State Attorneys General

Subscribe to State Attorneys General via RSS

New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James reached a $2.5 million settlement with health insurer EmblemHealth following an investigation of the behavioral health provider “ghost networks.” “Ghost networks” are provider networks in which many of the providers listed in the insurer’s directory of “in-network” providers are actually unavailable, not accepting new patients, or not actually participating in the network. The investigation also focused on compliance with state and federal behavioral health parity laws. As part of the settlement, the insurer will pay more than $2.5 million and undertake changes to its policies and procedures.

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent in day-to-day life and in the legal field, in particular, thorny questions arise regarding the implications of that use. One such question is whether exchanges with a publicly available generative AI platform in connection with pending litigation are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In a matter of first impression nationwide, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York answered that question in the negative and required a defendant to provide the prosecution documents memorializing litigation-related communications with a generative AI platform.[1] Applying traditional principles governing the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, the court reasoned that the communications did not involve an attorney-client relationship, were not confidential, were not made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and did not reflect an attorney’s trial strategy.[2] The ruling will likely impact whether legal protections are afforded to AI communications, prompts, and output in both litigation and regulatory inquiries, including state attorneys general (AG) investigations.

Graham K. Bryant, former Principal Deputy Solicitor General and Director of Virginia Appellate Litigation in the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, has joined Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) practice group and Virginia Appellate team. Graham’s practice centers on Virginia-focused appellate and regulatory matters, drawing on his experience handling high-stakes constitutional and policy litigation in Virginia’s courts and in federal courts, including multiple matters before the U.S. Supreme Court.

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?”

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.