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.
In the second installment of the two-part Payments Year in Review series, hosts Keith Barnett, Carlin McCrory, and Jason Cover focus on the state-level developments that shaped the 2025 payments landscape and will influence 2026.
New state age verification and parental consent laws are slated to take effect in 2026 to shield children from harmful online content, creating significant compliance obligations and heightened enforcement risk for both app developers and app stores.
In this crossover episode, Regulatory Oversight host Stephen Piepgrass teams up with Payments Pros host Keith Barnett to unpack how prediction markets, gaming, and payments intersect in a rapidly evolving and legally uncertain landscape. Drawing on Keith’s extensive regulatory experience, they explain what prediction markets are, why these contracts are treated as swaps rather than securities, and how that distinction affects insider trading issues. Stephen and Keith then address the growing tension between federal regulators and state attorneys general over whether these products are trading or unlicensed sports betting, the CFTC chair’s recent criticism of “regulation by enforcement,” and the NCAA’s push to pause college sports contracts. They close by examining what this means for banks, payment processors, and other service providers navigating know-your-customer and “lawful transaction” obligations while the law remains in flux.
Former state AG attorneys explain how Troutman’s deep bench and insider perspective help clients navigate investigations, enforcement, and compliance issues.
What Happened
On January 16, Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares’s last day in office, the Virginia AG reached a settlement with Viatris, Mylan’s corporate successor, over EpiPen pricing and related practices. The settlement was filed and approved by the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond without issuance of a press release by the Virginia AG.
Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes recently announced a consent judgment with SimonMed Imaging MSO, LLC (SimonMed), alleging that the medical imaging service provider violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act through billing practices the AG claimed were unfair and misleading. SimonMed provides management services, including billing, collections, information technology, and other business administrative services, to SMI Imaging, LLC (SMI), a wholly owned subsidiary of SimonMed Imaging LLC. According to its website, SimonMed Imaging LLC is the largest outpatient physician radiology group in the U.S., and its subsidiary SMI is the provider entity in connection with outpatient imaging clinics in Arizona. SimonMed expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing, and the consent judgment is not to be construed as an admission of wrongdoing or a violation of the law.
In this special crossover episode of Regulatory Oversight and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Matthew Berns to discuss New Jersey’s sweeping new disparate impact regulations under the Law Against Discrimination. They break down one of the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact rules in the U.S., the contrasts with traditional federal standards, and implications for enforcement in financial services. The discussion dives into credit scores, underwriting models, AI and automated decision-making tools, and the difference between New Jersey’s approach and the Trump administration’s effort to scale back disparate impact at the federal level, offering practical takeaways for lenders and other covered entities navigating this shifting landscape.