party apps like Robinhood. Because Kalshi asserts that its event contract business does not constitute gaming, Kalshi never obtained a license from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to engage in gaming-related activities.

On August 19, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Allied Stone Inc. (Allied Stone) and its president, Jia “Jerry” Lim, agreed to pay $12.4 million in settlement to resolve allegations that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by evading, or conspiring to evade, antidumping and countervailing duties owed on quartz surface products imported from China. Allied Stone is a Dallas-based countertop and cabinetry supplier. According to the DOJ, Allied Stone misrepresented Chinese quartz surface products as other merchandise subject to lesser duties to avoid the applicable antidumping and countervailing duties. The company also allegedly failed to declare and pay, and failed to ensure that others were declaring and paying, applicable duties owed to the U.S. on entries of its Chinese quartz surface products.

In addition to receiving cease-and-desist orders from several states (Arizona, Illinois, Montana, and Ohio), and ongoing litigation against New Jersey state gaming regulators in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, KalshiEx LLC (Kalshi) is also now embroiled in litigation with regulators in Maryland and Nevada. Kalshi operates as a designated contract market, which allows adults in all 50 states to make financial trades on a broad range of topics — from sports to the weather.

This article was originally published on August 4, 2025 on Law360 and is republished here with permission.

As the federal government pursues a deregulatory agenda, state regulators are increasing their enforcement activities to fill perceived gaps in oversight. They pursue their own regulatory agendas under state regulatory regimes that are often less developed than similar federal laws. This lack of existing state-level precedent opens the door for states to employ novel and aggressive legal theories that increase risk and uncertainty for private actors. Businesses should respond by evaluating opportunities to leverage the more comprehensive body of federal law as persuasive authority for previously unresolved questions of state law.

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.