On February 6, a bipartisan group of 51 attorney general (AG) sent a warning letter to Life Corporation (Life Corp.) for allegedly engaging in an illegal robocall campaign that they claim was intended to deter New Hampshire voters from participating in the primary on January 23. The calls purportedly used artificial intelligence (AI) to impersonate the voice of President Biden, telling recipients to refrain from voting in the presidential primary.
On February 7, a coalition of 19 state attorneys general (AG) filed a comment letter supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (Rule). The state AGs echoed the sentiment that the proposed rule would provide much-needed safeguards for consumers against unfair or deceptive fees that are a “prevalent problem in many different types of industries.”
On February 8, New York attorney general (AG) Letisha James announced a $77 million judgment with three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies, Richmond Capital Group, Ram Capital Funding, and Viceroy Capital Funding, and their principals. AG James sued the companies in 2020, alleging they engaged in exploitive lending practices with small businesses, such as charging high interest rates, undisclosed fees, debiting excess amounts, and fraudulently securing judgments against them.
On January 26, a Massachusetts Superior Court rejected an effort by the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) to vacate an order that cast doubt on the constitutionality of a new Massachusetts liquor law.
Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Michelle Henry reached a settlement with attorney Erik Helbing and his business, Helbing Law Group, LLC, resolving allegations of deceptive advertising practices and failure to effectively deliver on promised debt settlement services. The law firm advertised that it could facilitate significant reduction in client debts through negotiation or litigation processes using licensed attorneys. According to Henry, these advertisements were false or misleading.
Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and dissolution of several limited liability companies owned by John and Michele Church. The Churches’ companies have allegedly violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by engaging in unlawful business practices related to their residential snow removal, lawn care, and landscaping services.
Vermont Attorney General (AG) Charity Clark recently announced the resolution of an investigation into the withholding of security deposits across five motels that were participating in the state’s Transitional Housing Program, also referred to as the “Motel Program.” The settlement establishes a $310,000 restitution pool to provide payments to impacted Vermonters who stayed in motels owned by Anil Sachdev (or companies he controls), along with injunctive relief. Sachdev will also be required to pay $523,600 to the state, which will be suspended for cooperation with the resolution of the matter, including putting adequate funds toward the repair, maintenance, and improvement of the properties he owns.
On January 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Martin Shkreli, CEO of Vyera Pharmaceuticals (Vyera), violated federal and state laws by engaging in illegal and anticompetitive behavior.
State attorneys general (AGs) continue their role as innovators, shaping the regulatory environment by utilizing their expertise and resources to influence policy and practice. The public-facing nature of the AGs’ office across the U.S. compels responses to constituent concerns on abbreviated timetables. This political sensitivity, coupled with the AGs’ ability to bring the full power of the sovereign to address local and national issues alike, demonstrates why the AGs may be the most formidable authority in the current regulatory environment.
On January 11, Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell announced a $1.8 million settlement with Nelnet, Inc. (Nelnet), one of the largest federal student loan servicers in the U.S., for allegedly sending written notices to borrowers about renewing income-driven repayment (IDR) plans that failed to meet certain regulatory requirements and, in some cases, failing to send the required notices altogether.