State Attorneys General

Subscribe to State Attorneys General via RSS

In its recent decision in Office of the Attorney General v. PFLAG, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court addressed the scope of the attorney general’s (AG) authority to issue civil investigative demands (CIDs) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The dispute arose against the backdrop of State v. Loe, a case challenging Texas’s statutory ban on certain gender-affirming medical treatments for minors. PFLAG, a nonprofit involved in that litigation, received a CID issued by the Office of the AG (OAG) based on statements made in a supporting affidavit, which led the OAG to assert that PFLAG may have information relevant to potential misrepresentations by medical providers to insurance companies.

The Illinois attorney general (AG) recently filed a brief defending the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA) in an appeal arising out of litigation captioned Illinois Bankers Association v. Raoul. The AG asked the Seventh Circuit to affirm a lower court’s decision to uphold the IFPA’s ban on certain interchange fees, also known as card “swipe” fees. The industry argues that the law is unconstitutional or inconsistent with federal law. The AG also asked the Seventh Circuit to overturn the lower court’s decision that the act’s data usage limitation is preempted by federal law.

This article was originally published in Reuters on April 15, 2026 and republished here with permission. Also published in Westlaw Today.

“Junk fees” have become a central political and regulatory buzzword in recent years. The term generally refers to extra charges tacked onto purchases — such as convenience, service, resort, or handling fees — that are either not disclosed, or not clearly disclosed, in the initial advertised price. These charges often only appear late in the transaction process, a pricing tactic commonly known as “drip pricing.”

In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, co-host Ashley Taylor, co-leader of Troutman Pepper Locke’s State Attorneys General team, kicks off a multipart series on artificial intelligence (AI) with guests Gurkan Ay and Andrew Coles of Resolution Economics. They unpack what people really mean by “AI” today and why it is critical for risk, compliance, and legal exposure to distinguish among the three primary “flavors” of AI: predictive, generative, and agentic. In practical terms, they explain how predictive tools that score, rank, and classify individuals rely on historical data, how generative AI enables natural-language interaction but introduces risks like hallucinations, and how emerging agentic AI can autonomously plan and execute complex, multistep workflows, creating new governance challenges.

This article was originally published in Reuters on April 8, 2026 and republished here with permission.

State attorneys general are some of the most active regulators in the country, particularly in consumer protection, antitrust, privacy, and emerging technology. For many companies, the first sign of contact is a civil investigative demand (CID) or subpoena from a single state. For others, the first contact is a call from outside counsel alerting them that a coalition of AGs is already coordinating a multistate investigation.

A federal court in Michigan significantly narrowed Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel’s privacy and consumer protection case against Roku, Inc. (Roku) dismissing all non-Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) claims for lack of standing while allowing the state’s privacy claims under COPPA to proceed. The decision highlights COPPA’s utility as a vehicle for state AGs to bring enforcement actions in federal court, while also underscoring the jurisdictional limits on bringing companion state privacy and consumer protection claims in the same forum.

On March 26, 2026, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta filed a complaint in state court against six individuals and three organizations for allegedly creating and operating sham charities. According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations to raise approximately $3.8 million, which they used for personal expenses. The complaint alleges that these actions resulted in violations of various state laws, including California’s Charitable Supervision Act.

Connecticut Attorney General (AG) William Tong announced on March 20, 2026, that Connecticut has joined with other states and the federal government to reach a settlement with CVR Management, LLC, the entity that manages the Center for Vein Restoration (CVR), resolving allegations that the company billed government health programs for medically unnecessary procedures. The settlement requires CVR Management to pay $4 million, which will be distributed among the Medicaid programs of eight states, the District of Columbia, the federal government, and the relators of the original lawsuits.

On March 12, 2026, Vermont Attorney General (AG) Charity Clark announced a settlement with United Counseling Service of Bennington County, Inc. (UCS), an organization contracted with Vermont’s Medicaid program to provide services to vulnerable adults in Vermont. The settlement agreement resolves Vermont’s allegations related to service failures that resulted in alleged safety risks to Medicaid recipients and the public, and requires UCS to pay the state $483,464 and implement various “dramatic organizational reforms” to improve oversight and monitoring.

On March 19, 2026, a group of eight state attorneys general (AGs) filed a lawsuit to block the $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc. by Nexstar Media Group, two of the largest American broadcast companies. The suit came after federal regulators cleared the transaction, sharpening an increasing divide between the administration and states’ views on the same transactions.